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

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 28, 2019
61
8
195
We also need to know how unusual his lowish haematocrit was. Tyler Hamilton, for instance, I think he self-reports his natural haematocrit as 42, which is close enough to the range we seem to be looking at for LA as to be not giving LA a significant advantage.

(The real world linkage between haematocrit and performance I am ignoring. As both you and Merckx Index note, it's not clear one way or the other what it is. In the same vein I am ignoring the possible influence of other products and his responses to them. This is specifically about the belief put forward earlier that Armstrong had an unnaturally low haematocrit - mid-thirties - and this meant he was a donkey when not doped and a thoroughbred when pumped full of EPO/blood bags.)
A Needless discussion really, nobody will ever know how well any of those guys responded to doping.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Aug 29, 2016
254
11
3,060
I can't really believe he only started on testosterone in 1995 when during his time with Motorola Swart has suggested cortisone was freely available. Cortisone, testosterone, this was basic doping in the early 90s, had been been commonplace in the sport for a long time by then.
The blood doping/EPO use very early on is very unlikely based on the recollections of his teammates, but his fellow Motorola-cyclist Stephen Swart told Juliet Macur for her Lance biography that Motorola team "medicine cabinet" containted also illegal products such as cortisone, testosterone and Tylenol already in 1992. The book Wheelmen also claims that Armstrong was using cortisone and testosterone for his preparation for the 1993 World Championships (I have lost my copy of the book and Google.Books doesn't give the actual source). When you add to this the Don Catlin-letter and the Carmichael-connection, the circumstantial case is quite strong that he took testosterone around 1993 if not earlier.

But still the following dialogue took place a few years ago after his confession:
Daniel Benson: What hasn’t been documented is when you first crossed that line. If you even want to call it a line, in terms of being low-octane. Can you say when that was?

Lance Armstrong: That’s the kind of detail… It was before 1995, put it that way.

DB: Before you came to Europe?

LA: No. No. I mean if taking a caffeine pill for a criterium counts.

DB: Nothing like testosterone?

LA: Absolutely not. And that wasn’t even in 1995. [Armstrong confirmed later he took testosterone for the first time in 1996 - ed.] In the affidavits of these guys you can tell when there was a switch. We felt we had no choice. Of course, we had a choice, we could have bailed and gone home, but we felt that to compete at that level we didn’t have a choice.

While it should be evident by now to all CN-readers that I have slightly sympathetic view of Armstrong, I wouldn't take anything he tells about his PED chronology at face value. In fact, had he truly made a full confession to Oprah, the statistical odds would dictate that there should've been at least one or two new items to reveal and he wouldn't just have spent hours confirming what we already pretty much knew.
 
No doubt a sociopath, however he has a much a right to be in cycling as Virunque, Bobby Julich, Riis, or any of the others, like Zabel, or Aldag. You might hate the dude....but all those guys I mentioned are still active, and used.....even Frankie Andrea, and Vaughters.....to me if you cheat, you cheat...no gray area, no as Tygart says most vilanous, evil doping programe of all kind...I would guess other sport are more guilty.....
Andreu
 
How could he be dominant as a clean rider in an era when everyone else was doping? Did the doping not work, is that it, clean riders could beat doped riders, it was only marginal gains, EPO wasn't the rocket fuel so many claim it was?
But, HE became successful BECAUSE of the doping, not before it. His best pre-dope TDF finish IIRC, is 34th? Then he somehow rattles off 7 wins in a row? Lol! To those who believed he was "the cleans" then.

Know what Wonderboy is? A good used car saleman.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
The doctors involved in sport are not GPs. They have studied sports science. Look at someone like Sabino Padilla, Indurain's doctor, his thesis was on the effects of altitude on exercise. In the era of O2 vector doping, he was not unusual.
And I'd be willing to wager Big Mig was doped to the gills throughout his 5 Tour wins.
 
Oh, this thread has surpassed itself when the truest of the true cycling fans come in swinging to insist on the difference between the hypothetical existence of a super responder and the admitted proof of any. Keep hope alive.
Lmao! Except there was overwhelming proof that Cancer Jesus doped @ extremely high levels, and that he paid millions to hide all the positives.


IIRC, It was something like 9 positives he had "hidden" from everyone. Don't you remember, he claimed to have been tested something ridiculous like "859 times and not 1 positive"? I do. We all do! He's a good bs'er.

There were SEVERAL opportunities for those Wonderboy ball washers to come out and provide credible/verifiable PROOF he didn't dope and not 1 did, not 1. That tells you all you need to know.
 
Last edited:
Except there was overwhelming proof that Cancer Jesus doped @ extremely high levels, and that he paid millions to hide all the positives.
Ok, I'll bite: let's see the evidence for the millions paid to hide all the positives. I know it's an essential part of the cathecism for some, but the actual proof for the millions is ... what? The $25,000 (2002) and $100,000 (2005) we know the UCI received? That's ... doing the math here ... I make it ... substantially short of "millions".

It's odd how the USADA reasoned decision didn't mention these millions paid to hide all the positives, isn't it? Nor does the CIRC report mention them, for that matter.

Are we going with the story told by the mechanic of the bazillions paid personally to Hein Verbruggen to cover up the 1999 positive with a backdated medical note? Can anyone explain to me how a relatively easy positive to cover up cost bazillions, but the Tour de Suisse tests only cost $25k and the Dauphiné ones $100k? Was there a great depression in doping cover-up costs that drove the price down? Was the market flooded with cheap Chinese and Korean imports, is that it?

Anyone know how much Ty had to pay to cover up that "positive" he got hauled into Aigle about? Millions, was it? Funny he forgot to mention that in his book, even as the truth was setting him free...

Claims of "overwhelming proof" need to be backed up with ... well, any proof would be a good starting point.
 
Jul 28, 2019
61
8
195
There are Armstrong fanboys around here, who cant go all-in with their fanboyism openly anymore after all that has been revealed but they are trying to defend what is left. You can see it from their reactions on here how they still passionately love but won't admit to it (just saw it in the other LA thread few days ago). Then there are haters who are trying to take exactly also that away. You can argue how much you want but you will never know how good of a responder LA was. This discussion will always go in circles.
 
Should we allow for machine calibration errors? (joke)

FYI, this PDF has the test results in more detail, for those to whom the additional numbers are meaningful.


Does being at altitude - Colorado Springs - add much here?

I find it hard to believe that those two 1991 scores could have been EPO or blood bags.

Personally, I've always understood that LA was doped from the early 90s, his triathlon-to-cycling transition period. The Strock story suggests Carmichael had a rudimentary doping programme (how much of it was hand-me-down knowledge he'd picked up as a pro and how much of it was him being "the greatest coach in the whole history of coaching" is for others to decide) while Wenzel was little better than the old school witch doctors Dumas dismissed decades earlier. If the sort of junk in Carmichael's flight case could push up your haematocrit then that feels like a plausible explanation.

I can't really believe he only started on testosterone in 1995 when during his time with Motorola Swart has suggested cortisone was freely available. Cortisone, testosterone, this was basic doping in the early 90s, had been been commonplace in the sport for a long time by then.
Lance was prepping for the TTT in Barcelona games which included the Panam Games runup. He was firmly working with Eddie B and under Weisel's added "support". The combination of roids and transfusions were available.

Motorola had the full kit for the Atlanta preparation as well. How well they were applied is between Lance and those providing the stuff. When Big Mig caught him in the Tour TT that could have been the wake up call to move to another coach.
 
There are Armstrong fanboys around here, who cant go all-in with their fanboyism openly anymore after all that has been revealed but they are trying to defend what is left.
You have to love the certainty of those who live in a black and white world. If you're not a hater you're a fanboy. If only they'd take their blinkers off they might be able to read and even understand what's really being defended.
 
Ok, I'll bite: let's see the evidence for the millions paid to hide all the positives. I know it's an essential part of the cathecism for some, but the actual proof for the millions is ... what? The $25,000 (2002) and $100,000 (2005) we know the UCI received? That's ... doing the math here ... I make it ... substantially short of "millions".

It's odd how the USADA reasoned decision didn't mention these millions paid to hide all the positives, isn't it? Nor does the CIRC report mention them, for that matter.

Are we going with the story told by the mechanic of the bazillions paid personally to Hein Verbruggen to cover up the 1999 positive with a backdated medical note? Can anyone explain to me how a relatively easy positive to cover up cost bazillions, but the Tour de Suisse tests only cost $25k and the Dauphiné ones $100k? Was there a great depression in doping cover-up costs that drove the price down? Was the market flooded with cheap Chinese and Korean imports, is that it?

Anyone know how much Ty had to pay to cover up that "positive" he got hauled into Aigle about? Millions, was it? Funny he forgot to mention that in his book, even as the truth was setting him free...

Claims of "overwhelming proof" need to be backed up with ... well, any proof would be a good starting point.
Have any proof he didnt pay millions to hide any positives?
 
You have to love the certainty of those who live in a black and white world. If you're not a hater you're a fanboy. If only they'd take their blinkers off they might be able to read and even understand what's really being defended.
Which is what exactly? That people here are okay with him being a doper, after a decade of denial?

Or something else you're "defending"?
 
Do you have anything stating he didn't dope, besides what your dog told you?
How do you get "he didn't dope" from anything anyone's posted here?

It's really not that hard or earth-shaking: the Andreus, Hamilton, etc reported what they heard and saw. The bribes? None of the witnesses saw them. Their source was Armstrong himself, and if he misremembered or misrepresented the facts, well, you can't blame the folks who gave testimony, but you can't take their testimony as gospel either when we have other data that contradicts their statements.

The TdS test was not an actual positive as per the rules. We KNOW this. And we know how much he "donated". Armstrong either believed it was (the likely scenario IMO), or he decided to misrepresent the whole thing for some cred.

"Have any proof that he didn't do this or that" is an an absurd question to pose. You can't prove a negative. It's equally absurd to say there's "overwhelming proof" of something for which there is no proof. Cop to it instead of throwing random jabs at other folks.
 
How do you get "he didn't dope" from anything anyone's posted here?

It's really not that hard or earth-shaking: the Andreus, Hamilton, etc reported what they heard and saw. The bribes? None of the witnesses saw them. Their source was Armstrong himself, and if he misremembered or misrepresented the facts, well, you can't blame the folks who gave testimony, but you can't take their testimony as gospel either when we have other data that contradicts their statements.

The TdS test was not an actual positive as per the rules. We KNOW this. And we know how much he "donated". Armstrong either believed it was (the likely scenario IMO), or he decided to misrepresent the whole thing for some cred.

"Have any proof that he didn't do this or that" is an an absurd question to pose. You can't prove a negative. It's equally absurd to say there's "overwhelming proof" of something for which there is no proof. Cop to it instead of throwing random jabs at other folks.
That was my point. FMK asked where i got the "overwhelming proof" i mentioned earlier and you pretty much answered it. How would anyone think he didnt dope with all the evidence out there?
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Aug 29, 2016
254
11
3,060
Your original statement was that "there was overwhelming proof that Cancer Jesus doped @ extremely high levels, and that he paid millions to hide all the positives". Acknowledging that Armstrong doped doesn't address at all the "extremely high levels" or "paid millions" claims of which the first one is debatable (there was nothing unusual in his known arsenal vs. the other junkies of his era) and there appears to exist zero proof for these bribes of millions to the UCI.

To acknowledge that semi-clean Armstrong of 1994-95 had to take the full doping program in order to compete against the other dopers also doesn't address at all the question how he would've performed in a clean peloton.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Your original statement was that "there was overwhelming proof that Cancer Jesus doped @ extremely high levels, and that he paid millions to hide all the positives". Acknowledging that Armstrong doped doesn't address at all the "extremely high levels" or "paid millions" claims of which the first one is debatable (there was nothing unusual in his known arsenal vs. the other junkies of his era) and there appears to exist zero proof for these bribes of millions to the UCI.

To acknowledge that semi-clean Armstrong of 1994-95 had to take the full doping program in order to compete against the other dopers also doesn't address at all the question how he would've performed in a clean peloton.
Are you saying 100% you dont believe that he paid millions to hide any positives he had, or there was no overwhelming evidence that he didn't dope at extremely high levels? Or that he ran "the most sophisticated doping program in all of american sports? Do tell

Seems Wonderboy still has loyal fans?
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Are you saying 100% you dont believe that he paid millions to hide any positives he had, or there was no overwhelming evidence that he didn't dope at extremely high levels? Or that he ran "the most sophisticated doping program in all of american sports? Do tell

Seems Wonderboy still has loyal fans?
Seems kind of odd he was more than willing to pay ANYONE "$300k to say they saw LeMond dope"(which no one came forward to accept by the way), and he wouldn't pay millions to hide his lies for over a decade? Lol. Believe what you want, like him if you choose, makes no difference to me. I'll continue coming here & posting the hilarious, narccissistic info from anything that guy does.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Aug 29, 2016
254
11
3,060
I am not 100 % certain about anything Armstrong-related and I have serious issues about whether he has told the whole truth about his PED-program. But to answer your three questions:

  1. As far as I know there is no evidence of him paing "millions to hide any positives" if you don't count him paying millions to the notorious doping-expert/prominent coach Michele Ferrari for assistance in his PED/training-program.
  2. It is everyone to judge for themselves at how "extremely high levels" Armstrong was in his PED use, but there is no method or product used only by Armstrong known even after the affidavits and other material relating to his case.
  3. (see above). The USPS/Discovery program was apparently sophisticated because it was risk averse as none of his former teammates left the team in a body bag nor were the practically any doping positives inside his team.
It is interesting about that $300.000 offer that nobody of these abundant "anyone" Armstrong was willing to pay the money has come forward to back up the EPO-claim by LeMond.

To summarise my position and interest in the case: I "like" Armstrong in the same manner as someone "likes" the commandants of the Majdanek extermination camp if he/she points out to someone that the initial and widely circulated body toll of 1.38 million is wrong and too high and the current estimate is around 78.000 death people.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Here's your messiah talking about how Jim Ochowicz "paid million(s)to have them lose all three races in favor of Wonderboy".



So it stands to reason that Wonderboy MOST CERTAINLY paid millions to hide his"OVERWHELMING doping use".


I've also spoken to Betsy and Frankie Andreu about this topic & both laughed & said" definitely". He had $200 million + reasons to gain from doing so.

How sad that regardless of what past/former teammates, the reasoned decision & reporters have all said & provided some sort of credible proof stating much of what i said above is 100% true, there are still folks who disbelieve & ball wash him.

Believe what you think, makes no difference to me.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Aug 29, 2016
254
11
3,060
You should write a book based on your deep knowledge, because authors Juliet Macur, David Walsh, Reed Albergotti, Vanessa O"Connell or the CIRC staff didn't find these "millions paid" or at least didn't report them anywhere (if Hein Verbruggen had some questionable financial connections via asset management etc to Armstrong is another matter).
Here's your messiah talking about how Jim Ochowicz "paid million(s)to have them lose all three races in favor of Wonderboy".
Do a favour for your trustworthiness and read the links before using flawed paraphrased quotations. The article is only about one trio of races of which the bonus was one million, but you imply that Ochowicz paid "million(s)" to win one million which (as usual) Armstrong pocketed instantly and got the discounted present value of something like $600.000 over the stream of future payments.

There is only a certain amount one can make up quotations, use ad hominems or be 100 % certain about things backed up with next to no evidence.
Believe what you think, makes no difference to me.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI

ASK THE COMMUNITY