- Mar 18, 2009
- 14,644
- 81
- 22,580
The samples may be long gone, but what about the data? Can the test data be reevaluated using more modern criteria?
A different and, perhaps, more effective strategy would be to apply longitudinal analysis to samples taken over a decade long period. This would include values before the passport. Before off-score was being used, the values must have been crazy. Same thing would be true with comparing hematocrits from 1999 to 2009. T:E ratios also would likely change radically after the possibility of being tested for artificial testosterone without the 4:1 screen began.
A different and, perhaps, more effective strategy would be to apply longitudinal analysis to samples taken over a decade long period. This would include values before the passport. Before off-score was being used, the values must have been crazy. Same thing would be true with comparing hematocrits from 1999 to 2009. T:E ratios also would likely change radically after the possibility of being tested for artificial testosterone without the 4:1 screen began.
Lance and PED's
What advantage would the PED's that Lance supposedly used actually of given him?
I've read maybe 5 percent. Did Lance really need a 5 percent advantage over his competitors to win?
The dedication Lance had to cycling and his training program I find it hard to believe he would have even bothered with drugs.
My feelings are he would have just said I don't need that stuff to beat the competition.
Ed
What advantage would the PED's that Lance supposedly used actually of given him?
I've read maybe 5 percent. Did Lance really need a 5 percent advantage over his competitors to win?
The dedication Lance had to cycling and his training program I find it hard to believe he would have even bothered with drugs.
My feelings are he would have just said I don't need that stuff to beat the competition.
Ed
New recruits from the LiveStrong ranks need more training before they're thrown to the forum wolves like this.
Yes, after coming dead last in his first race as a Europe based professional that would have been very obvious to him.
I tried to answer seriously but your post is to laughable.
Go read some interesting articles on the subject and come back when your head is out of the sand, your making a mockery out of yourself.
Go read some interesting articles on the subject and come back when your head is out of the sand, your making a mockery out of yourself.
Hollister said:
Please. Enlighten us on what training program Lance followed. 4 months after winning the Tour in 1999 his VO2max had dropped to 71ml/m/kg and his weight was 79.7kg - he'd gained 5kg.
What sort of dedicated training program do you follow to lose so much fitness and gain that sort of weight in 4 months?
Or was it the off-season and LA stopped training altogether. While everyone else raced up to September?
- Sep 26, 2009
- 2,848
- 1
- 11,485
Finally - Did Drug Use Cause His Cancer ??
Finally this topic has been brought up in the media...havent seen it discussed anywhere on the forum yet so apologies if i have missed it.
Excerpt from the Global Post:- Did drug use cause his cancer?
Shayana Kadidal September 3, 2012 09:57
'....there is a bigger set of questions to be asked about Armstrong than just whether drugs facilitated his comeback after cancer. We also need to ask — now that he has been banned for doping — whether drugs might have played a role in his cancer.'
'Now, blood doping and EPO are not only very hard to detect, they also have relatively insignificant side effects on one’s health. But during the first years of Armstrong’s pro career, which began in the 1993 season, EPO was almost brand new. Cyclists were still largely using a prior generation of drugs — steroids, much like those used by weightlifters and bodybuilders. Such drugs mildly raise the number of red blood cells, but their main benefit is that they allow the body to withstand the battering of the thousands of miles of training the average pro puts in every year. Riders are still using steroids. But they likely abused them to a much greater extent in the 1980s and the first years of the 1990s, when Armstrong’s career began (and before EPO was widely available).
Now, unlike blood doping and EPO use, steroid use is dangerous. In July 2004, Jason Giambi, the Yankees’ hulking first baseman, was diagnosed with an obscure form of pituitary cancer typically only seen in weightlifters abusing steroids. He survived, and years later he finally owned up to having abused several different steroids in the years just before his cancer, and just prior to his signing a $120 million dollar guaranteed contract. The history of bodybuilding is similarly rife with examples of people who developed liver and other cancers as a result of steroid use.
Armstrong had testicular cancer, not as rare as Giambi’s pituitary tumor, and there is no vast scientific literature examining links between testicular cancer and steroid abuse (though a witness to an early hospital-bed conversation between Armstrong and his cancer doctors testified that he admitted using human growth hormone prior to his illness, which is well-linked to a great variety of cancers). But it raises what I think is really the most important question in Armstrong’s case: did abuse of the steroid drugs whose use was rampant in cycling in the 1980s and early 1990s cause the cancer that ultimately made Armstrong into a global celebrity, and into an heroic figure in the eyes of the global cancer community?
While the public might accept the idea that a cancer victim would use relatively safe doping techniques to come back to compete in a sport already infested with doping (and, through the beautiful illusion, inspire millions of cancer victims in their own private battles against the disease), I don’t think any part of his public reputation would survive if it turns out that his disease itself was a product of pre-comeback doping.'
Full article..
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatche...ntary/lance-armstrong-doping-cancer-questions
Finally this topic has been brought up in the media...havent seen it discussed anywhere on the forum yet so apologies if i have missed it.
Excerpt from the Global Post:- Did drug use cause his cancer?
Shayana Kadidal September 3, 2012 09:57
'....there is a bigger set of questions to be asked about Armstrong than just whether drugs facilitated his comeback after cancer. We also need to ask — now that he has been banned for doping — whether drugs might have played a role in his cancer.'
'Now, blood doping and EPO are not only very hard to detect, they also have relatively insignificant side effects on one’s health. But during the first years of Armstrong’s pro career, which began in the 1993 season, EPO was almost brand new. Cyclists were still largely using a prior generation of drugs — steroids, much like those used by weightlifters and bodybuilders. Such drugs mildly raise the number of red blood cells, but their main benefit is that they allow the body to withstand the battering of the thousands of miles of training the average pro puts in every year. Riders are still using steroids. But they likely abused them to a much greater extent in the 1980s and the first years of the 1990s, when Armstrong’s career began (and before EPO was widely available).
Now, unlike blood doping and EPO use, steroid use is dangerous. In July 2004, Jason Giambi, the Yankees’ hulking first baseman, was diagnosed with an obscure form of pituitary cancer typically only seen in weightlifters abusing steroids. He survived, and years later he finally owned up to having abused several different steroids in the years just before his cancer, and just prior to his signing a $120 million dollar guaranteed contract. The history of bodybuilding is similarly rife with examples of people who developed liver and other cancers as a result of steroid use.
Armstrong had testicular cancer, not as rare as Giambi’s pituitary tumor, and there is no vast scientific literature examining links between testicular cancer and steroid abuse (though a witness to an early hospital-bed conversation between Armstrong and his cancer doctors testified that he admitted using human growth hormone prior to his illness, which is well-linked to a great variety of cancers). But it raises what I think is really the most important question in Armstrong’s case: did abuse of the steroid drugs whose use was rampant in cycling in the 1980s and early 1990s cause the cancer that ultimately made Armstrong into a global celebrity, and into an heroic figure in the eyes of the global cancer community?
While the public might accept the idea that a cancer victim would use relatively safe doping techniques to come back to compete in a sport already infested with doping (and, through the beautiful illusion, inspire millions of cancer victims in their own private battles against the disease), I don’t think any part of his public reputation would survive if it turns out that his disease itself was a product of pre-comeback doping.'
Full article..
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatche...ntary/lance-armstrong-doping-cancer-questions
- Aug 30, 2010
- 3,838
- 529
- 15,080
the big ring said:
Are you telling us he wasn't on the bike 6 hours a day?
I get it now, he was on that bike with the blender on it.
http://www.rockthebike.com/fender-blender-bike-blenders/
- Feb 16, 2011
- 1,456
- 5
- 0
The knots are unravelling and the scales are falling from the public's eyes when articles like this start appearing. Nice find.
BTW, how big is Global Post? How 'global' is it exactly with regards to readership?
Ferrari himself apparently voiced concern Lance did this to himself or was close to it. Landis related this in, I think, his long interview with Kimmage or possibly in the SI article that also mentioned his multiple adverse T/E ratios during the 90s.
BTW, how big is Global Post? How 'global' is it exactly with regards to readership?
Ferrari himself apparently voiced concern Lance did this to himself or was close to it. Landis related this in, I think, his long interview with Kimmage or possibly in the SI article that also mentioned his multiple adverse T/E ratios during the 90s.
- Jan 22, 2011
- 404
- 3
- 9,285
5%? Maybe.
As we now know LA was doping in numerous ways.
I would be willing to bet the benefits were way beyond 5%.
Decades ago it was believed that no endurance athlete would even consider using hormones to gain strength. Why that's just for track and field athletes, powerlifters, weightlifters, bodybuilders and the...err....police!
LA truly did it all.
If it was just
5% that may be more than enough. After all, what was that stage in the TDF when his entire(?) team lead up a major climb when everyone else fell by the wayside?
As we now know LA was doping in numerous ways.
I would be willing to bet the benefits were way beyond 5%.
Decades ago it was believed that no endurance athlete would even consider using hormones to gain strength. Why that's just for track and field athletes, powerlifters, weightlifters, bodybuilders and the...err....police!
LA truly did it all.
If it was just
5% that may be more than enough. After all, what was that stage in the TDF when his entire(?) team lead up a major climb when everyone else fell by the wayside?IIRC, USADA maintains Lance's use of drugs (incl. steroids) goes back to as far as 1996, but I assume that only shows they don't have evidence for prior to 1996.
For any PEDs to correlate with his cancer, in any case, we must assume he took those PEDs well prior to 1996. (NB: Cancer was established in 1996, but may already have been in his body earlier, is that correct?)
For any PEDs to correlate with his cancer, in any case, we must assume he took those PEDs well prior to 1996. (NB: Cancer was established in 1996, but may already have been in his body earlier, is that correct?)
- Jun 10, 2010
- 19,890
- 2,248
- 25,680
You can't simply make this claim. His doping increased the odds of developing cancer, but you can lead a completely healthy life and still get cancer. Maybe it caused it, maybe it didn't. No one can know.
It's pretty obvious however that his doping prevented it from being detected earlier.
It's pretty obvious however that his doping prevented it from being detected earlier.
You cna also lead a doped life and never get cancer. It is all in your genes. Your genes determine your destiny.
- Jun 17, 2010
- 5,139
- 237
- 17,880
hrotha said:
100% agree. But since no one can really know, racers now then have to know that by doping they may be playing a game of Russian Roulette.
- Sep 26, 2009
- 2,848
- 1
- 11,485
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 2
- 0
LauraLyn said:
Armstrong never submitted a sworn affidavit stating he did not dope and he did not sign any of the submissions
But of course you knew that.....
- Aug 18, 2012
- 1,171
- 0
- 0
hrotha said:
By witness testimony of the Andreu's and Chris Carmichael's history it seems he was using both HGH and Corticosteroids (immunosuppressants) which both would have made the cancer dramatically worse.
That said I agree that the initial incidence of cancer could well have been due to bad luck.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram