Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 4 (Post-Settlement)

[ooo]

Lance Armstrong still listed as official stage winner of 1993 TdF stage 8 and 1995 TdF stage 18
In ESPN video, Lance said, that he "probably" started using EPO around 18.09.1992-18.09.1993

for 50 y.o. Andrea Ferrigato (#2 from 1995 stage 18) it may be his first TdF stage "win"
(letour.fr don't actually list #2 finisher as the winner after #1 is banned/unlisted)

https://www.facebook.com/ferrigatoandreaferrigato

 

[fmk_RoI]

In ESPN video, Lance said, that he "probably" started using EPO around 18.09.1992-18.09.1993

Get yer facts right. He didn't.

(letour.fr don't actually list #2 finisher as the winner after #1 is banned/unlisted)

As a general claim, this is not true. ASO regulalry promote second to first when first is stripped of victory. The incidences in which we don't have a stage winner are rare: the LA years, when it was decided not to promote anyone, and stage 18 of the 1977 Tour.

As for the rest. From USADA's reasoned decision:

For the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying file, the United States Anti-Doping Agency has found that Lance Armstrong violated the applicable anti-doping rules, that his competitive results achieved since August 1, 1998, should be, and are, disqualified and that he is properly and appropriately ruled ineligible for life pursuant to the terms of Articles 10.10.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code.

Do you have an actual point or are you just stating the bleeding obvious?

 

[ooo]

Get yer facts right. He didn't.

this is direct quote from your link

"Probably… 21," Armstrong replied after a long pause when asked at what age he started doping in a clip from the film released by ESPN.

Armstrong was "21" years old between 18.09.1992-18.09.1993
SO, can you help me to get this straight? I don't see an error

The incidences in which we don't have a stage winner are rare: the LA years

Does it include TdF 1995 ? from your quote it only includes 1998+ years
So, can ASO and/or USADA react on ESPN interview, if he talks about doping in 1993-1997 years?

 

[fmk_RoI]

SO, can you help me to get this straight? I don't see an error

Really? The error is quite simple. EPO means doping, doping does not mean EPO. You are at fault.

Does it include TdF 1995 ? from your quote it only includes 1998+ years
So, can ASO and/or USADA react on his interview and do change 1995 stage 18 results or other races results before 1998 ?

I really don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[Aragon]

Ten years ago....

 

[Invicituz]

"In many ways - and this is not going to be a popular answer - EPO is a safe drug,"

- Lance Armstrong

That is a highly, misguided statement.

 

[spalco]

A new treat for everyone who's not yet completely sick to their stomach of anything Armstrong related out this weekend:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ocumentary-espn-doping-cycling-tour-de-france

Sounds like a mostly apologetic piece in the frame of "Armstrong did what everyone else did, just better", but he's such a distasteful person, that maybe that's not how it will seem anyway, who knows. 30 for 30 is at least stylistically very high quality usually, so could be entertaining regardless.

 

[Oldermanish]

That is a highly, misguided statement.

If he was forced to say that in the context of a recovering, thankful cancer victim it would be valid.

Very telling that he's referring to his experience as a cheating sociopath after surviving cancer with the help of many doctors, friends (most in his backwash) and "loved" ones. He turned his back on almost every person that couldn't help him further including a teammates, a "foundation" and especially the truth.

 

[Aragon]

Has there ever been any corroborating evidence for this claim that Lance knew Michele Ferrari as early as April 1993, because if it were true, the story about E. Merckx introducing the guys to each other in 1995 would be complete bogus?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1262389334524731393

View: https://twitter.com/oufeh/status/1262389334524731393


I am far from fluent in French, but the source is evidently Lance's teammate Max Sciandri. The book Rouler plus vite que la mort where that information is from got some mixe" reviews and people mainly focused on its key thesis about motor doping, but this is actually also interesting information if true.

 

[red_flanders]

Has there ever been any corroborating evidence for this claim that Lance knew Michele Ferrari as early as April 1993, because if it were true, the story about E. Merckx introducing the guys to each other in 1995 would be complete bogus?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1262389334524731393

View: https://twitter.com/oufeh/status/1262389334524731393


I am far from fluent in French, but the source is evidently Lance's teammate Max Sciandri. The book Rouler plus vite que la mort where that information is from got some mixe" reviews and people mainly focused on its key thesis about motor doping, but this is actually also interesting information if true.

It does not seem consistent with his performances or the stories from his teammates, where the ‘95 story does. Personally I’m satisfied with The ‘95 story until better evidence comes around.

 

[movingtarget]

I always thought his Worlds win had a stench about it. Still the youngest winner ever I think.

 

[Nomad]

It does not seem consistent with his performances or the stories from his teammates, where the ‘95 story does. Personally I’m satisfied with The ‘95 story until better evidence comes around.

I watched bit & pieces of part 1 of the "30 for 30" documentary last night (btw, did Lance dye his hair for that interview? Lol).

Do I understand him correctly when he says there was "low-octane" doping involved in the 93 Worlds, which he defines as corticosteroids, testosterone & HGH? But he seems to infer that he only used the corticosteroids for that race and not any other substance?

Then he says he went on "HGH" for the 95 season (36th @ Tour), and still complained about getting his "ass kicked" by the "high-octane" EPO dopers. This, he says, prompted him to see Ferrari for the first time after the season who put him on EPO for the 96 season - but he DNF'd at that year's Tour (I think he abandoned after the first high mountain stage?).

Going back to the Motorola team in 93 - any chance any team member of Armstrong used EPO? For example, any suspicion with Mejia, who finished 4th at the Tour behind Big Mig, Rominger & Zaskula?

 

[Aragon]

Even when Juliet Macur wrote in Twitter today about Motorola soigneur John Hendershot recalling Lance using rHuEPO by 1993, this chart is from the SCA-hearings, and evidently Lance's (Ferrari-EPO boosted?) Vo2Max two weeks after the '93 Oslo was slightly lower than his 1991 amateur value, which speaks against him having used rHuEPO in 1993.

 

[Oldermanish]

Even when Juliet Macur wrote in Twitter today about Motorola soigneur John Hendershot recalling Lance using rHuEPO by 1993, this chart is from the SCA-hearings, and evidently Lance's (Ferrari-EPO boosted?) Vo2Max two weeks after the '93 Oslo was slightly lower than his 1991 amateur value, which speaks against him having used rHuEPO in 1993.

It would possibly suggest if he or others on Motorola chose to use it wouldn't have been effective in the manner applied. Not every person will respond equally and, considering the acknowledged use of steroids that were in the mix for Armstrong at the time; he might not have known the value.
Bear in mind that the Montgomery Subaru squad had members from the LA Olympic team that continued a certain amount of doping in the early 90's so there was likely a lot of random "program wisdom" around him. Thom Weisel wanted the team to win.

 

[spalco]

Going back to the Motorola team in 93 - any chance any team member of Armstrong used EPO? For example, any suspicion with Mejia, who finished 4th at the Tour behind Big Mig, Rominger & Zaskula?

The top10 GC of that Tour is incredibly suspect. It's also by far the best GT result in Meija's career (and Jaskula's), hmm...

 

[Merckx index]

Even when Juliet Macur wrote in Twitter today about Motorola soigneur John Hendershot recalling Lance using rHuEPO by 1993, this chart is from the SCA-hearings, and evidently Lance's (Ferrari-EPO boosted?) Vo2Max two weeks after the '93 Oslo was slightly lower than his 1991 amateur value, which speaks against him having used rHuEPO in 1993.

If the black bars are relative V02max (ml/kg), then this value was at a peak after Oslo, higher than 1991. The absolute V02 max might have been slightly lower, but this would be expected following weight loss. I don't see how that graph is evidence against EPO use.

 

[Aragon]

If the black bars are relative V02max (ml/kg), then this value was at a peak after Oslo, higher than 1991.

You are exactly right, the figures are the following:

Feb 1991: 6.2 l/min; 77 ml/min/kg
Sep 1993: 6.1 l/min; 81 ml/min/kg

That is to say, c:a 2 % lower absolute figure in 2½ years but 5 % higher relative figure, which is explained by the fact that his (calculated) weight fell from 80.5 kg to 75.3 kg (=6.5 % weight loss).

The absolute V02 max might have been slightly lower, but this would be expected following weight loss. I don't see how that graph is evidence against EPO use.

Here is the problem, because I am not quite sure if the bolded sentence is totally accurate.

This is because weight fluctuations (fat & muscle) in a given trained individual are only very loosely (if at all) related to blood volume, total hemoglobin and to the cardiovascular system which are the key determinants of Vo2Max. That is to say that we shouldn't expect a 6.5 % weight loss [or increase] leading to a 6.5 % lower [higher] total Hb etc, because the latter are more limited by genetics, training status and also by PED(s) than by muscle mass or fat-%.

And yes, muscle and peripheral factors (mitochondrial activity, capillary density etc) and the amound of muscle mass activated in a Douglas bag-test have an impact on the measured Vo2Max figure, but I don't believe that much if all the tests were cycle ergometer tests.

 

[Merckx index]

This is because weight fluctuations (fat & muscle) in a given trained individual are only very loosely (if at all) related to blood volume, total hemoglobin and to the cardiovascular system which are the key determinants of Vo2Max. That is to say that we shouldn't expect a 6.5 % weight loss [or increase] leading to a 6.5 % lower [higher] total Hb etc, because the latter are more limited by genetics, training status and also by PED(s) than by muscle mass or fat-%.

No, we shouldn't expect a close correlation, but obviously there comes a certain point in weight loss when the power loss neutralizes the effect of less weight. This of course is why riders reach some more or less stable weight. They don't try to go below this, because of the power loss. But they don't necessarily reach this minimum weight without some power loss; it's just that the loss is compensated for by the weight loss. The minimum weight is not the point below which absolute power is lost for the first time. It's the point below which relative power is lost for the first time.

 

[86TDFWinner]

I lol when the director asked Wonderboy if he's still relevant & Wonderboy says" Of course I'm still relevant". Been saying FOR YEARS here that Wonderboy tries so hard to remain relevant, that he's desperare to remain in the spotlight, that he's become irrelevant & many here disagreed with me. He's still an arrogant, narcissistic, sociopath & liar. It's a shame so many here are still willing to forgive and believe him.

PS, Betsy Andreu has stated numerous times that Cancer Jesus had been doping as far back as '93(as others have) & I believe her.

 

[Aragon]

No, we shouldn't expect a close correlation, but obviously there comes a certain point in weight loss when the power loss neutralizes the effect of less weight.

This doesn't contradict at all about what I wrote about what limits Vo2Max, and even in cycling like leg-oriented exercise it isn't mainly muscle mass. And it is likely that a large portion of the weight loss between 80.5 kg (February OFFSeason figure) and 75.2 kg (September INSeason figure) wasn't metabolically active tissue at all or almost all fat. His BMI fell from c:a 25.5 to 24.0 and with his 1993 weight he was quite heavy for a all-round-cyclist / one day specialist.

This of course is why riders reach some more or less stable weight. They don't try to go below this, because of the power loss. But they don't necessarily reach this minimum weight without some power loss; it's just that the loss is compensated for by the weight loss. The minimum weight is not the point below which absolute power is lost for the first time. It's the point below which relative power is lost for the first time..

Did you notice that I haven't mentioned "power" (Peak/FTP/Power at Vo2Max?) at all because it is a different concept than Vo2Max which is mainly limited by "central" factors that aren't affected by weight loss. I am not even disputing that all the above categories of power (and performance) can be reduced by weight loss, even very low intensity performance can fall if body must use more energy-inefficient type II muscle fibers after losing muscle mass even if Vo2Max is unchanged.

 

[Oldermanish]

I lol when the director asked Wonderboy if he's still relevant & Wonderboy says" Of course I'm still relevant". Been saying FOR YEARS here that Wonderboy tries so hard to remain relevant, that he's desperare to remain in the spotlight, that he's become irrelevant & many here disagreed with me. He's still an arrogant, narcissistic, sociopath & liar. It's a shame so many here are still willing to forgive and believe him.

PS, Betsy Andreu has stated numerous times that Cancer Jesus had been doping as far back as '93(as others have) & I believe her.

Try junior years. Add Levi and Tyler to that mix as it was encouraged, but not managed by the coaches as part of training recovery. USAC had no budget, doctors and a lot of pressure. That continued....

 

[BullsFan22]

So USAC had no budget or doctors, yet the cyclists were all (or a lot of them) doping? Did the cyclists just go and buy the drugs themselves? Did the coaches? If there was doping (and their likely was) on that team, then who provided the material? Who paid for it? I have a hard time believing that everyone was poor and didn't have the resources.

 

[Oldermanish]

So USAC had no budget or doctors, yet the cyclists were all (or a lot of them) doping? Did the cyclists just go and buy the drugs themselves? Did the coaches? If there was doping (and their likely was) on that team, then who provided the material? Who paid for it? I have a hard time believing that everyone was poor and didn't have the resources.

You add a lot of assumptions to what I'd printed.
Generally the cyclists were given the general information and the opinion from coaching staff that their competition in Europe, Central/South America all used some form of recovery "aids". Any specific recommendations were given one on one to sourcing. It would rely on the rider to fund their activity. It involved a small percentage of team members as our riders would confirm.
Separately; there is the Greg Strock/Erik Kaiter case where they were actually given steriods, etc. without their knowledge while at 1990 Worlds by the staff. It is dry reading but the case files are pretty direct and demonstrates that USAC would go to those lengths if need be. This is also several years after Thom Weisel/Montgomery Securities started his cycling team and was closely tied to USAC. He recruited from the USAC pool for most of his early riders and continued with his funding into the 2000s for development programs. His firm also helped underwrite the IPO of a struggling biotech firm....Amgen.

 

[GVFTA]

You add a lot of assumptions to what I'd printed.
Generally the cyclists were given the general information and the opinion from coaching staff that their competition in Europe, Central/South America all used some form of recovery "aids". Any specific recommendations were given one on one to sourcing. It would rely on the rider to fund their activity. It involved a small percentage of team members as our riders would confirm.
Separately; there is the Greg Strock/Erik Kaiter case where they were actually given steriods, etc. without their knowledge while at 1990 Worlds by the staff. It is dry reading but the case files are pretty direct and demonstrates that USAC would go to those lengths if need be. This is also several years after Thom Weisel/Montgomery Securities started his cycling team and was closely tied to USAC. He recruited from the USAC pool for most of his early riders and continued with his funding into the 2000s for development programs. His firm also helped underwrite the IPO of a struggling biotech firm....Amgen.

You hit a lot of nails squarely on the head. The biggest travesty of the whole saga is the fact Thom hasn't been exposed for the POS he was and still is.

 

[Parker]

I lol when the director asked Wonderboy if he's still relevant & Wonderboy says" Of course I'm still relevant". Been saying FOR YEARS here that Wonderboy tries so hard to remain relevant, that he's desperare to remain in the spotlight,

And yet despite his supposed irrelevance, here you are on Part 4 of the latest of god knows how many threads, nearly a decade since he last raced a bike, discussing a three hour documentary. You keep him relevant