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

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

I put little value in the good responder stuff - I would assume that some people may not respond to certain products, but I doubt LA was superior to the norm in any way.

Ferrari and the layoff from cancer are the 2 obvious things, IMO.
Pre 95 (Ferrari) LA was probably using an assortment of PEDs without getting the most out of them. He was right there on Huy in 94 when the Gewiss 3 pulled off even though they were probably all utilizing the same products.

So you have the hematologist coach constantly monitoring the numbers and a very willing student who will apply the regime to the letter.

 

[SundayRider]

I put little value in the good responder stuff - I would assume that some people may not respond to certain products, but I doubt LA was superior to the norm in any way.

Ferrari and the layoff from cancer are the 2 obvious things, IMO.
Pre 95 (Ferrari) LA was probably using an assortment of PEDs without getting the most out of them. He was right there on Huy in 94 when the Gewiss 3 pulled off even though they were probably all utilizing the same products.

So you have the hematologist coach constantly monitoring the numbers and a very willing student who will apply the regime to the letter.

Exclusive relationship with Ferrari was probably LA's biggest advantage IMO.

 

[frenchfry]

So many 'maybe's'.

Now Hendershot is saying that LA was taking EPO in 1993, yet he never administered it to him. And we have affidavits from others on the team saying that EPO didn't start until 95.

Just what to believe from Ms. Macur, who was so cavalier about bribing by our hero FA, we now latch onto this new bit of porn like white on rice. Don't look now, but she also has our hero going to Como getting his fixes from Testa.

Yes, so many 'maybe's'. The LA saga is just like the bible. Only believe the parts that support your convenient prejudices.

"Maybe" there is just so much dirt out there that it isn't always easy to get everything straight. Just like too much porn makes everything look the same (so I am told).

I walked by the piano bar on Tuesday (it is still there) brought back memories.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

So many 'maybe's'.

Now Hendershot is saying that LA was taking EPO in 1993, yet he never administered it to him. And we have affidavits from others on the team saying that EPO didn't start until 95.

Just what to believe from Ms. Macur, who was so cavalier about bribing by our hero FA, we now latch onto this new bit of porn like white on rice. Don't look now, but she also has our hero going to Como getting his fixes from Testa.

Yes, so many 'maybe's'. The LA saga is just like the bible. Only believe the parts that support your convenient prejudices.

Isn't that the same rule for everyone?

Anyway, what do you want, for everyone to dismiss it because it's on paper?

 

[andy1234]

Isn't that the same rule for everyone?

Anyway, what do you want, for everyone to dismiss it because it's on paper?

I think the point is, that if the same journalist can be called out for stating Andreu was involved in buying races, she can be called out on other "facts"

It's worth noting that the generalisation of the doping products used early in Armstrong's career, is not in quotation marks, whereas other Henderson comments, are.

It wouldn't surprise me if Armstrong was chugging EPO earlier than other sources state, but all of a sudden a NYT article takes on more significance than sworn affidavits etc, because it suits someone's narrative?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think the point is, that if the same journalist can be called out for stating Andreu was involved in buying races, she can be called out on other "facts"

She can and indeed she should.

It's worth noting that the generalisation of the doping products used early in Armstrong's career, is a part of that section not in quotation marks, whereas other Henderson comments, are.

Sure, because it is not a direct quote - but in the passage 'By 1993, Armstrong was using all of those substances, as did many riders on the team, Hendershot said.'

 

[the sceptic]

so Lance is smearing Lance now? interesting development.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think the point is, that if the same journalist can be called out for stating Andreu was involved in buying races, she can be called out on other "facts"

It's worth noting that the generalisation of the doping products used early in Armstrong's career, is not in quotation marks, whereas other Henderson comments, are.

It wouldn't surprise me if Armstrong was chugging EPO earlier than other sources state, but all of a sudden a NYT article takes on more significance than sworn affidavits etc, because it suits someone's narrative?

You added this in after I replied - what significance do the affidavits have? While some mention the post MSR discussion none say that LA was not doping before hand, in fact the tone appears that the team needs to step up to have an organized system, not an individual one.

As for the NYT having more significance - well, the 'other sources' was, guess who? Yip Armstrong.
There is no contradiction - some appear to have accepted the vague version by LA that it was 'mid 90s' or that pre 95 he was using 'low-octane' stuff.

 

[red_flanders]

So many 'maybe's'.

Now Hendershot is saying that LA was taking EPO in 1993, yet he never administered it to him. And we have affidavits from others on the team saying that EPO didn't start until 95.

Just what to believe from Ms. Macur, who was so cavalier about bribing by our hero FA, we now latch onto this new bit of porn like white on rice. Don't look now, but she also has our hero going to Como getting his fixes from Testa.

Yes, so many 'maybe's'. The LA saga is just like the bible. Only believe the parts that support your convenient prejudices.

Not sure what to believe, but...you're not really addressing the entire quote attributed to Hendershot. He does say he'd never administered it to Armstrong, but he also says other things.

By 1993, Armstrong was using all of those substances, as did many riders on the team, Hendershot said. He remembered Armstrong’s attitude as being, “This is the stuff I take, this is part of what I do,” and Armstrong joined the team’s program without hesitation because everyone else seemed to be doing it.

...

Although Hendershot said he never administered EPO or growth hormone to Armstrong, he did give them to other riders on the team and said he was aware that Armstrong was using those drugs. Hendershot said his wife had driven a stash of those two drugs from Belgium to one of the team’s 1995 training camps in southern France.

So he's establishing or claiming that the team was using EPO and growth hormone, and he claims to be aware that Armstrong was using the drugs.

Now you can believe it's made up of whole cloth, it's all true, but what doesn't make sense is to believe that somehow Armstrong was the only one (or one of the only ones) not doing it. If you buy what he's saying, you but that the team was on those drugs at that point and you really can't buy that LA was somehow not involved.

It does directly conflict with other testimony though. Interesting and good on you for pointing it out. Definitely a lot of questions, and skepticism is warranted.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Isn't that the same rule for everyone?

Anyway, what do you want, for everyone to dismiss it because it's on paper?

Lance fans need time to come up with proper-sounding rebuttals..
caught off guard it's harder to catch up.

There are a lot more interesting tidbits of the past that will continue to come out…
that's just my guess..

 

[mewmewmew13]

I think the point is, that if the same journalist can be called out for stating Andreu was involved in buying races, she can be called out on other "facts"

It's worth noting that the generalisation of the doping products used early in Armstrong's career, is not in quotation marks, whereas other Henderson comments, are.

It wouldn't surprise me if Armstrong was chugging EPO earlier than other sources state, but all of a sudden a NYT article takes on more significance than sworn affidavits etc, because it suits someone's narrative?

Believe what you like..but remember the affidavits of many swear that they all stopped doping in 2006

I prefer to see as much information as I can before coming up with my own conclusions

 

[T-Mobile fan]

Very interesting news. This puts to bed the idea that Armstrong forced the team to dope in 95. It turns out they were all on it already.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Very interesting news. This puts to bed the idea that Armstrong forced the team to dope in 95. It turns out they were all on it already.

Disagree..he wanted to ramp up the program..
if you weren't with him you were off the team.

ps don't forget about the transfusions…


oh..and welcome to the Clinic

 

[T-Mobile fan]

Disagree..he wanted to ramp up the program..
if you weren't with him you were off the team.

No, that wasn't in the article.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Very interesting news. This puts to bed the idea that Armstrong forced the team to dope in 95. It turns out they were all on it already.

Many, not all.

By 1993, Armstrong was using all of those substances, as did many riders on the team, Hendershot said.

I didn't think there was anything particularly new of controversial in Macurs piece - but since it wakes up BPC I guess I will have to review it.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Very interesting news. This puts to bed the idea that Armstrong forced the team to dope in 95. It turns out they were all on it already.

Great to have a new member posting here. ......oh wait.

 

[mewmewmew13]

No, that wasn't in the article.

It doesn't need to be in 'the article'

 

[T-Mobile fan]

Lots of interesting things in there.....

Hendershot rationalized the lie by saying the doping process was overseen by Max Testa, an Italian doctor

....Not long after joining Motorola, Armstrong began living in Como during the racing season. He brought along his close friend Frankie Andreu, and in time several other riders joined them, including George Hincapie, a New Yorker, and Kevin Livingston, a Midwesterner. All became patients of Testa.

Wow. All of these riders were patients of doctor Testa long before the 99 tour or doctor Ferrari.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

so Lance is smearing Lance now? interesting development.

Can't stop laughing....

 

[Race Radio]

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.

While I think it is an interesting data point I am not convinced it is correct that they were using EPO in 93. It appears to be more of a blanket statement implies Armstrong was an active participant in doping. If it is true to destroys many of the narratives the groupies have tried to grasp on to but I am not convinced it is true.

There is much more to the book so perhaps it will be covered in other areas. The book is close to 500 pages, most focused on the personal side. Hopefully it clarifies the topic.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Lots of interesting things in there.....



Wow. All of these riders were patients of doctor Testa long before the 99 tour or doctor Ferrari.

I know you are new here but Testa was already mentioned as the Doctor who assisted the riders with their doping.
In fact it was brought up to dismiss the notion that it was Frankie who "taught" poor innocent George how to dope.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Let him last.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Let him last.

lol Zam
……..

 

[Race Radio]

I wonder how Bob Hamman is going to spend the $12 million he is going to get back from lance? Hope he throws a party. Maybe he can hire the Livestrong folks to organize it, they throw great parties.

 

[T-Mobile fan]

I know you are new here but Testa was already mentioned as the Doctor who assisted the riders with their doping.
In fact it was brought up to dismiss the notion that it was Frankie who "taught" poor innocent George how to dope.

Thanks. So George moved to Como after Frankie? Did Frankie share a house with Lance in Como?