Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[ChrisE]

Getting seriously tired of reading these troll/bait posts, report them if you feel someone's trolling/baiting, but please stop it here. Enough already.

Does it even matter anymore when LA started doping? That he continued doping after surviving cancer is what I find simply unbelievable.
Many people don't get second chances.

I have seen many people keep smoking after cancer, keep drinking after getting DWI's. Keep taking drugs after losing their job. Keep speeding after getting tickets. You must live in constant amazement.

 

[Granville57]

Does it even matter anymore when LA started doping?

For our purposes, it does. It also matters if it can be confirmed as to whether or not he ever stopped. It's all part of the puzzle. He avoided the question when asked by Oprah (as to when, exactly, he started) so obviously he has something to hide.

Are you not curious as to what may have fueled his World Championship 1993 win? Not to mention his early triathlon wins? How much of the myth was purely "myth"?

And as Race Radio pointed out earlier regarding the 1993 WC, it was a crazy race. I have to give credit to Armstrong for staying upright when nearly everyone else hit the pavement multiple times. A newly paved road for the event, combined with a torrential downpour made for the Ice Capades. So even with PEDs, Lance still did what many others could not do on that day: simply stay in the race. But what other factors were in play as well? He still had to beat many of the best riders in the world at that time to win.

 

[the sceptic]

If you read my posts, instead of trying to cause conflict, you would already know the answer.

Instead of trying to find some non-existent hidden agenda or conspiracy theory how about sharing your view on the topic? When do you think Lance started using EPO?

I was under the impression he didnt use that before 1995, but now Im not sure anymore. Will need to wait for more information before I make up my mind.

 

[Race Radio]

If you would care to read, TFF pointed out she is closer than any of us and all it comes down to is our prejudices on how we interpret what is in the book. That is what I was replying to, but you have chosen to jump in.

That is not the case on the pre 95 EPO issue because we have contradictory evidence in testimony. The only thing we have about the FA issue is a bunch of people covering their a$$ and coming up with goofy arguments on why it couldn't have happened, as opposed to the less appetizing prospect of confirmation by the players about bribing races 20 years ago for large sums of money in the current atmosphere. It's easy to deny and claim such a thing never happened.

Yes, of course the book is long and there are probably facts in there we can all agree on. The fact she apparently is not fact checking on some of these items (hey Hendershot, this is contradictory to testimony what ya got to say?) opens some questions, yup.

Hendershot's testimony is contradictory to the statements of multiple principles......just like's Juliet's unnamed source on the payoff contradicts the statements of the principles. In addition, as both Frankie and Scott point out, it is absurd to think Frankie had the authority to roll up and offer $50k payoff in a race.

If you looked past this quest for hidden agendas, bias, and prejudices you can see the facts as we know them cause people to question these claims

 

[Race Radio]

I was under the impression he didnt use that before 1995, but now Im not sure anymore. Will need to wait for more information before I make up my mind.

Which is my point as well. I look forward to reading Juliet's book as I expect there will be even more information about when and how Lance started using drugs

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I have seen many people keep smoking after cancer, keep drinking after getting DWI's. Keep taking drugs after losing their job. Keep speeding after getting tickets. You must live in constant amazement.

That's fair, but also note that Armstrong beat everyone over the head with the idea that he would never dope after that, and he also used cancer as a shield. I don't see many smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts making commercials with images of other smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts in an effort gain sympathy and sway opinion in their favor. Dude's with needles in their arms bent over at the waist in the junkie pose don't really create an effective case that you aren't a junkie. Armstrong used cancer patients to make the case that he wasn't a doper, and that is offensive to me for many reasons.

 

[ChrisE]

Hendershot's testimony is contradictory to the statements of multiple principles......just like's Juliet's unnamed source on the payoff contradicts the statements of the principles. In addition, as both Frankie and Scott point out, it is absurd to think Frankie had the authority to roll up and offer $50k payoff in a race.

If you looked past this quest for hidden agendas, bias, and prejudices you can see the facts as we know them cause people to question these claims

You claiming you are some non-biased bystander here is causing me indigestion. I would appreciate it if you would stop.

Yes, it is absurd to think that FA rolled up and whipped out $50k, or did this on his own accord. On this we agree. It is not absurd that people can act on behalf of others, eg that there was a decision made and plan put forth. I instruct people every day, but without my instruction they would not be able to act. I don't know what you do for a living or what happens in your every day life, but this stuff really happens.

 

[ChrisE]

That's fair, but also note that Armstrong beat everyone over the head with the idea that he would never dope after that, and he also used cancer as a shield. I don't see many smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts making commercials with images of other smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts in an effort gain sympathy and sway opinion in their favor. Dude's with needles in their arms bent over at the waist in the junkie pose don't really create an effective case that you aren't a junkie. Armstrong used cancer patients to make the case that he wasn't a doper, and that is offensive to me for many reasons.

Agree, and I don't know how far back the search engine goes and you won't even care to look, but I ridiculed his BS at the time for these very reasons. I remember watching Larry King live that night and laughing about it. The guy was good, you have to admit.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Agree, and I don't know how far back the search engine goes and you won't even care to look, but I ridiculed his BS at the time for these very reasons. I remember watching Larry King live that night and laughing about it. The guy was good, you have to admit.

No doubt about that.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I was under the impression he didnt use that before 1995, but now Im not sure anymore. Will need to wait for more information before I make up my mind.

Good post sceptic

I can appreciate the fact that we may not agree…
but for me what is interesting now is the new claim and info from Hendershot and who knows what else will turn up..

My sole purpose is not to vilify Armstrong but to understand and hear the truth about what has really gone down in those earlier years as well.

 

[peloton]

I have seen many people keep smoking after cancer, keep drinking after getting DWI's. Keep taking drugs after losing their job. Keep speeding after getting tickets. You must live in constant amazement.

Yeah, I guess I do.

I've never seen an athlete who's survived cancer go to the lengths your hero did, after surviving a widespread cancer where, if we believe his book, he had a less of 50% chance of surviving.

But carry on.

 

[mewmewmew13]

WHAT JUST HAPPENED ON THIS PAGE???


THERE WAS SOME AGREEMENT
AND GETTING ALONG

 

[Oldman]

When people think of this particular version of Armstrong, they are usually referring to 1996, when he was at his biggest in terms of physique.

Here he is at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic individual TT and road race, but he looked the same earlier in the year when he won Fleche Wallone-

This was the same year he actually gained a reputed 20 lbs during their early season camp. 6 hr rides each day and then he went to the gym. None of the Motorola managers were involved and even asked riders if they knew what LA was doing. No mystery now.

 

[the sceptic]

Good post sceptic

I can appreciate the fact that we may not agree…
but for me what is interesting now is the new claim and info from Hendershot and who knows what else will turn up..

My sole purpose is not to vilify Armstrong but to understand and hear the truth about what has really gone down in those earlier years as well.

 

[Granville57]

Hendershot.....finally

Which begs the question: Why has his name never come up before?

A quick search of the forum shows no mention of him prior to today. And I don't recall his name coming up in any of the investigative books.
(Kind of hard to forget a name like Hendershot for a guy who is supposed to be good with a needle)

 

[Alpe73]

Let's have some consistency here one way or the other.

Well said.That would be nothing more than a reasonable expectation to have of this forum thread.

 

[Race Radio]

Which begs the question: Why has his name never come up before?

A quick search of the forum shows no mention of him prior to today. And I don't recall his name coming up in any of the investigative books.
(Kind of hard to forget a name like Hendershot for a guy who is supposed to be good with a needle)

I had heard various stories but it was always along the line of "He did stuff" Surprising to hear from his mouth. Also surprising to read the extent of it.

It sounds like Juliet went way back. I expect Lance will not be the only person concerned.

 

[mewmewmew13]

lol
…..

 

[MarkvW]

It's not about the dope. It's about the dope plus Ferrari.

 

[Race Radio]

This was the same year he actually gained a reputed 20 lbs during their early season camp. 6 hr rides each day and then he went to the gym. None of the Motorola managers were involved and even asked riders if they knew what LA was doing. No mystery now.

Those pictures are amazing, he must have been 15 pounds less at the previous years (95) Tour. He says he started to use Test in 96..... I wonder what else as the muscle mass is significant? No surprise, his goal that year was the Gold Medal. Gotta wonder what effect all those anabolic/catabolic agents had on his cancer growth.

Gotta say I am not too interested in hearing from Lance about UCI corruption, I would rather hear about his program, see his SRM files, etc

 

[Merckx index]

While we might question the accuracy of this 1992 timeline, I think everyone agrees that he was using EPO by 1995. This IIRC was the way it was reported in From Lance to Landis. But this still takes us back to the question of why the big improvement post cancer. Several people here have argued that Ferrari was a key difference. This argument, though, seems to require a belief that without a doctor’s guidance, riders had no idea what they were doing, and wouldn’t get much benefit. Yet as documented on Science of Sports, studies administering EPO to non-elite athletes show an enormous effect, e.g., a 13% increase in peak power and a > 50% increase in time to exhaustion.

No doubt by the time of the study (2007) you didn’t have to know Ferrari to have access to some information on how best to apply EPO. But the dosing schedule usedwasn’t particularly complicated: the subjects received EPO every other day for two weeks, then once weekly for ten weeks. I really wonder how much difference Dr. OJ made. I can see him making the difference between, say, Ulle beating Armstrong and Ulle finishing second, but the difference between Armstrong pre- and post-cancer? Seems like a stretch.

Hoo boy, check out this:

In the wake of previous contributions by scholars like Verner Møller and Paul Dimeo, which have demonstrated the mythical nature of the accounts concerning two famous ‘doping deaths’ (the cyclists Arthur Linton and Knud Enemark Jensen), this article thoroughly examines the existing evidence (both anecdotal and scientific) concerning the much repeated claim that EPO ‘killed’ 18 Dutch and Belgian cyclists in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This examination shows that these claims almost absolutely lack empirical evidence, and that in fact the existing truly experimental and epidemiological research downplays or even rules out the existence of a casual link between EPO intake and sudden death in healthy adults. It is therefore concluded that EPO has been constructed by the expert literature and the lay press as the ‘drug of mass destruction’ of the war on drugs in sport, and that the story about the ‘EPO deaths’ is to be seen as anti-doping propaganda.

 

[mewmewmew13]

He DID look like a linebacker in that top pic especially!
a bit top heavy on that bike?

…actually he looks huge in both..and his face was wide

 

[Dear Wiggo]

While we might question the accuracy of this 1992 timeline, I think everyone agrees that he was using EPO by 1995. This IIRC was the way it was reported in From Lance to Landis. But this still takes us back to the question of why the big improvement post cancer. Several people here have argued that Ferrari was a key difference. This argument, though, seems to require a belief that without a doctor’s guidance, riders had no idea what they were doing, and wouldn’t get much benefit. Yet as documented on Science of Sports, studies administering EPO to non-elite athletes show an enormous effect, e.g., a 13% increase in peak power and a > 50% increase in time to exhaustion.

No doubt by the time of the study (2007) you didn’t have to know Ferrari to have access to some information on how best to apply EPO. But the dosing schedule usedwasn’t particularly complicated: the subjects received EPO every other day for two weeks, then once weekly for ten weeks. I really wonder how much difference Dr. OJ made. I can see him making the difference between, say, Ulle beating Armstrong and Ulle finishing second, but the difference between Armstrong pre- and post-cancer? Seems like a stretch.

I think the difference is in fact far more dramatic, MI.

The differences were:

pre-cancer <= 1996:
No Hct limit - potential for blood viscosity to limit oxygen delivery
subcutaneous EPO - as much as you want, how long till it's gone, more severe impact on natural EPO production ==> harder post-EPO cycle crash?
testosterone - every day?



post-cancer >= 1997:
50% Hct limit - far less likely for viscosity to affect increased RBC effectiveness
IV EPO - clears far quicker, much smaller doses often, less crash effect post-EPO cycle?
EPO and testosterone scheduled by a doctor who learnt from the father of EPO doping, Conconi


Ok my belief that the difference is dramatic remains, but is an intuition. This list alone (at face value) would not necessarily convince me. I think the key is knowing what the schedule was for the doping pre-cancer, and the ramifications of that schedule, in particular the EPO and actual Hct riders were competing at.

Keep in mind also - testosterone as an anabolic induces increase in RBCs.

Hoo boy, check out this:

Should that "casual" be "causal"?

 

[blackcat]

So he was taking EPO at least four years before cancer. I'm not surprised, but this deepens the mystery of how he became such a good climber, and a better TTer, after cancer. RR and some others think he was a high responder, and it does appear he has a naturally low HT that would have allowed him to get a larger benefit from EPO than many other riders. But why did the benefit not really become apparent until after cancer? If being a high responder is what enabled him to win all those Tours, why could he do nothing in GC in four tries before cancer? Other alleged high responders, like Ulle and Pantani, seemed to reach their GC potential much sooner. Even Riis was a better climber than Armstrong at that time.

Was it Ferrari? Maybe, but I find it hard to believe that Ferrari + EPO made a bigger difference in his GC performance over EPO alone than EPO alone did over no EPO. All EPO seemingly did for him is make him a much better one day racer. For four years. Then boom, suddenly he can climb, not just better, but he goes from a total non-climber to the best in the world. Was Ferrari's program really that good?

Was it being protected by the UCI? Maybe, but all that would have done is allowed him to take as much EPO as he wanted, and he could have done that in the 90s before cancer, when there was no 50% rule. Protection would have allowed him to take more than his competitors, but it wouldn't explain how he was so much better than he was in the mid 90s.

Was he using some other substance, such as HemAssist or PFCs? Maybe, but plenty of testimony (including his own, for what that's worth) indicates he was blood doping throughout his TDF dominance, so it doesn't sound as though anything else he was using was very important. If he could have achieved the same effects with a non-detectable substance, there wouldn't have been much point in using EPO or even transfusions.

NB. may be apocyphal.

but in 98 Vuelta he bragged that he had a horse steroid that no one else did. And obiously, it would not show up on the assay of the mass spec gas chromatograph (and folks already have told me that i am mistaking my biological testing technology)

but still holds true. more the metaphor. It did not show up.

I think in the 98 Vuelta, it allowed Ferrari to see how Armstrong responded over three weeks, and to tweek crit, haemoglobin, and the other O2 parameters.

Folks are looking at the Rasmussen Mexico training camp nee Dolomiti.

The preparation doping. And increasing the threshold.

That is only half of the function.

Folks, look at recovery doping. RECOVERY doping.

Motoman and recovery doping is where its at.

I would like to enter into evidence, Raimondas Rumsas, and Edita Rumsas.

If you neutralise the 2003 Tour for the Team timetrial. Rumsas beats Beloki.

Have a think for a second, the advantages that Armstrong had up his sleeve on Rumsas. But Rumsas did have some decent recovery support thanks to Edita, and he could have managed to negate Beloki's Manalo Saiz recovery doping advantage.

And have an advantage over the field, wrt recovery doping.

After Festina, recovery doping became a game of subterfuge, and Armstrong could get an enormous advantage by capturing the administration of the sport, to give him a wide berth, while sending Edita and Remi di Gregorio and Christiano Moreno and everyone else off to jail.

 

[peloton]

He DID look like a linebacker in that top pic especially!
a bit top heavy on that bike?

…actually he looks huge in both..and his face was wide

Compared to 2005

"I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles"

Many did, and even stunningly, some still do...