Lance's program was superior? The evidence

[Barrus]

Keep it on Armstrong, don't drag LeMond in it

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I haven't read through the rest of this thread, so someone else may have a similar comment, but I'm going to jump in here.

The cited study does NOT show that EPO affects rides in different ways. Except for one sentence mentioning that certain parameters of reticulocyte formation show large inter-individual variation, the study emphasizes that different individuals respond to EPO in very similar ways. The authors specifically note the similarities between men and women (though a different off score can be used for women), and the study also emphasized that they found no differences related to ethnicity.

It is difficult to take your questions seriously when you suggest that a piece does not say what you requested when you take a key point out of it - this is what RR said:

Originally Posted by Race Radio
EPO, like all doping, effects each rider in different ways. There are multiple studies that confirm this, like this one http://www.haematologica.org/cgi/reprint/86/2/128.pdf.

....which you acknowledge with:
"Except for one sentence mentioning that certain parameters of reticulocyte formation show large inter-individual variation."

I'm also still waiting for someone to respond to my point that there is no evidence that EPO, or any other known doping substance, would specifically enhance climbing or TT ability without also enhancing a rider's ability to perform in one day races. IOW, if a special doping program enabled a poor GT rider to win 7 TDFs in a row, why didn't he improve on his already stellar one day racing ability to sweep the monuments. I know, he focussed on the TDF, but he did ride some classics post-cancer, but he never won any.

The blue is a strawman, you want others to prove a point that you brought up.
EPO is not a magic pill that guarantees that you will climb better by X% or TT better by Y% - it is a PED that raises oxygen delivery, it is up to the individual what they concentrate on.
LA post cancer rode the Classics as 'training' to peak for his only goal of the season, the TdF.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Surely the most obvious aspect of Lances "superior" program was having the whole team juiced to the gills and UCI protection? .
Its pretty obvious realy.
HemAssist may well have gave an extra edge...I guess were likely to find out soon.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Surely the most obvious aspect of Lances "superior" program was having the whole team juiced to the gills and UCI protection? .
Its pretty obvious realy.
HemAssist may well have gave an extra edge...I guess were likely to find out soon.

If you are so gullible to believe that this was the only team, then this is of course a hard evidence.
Hemassist was not an extra edge, if others were on Hemopure or other HBOCs. You should read the Hemmassist thread again with both eyes open.

 

[Darryl Webster]

If you are so gullible to believe that this was the only team, then this is of course a hard evidence.
Hemassist was not an extra edge, if others were on Hemopure or other HBOCs. You should read the Hemmassist thread again with both eyes open.

I dint say they wernt the only team..but did any other team have any or the same leval of protection by the UCI ?.
The benifits or other wise of HemAssist ( and other possible substances ) are not known to anyone here with any certainty.
There use as PED`s , not being there intended purpose means research work is not exactly in the public domain on what the corrrect balance of PEDS can achieve.
Though , thanks to Riis, we have a a great example of how it can make a cart horse into a thoroughbred.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If you are so gullible to believe that this was the only team, then this is of course a hard evidence.
Hemassist was not an extra edge, if others were on Hemopure or other HBOCs. You should read the Hemmassist thread again with both eyes open.

I see you are back to ad hominems rather than offering any "evidence' (not even soft) to prove your claim.

So which other team or rider had OOC notice and gave 'donations' the UCI?

T-Mobile? Hmm, didn't get much value for Ullrich if they did.
Liberty Segurous? Maybe Heras EPO+ was a reminder to pay up?

 

[Skandar Akbar]

I see you are back to ad hominems rather than offering any "evidence' (not even soft) to prove your claim.

So which other team or rider had OOC notice and gave 'donations' the UCI?

T-Mobile? Hmm, didn't get much value for Ullrich if they did.
Liberty Segurous? Maybe Heras EPO+ was a reminder to pay up?

I don't recall any major player at the TdF getting busted between 99 and 2005. The only reason anybody knows LA gave to the UCI is because of SCA deposition and disputed amounts bandied about by that German chick. If LA was the only one paying for protection then the UCI must have thrown the podium during those years some cover as well as a bonus. So, it would seem to me that JU got alot of moneys worth, until the coincidence of LA retiring and OP taking place.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't recall any major player at the TdF getting busted between 99 and 2005. The only reason anybody knows LA gave to the UCI is because of SCA deposition and disputed amounts bandied about by that German chick. If LA was the only one paying for protection then the UCI must have thrown the podium during those years some cover as well as a bonus. So, it would seem to me that JU got alot of moneys worth, until the coincidence of LA retiring and OP taking place.

So - the 'protection' from the UCI is only for one month a year?
You do realise that USPS has no-one sanctioned during that time, yet many of those riders were caught when they went to other teams.

BTW - LA was the one who admitted he had given a 'donation' a full year before the 'German chick' or the SCA case.

Wouldn't we know the identity of every donor from that timeframe by now given Heins enthusiastic comments that such generosity should be highlighted.

"I know Lance didn't want me to talk about this, but now he his career is coming to an end I said to him that I should make it public," said Verbruggen. "He didn't like that, but I think everybody has to know it."

 

[Race Radio]

EPO is not a magic pill that guarantees that you will climb better by X% or TT better by Y% - it is a PED that raises oxygen delivery, it is up to the individual what they concentrate on.
LA post cancer rode the Classics as 'training' to peak for his only goal of the season, the TdF.

Very true, Each person responds differently to this increase in oxygen. In Walsh's book he goes into detail about how larger rider, with more muscle to adsorb the increased oxygen, recognized greater benefit.

This is another good study on EPO's effects. http://www.springerlink.com/content/a7767vrr736073k3/
They had a wide response, some people seeing a 5% improvement, others seeing 18%

EPO is not the only drug that shows a variable response. Sildenafil shows a wide difference in response at altitude. http://www.the-aps.org/press/journal/06/15.htm Some saw huge gains, others no improvement.

Like any drug, each rider has a different response to a doping program. With the differences and improvements so extreme the last 20 years were more about the program then the rider.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Very true, Each person responds differently to this increase in oxygen. In Walsh's book he goes into detail about how larger rider, with more muscle to adsorb the increased oxygen, recognized greater benefit.

This is another good study on EPO's effects. http://www.springerlink.com/content/a7767vrr736073k3/
They had a wide response, some people seeing a 5% improvement, others seeing 18%
.

And peeps should realise that 5% as a minimum is a MASSIVE advantage over a clean rider. Absalutly not one that a like for like rider that`s clean can compete with.
Estimates for the advantages of the "old school" doping of the early to late 80`s 70`s and 60`s etc typicaly put it at 1..1.5 %.
Thus a super talant could stil be compettive clean.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

So - the 'protection' from the UCI is only for one month a year?
You do realise that USPS has no-one sanctioned during that time, yet many of those riders were caught when they went to other teams.

BTW - LA was the one who admitted he had given a 'donation' a full year before the 'German chick' or the SCA case.

Wouldn't we know the identity of every donor from that timeframe by now given Heins enthusiastic comments that such generosity should be highlighted.

Yes, thanks for reminding me that he announced the donation. The value is in dispute, but that is not important inre to my post.
I do not pretend to know all. What I do know is there was some fishy stuff going on at the tour for 7 years. Highlighting what UCI mouthpieces say does not change that. In summary we do not know who paid who what. You cannot dispute that. I will point out that those that left USPS got busted either in other events or after LA retired.

 

[ergmonkey]

Liberty Segurous? Maybe Heras EPO+ was a reminder to pay up?

I've also wondered for awhile whether Manolo Saiz didn't have a lot to do with it. I think he made a lot of enemies, especially with his very public departure from the 1998 Tour where he effectively encouraged all teams to rally against doping controls. Maybe that's enough to put you in the doping control crosshairs?

 

[thehog]

Wee update on HemAssist from the ESPN desk: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?id=6064010

 

[Race Radio]

And peeps should realise that 5% as a minimum is a MASSIVE advantage over a clean rider. Absalutly not one that a like for like rider that`s clean can compete with.
Estimates for the advantages of the "old school" doping of the early to late 80`s 70`s and 60`s etc typicaly put it at 1..1.5 %.
Thus a super talant could stil be compettive clean.

Agreed, but to be fair the improvement from a Pro would be less. It appears Armstrong saw close to 15% improvement after he started working with Ferrari. That is a huge lead for the average Cat 3 but for a guy who was a full time professional Athlete since he was 16 to suddenly be able to hold 495 watts for over 30 minutes is a HUGE improvement.

Also, to be fair, I think Riis might have been an even greater improvement. While some on the forum my not want to believe it EVERY doping doctor, Ferrari, Checcini, Conconi, knows the truth that every rider responds differently.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, thanks for reminding me that he announced the donation. The value is in dispute, but that is not important inre to my post.
I do not pretend to know all. What I do know is there was some fishy stuff going on at the tour for 7 years. Highlighting what UCI mouthpieces say does not change that. In summary we do not know who paid who what. You cannot dispute that. I will point out that those that left USPS got busted either in other events or after LA retired.

Oh, but we do know who paid.... Mr. Lance Armstrong.

What you are trying to suggest is that others may have to (with no proof)- does Verbruggen enthusiastically reveal others? No?
What about the 'German chick' - does she mention other people or just the one person:

"But everything is suddenly different when it comes to Armstrong...There is obviously a close relationship to Armstrong. For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000. Now of course there is speculation that there are financial relationships to Armstrong as well as to the American market."

 

[Cobblestoned]

I see you are back to ad hominems rather than offering any "evidence' (not even soft) to prove your claim.

So which other team or rider had OOC notice and gave 'donations' the UCI?

T-Mobile? Hmm, didn't get much value for Ullrich if they did.
Liberty Segurous? Maybe Heras EPO+ was a reminder to pay up?

I know you now come in here with a wide chest, carrying Floyd on your shoulders. Wow.
Because Floyd said USPS (team he was riding on) was protected - no one else was of course protected.
Thats the logics people like you follow, because they have to have the hard evidence and sadly restrict their own horizon, even if they could think logic and not restricted.
Where are all these positives from known dopers and LA's opponents and opponent teams ?
All clean back then ?

It was not the UCI's fault when some overzealous people (from BDR) wanted to hang Ullrich with their "surprise" control during reha, "randomly" after that disconight.

You choose Heras as another example that no other team was protected. Thats of course THE proof. He was too stupid to dope, switched bloodbags.
If you are caught even when there were deals, something was like it shouldn't be. Not following the rules by being too stupid to dope.

And of course UCI is so stupid to only protect one single team to get the maximum income and keep it widely clean.
Glad that I don't restrict my own horizon because I have to.
So how do you handle it now that someone like great Omertabreaker J.Jaksche told people that there were deals between a couple of teams and the UCI ?
This means minimum two teams.
Perhaps we can reach the compromise that USPS was not the only protected team, but that not all teams were protected.
But, of course, I don't expect that from you. That would be required too much and your horizon would be opened to wide to keep your focus.

I love JJ. Great funny rider.
People like you should perhaps listen to what he has to say. My imagination is that some of you totally missed him.
Riders were prewarned by UCI and by NADAs. Point. Internet full of it.
But Omertabreaker JJ should be enough for you as trustfull source.
I know you will find something to call me an idiot without knowledge or evidence or whatever...
Like when I told you about your holy Don Catlin and his "independent" testing programm long time ago, or your holy WADA, or Hemmassist holy grale, or etc........
But at least you finally listen and believe when Floyd opens his mouth. Thats ok for me.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Agreed, but to be fair the improvement from a Pro would be less. It appears Armstrong saw close to 15% improvement after he started working with Ferrari. That is a huge lead for the average Cat 3 but for a guy who was a full time professional Athlete since he was 16 to suddenly be able to hold 495 watts for over 30 minutes is a HUGE improvement.

Also, to be fair, I think Riis might have been an even greater improvement. While some on the forum my not want to believe it EVERY doping doctor, Ferrari, Checcini, Conconi, knows the truth that every rider responds differently.

Differently. Aha. My imagination is that now, that you people are a little bit more "surrounded" you have to step back little steps - step by step.
Exaggerating haters being right because of majority, is becoming a smaller factor here. I really enjoy that.

There is a huge step from differently to Lancethe exclusivelyonlyonegoodresponder.

People getting out of the corners always makes discussions more fruitful and tolerable, if both sides move.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Simple logic tells you the bigger the name or "cash cow" ,as Mc Quackers/ Heinze Beans perhaps call`s em, the greater the protection afforded.
Having seen first hand a medical control cover up in a minor tour there are many levals at which collusion occurs and more than one reason why.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

Oh, but we do know who paid.... Mr. Lance Armstrong.

What you are trying to suggest is that others may have to (with no proof)- does Verbruggen enthusiastically reveal others? No?
What about the 'German chick' - does she mention other people or just the one person:

Ok, just LA paid off for protection and by coincidence nobody else got busted in the tour during those years either. What a deal for the others. Yes, all is known and the private transactions of all people in sport are there for front page fodder on the front page of CN.

Since the German broad is omniscient then I agree nobody else paid off the UCI but LA. She could make bundles of money as an advisor to the IRS to catch tax cheats.

 

[BotanyBay]

Agreed, but to be fair the improvement from a Pro would be less. It appears Armstrong saw close to 15% improvement after he started working with Ferrari. That is a huge lead for the average Cat 3 but for a guy who was a full time professional Athlete since he was 16 to suddenly be able to hold 495 watts for over 30 minutes is a HUGE improvement.

Also, to be fair, I think Riis might have been an even greater improvement. While some on the forum my not want to believe it EVERY doping doctor, Ferrari, Checcini, Conconi, knows the truth that every rider responds differently.

Not to mention the factor involving the skill of the doctor properly timing the injections and dosage levels.

Some guys are on EPO and are essentially urinating it away by using it ineffectively...and they have no idea they're doing this.

Just having EPO is different than having it and using it well.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I know you now come in here with a wide chest, carrying Floyd on your shoulders. Wow.
Because Floyd said USPS (team he was riding on) was protected - no one else was of course protected.
Thats the logics people like you follow, because they have to have the hard evidence and sadly restrict their own horizon, even if they could think logic and not restricted.
Where are all these positives from known dopers and LA's opponents and opponent teams ?
All clean back then ?

It was not the UCI's fault when some overzealous people (from BDR) wanted to hang Ullrich with their "surprise" control during reha, "randomly" after that disconight.

You choose Heras as another example that no other team was protected. Thats of course THE proof. He was too stupid to dope, switched bloodbags.
If you are caught even when there were deals, something was like it shouldn't be. Not following the rules by being too stupid to dope.

And of course UCI is so stupid to only protect one single team to get the maximum income and keep it widely clean.
Glad that I don't restrict my own horizon because I have to.
So how do you handle it now that someone like great Omertabreaker J.Jaksche told people that there were deals between a couple of teams and the UCI ?
This means minimum two teams.
Perhaps we can reach the compromise that USPS was not the only protected team, but that not all teams were protected.
But, of course, I don't expect that from you. That would be required too much and your horizon would be opened to wide to keep your focus.

I love JJ. Great funny rider.
People like you should perhaps listen to what he has to say. My imagination is that some of you totally missed him.
Riders were prewarned by UCI and by NADAs. Point. Internet full of it.
But Omertabreaker JJ should be enough for you as trustfull source.
I know you will find something to call me an idiot without knowledge or evidence or whatever...
Like when I told you about your holy Don Catlin and his "independent" testing programm long time ago, or your holy WADA, or Hemmassist holy grale, or etc........
But at least you finally listen and believe when Floyd opens his mouth. Thats ok for me.

Lots of petty juvenile comments - but as usual you are short on linking in what JJ said.

By all means post a link - I would be delighted to read what JJ has to say, not your interpretation of it.

Also - my views on the 'donations' and 'protection' were made years ago when this info first came out - but well done for trying to bring Floyd in to the argument.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Ok, just LA paid off for protection and by coincidence nobody else got busted in the tour during those years either. What a deal for the others. Yes, all is known and the private transactions of all people in sport are there for front page fodder on the front page of CN.

Since the German broad is omniscient then I agree nobody else paid off the UCI but LA. She could make bundles of money as an advisor to the IRS to catch tax cheats.

+3
Even my cats agree. And they are not uncritical I can tell you.
I am questioning their logics and conclusions too. Much work.
At least we are two now. Are you a script, too ?

 

[Cobblestoned]

Lots of petty juvenile comments - but as usual you are short on linking in what JJ said.

By all means post a link - I would be delighted to read what JJ has to say, not your interpretation of it.

Also - my views on the 'donations' and 'protection' were made years ago when this info first came out - but well done for trying to bring Floyd in to the argument.

Handle it like a man, dude ! lol

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ok, just LA paid off for protection and by coincidence nobody else got busted in the tour during those years either. What a deal for the others. Yes, all is known and the private transactions of all people in sport are there for front page fodder on the front page of CN.

Since the German broad is omniscient then I agree nobody else paid off the UCI but LA. She could make bundles of money as an advisor to the IRS to catch tax cheats.

Why do you keep bringing up only the TdF? If someone is sanctioned outside the Tour are they allowed compete in the Tour because they didn't get caught there?


Now I only usually quote Pat McQuaid for comedic value - but are you suggesting Uncle Pat is a liar?

"To my knowledge the UCI has not accepted any other donations".

 

[Skandar Akbar]

+3
Even my cats agree. And they are not uncritical I can tell you.
I am questioning their logics and conclusions too. Much work.
At least we are two now. Are you a script, too ?

But now movieboy was called to post some pictures and nonsense to derail our effort.
After we bonked them there will follow pages of nonsense, so that no one notices their defeat. Just a daily observation.

Don't drag me in front of the firing squad. The great doc has spoken.

You're German aren't you? How can I get in touch with that German chick? I want to ask her about who to pick for the Superbowl, and whether or not I will get audited this year. Thanks.