To be sure, a PLURALITY of EPO positives belonged to Armstrong in 1999.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority
- Status
- Nov 20, 2010
- 786
- 0
- 0
Do you have anything intelligent and of substance to contribute? I thought not. Will someone please take her out to play for a while?Polish said:
- May 27, 2010
- 6,333
- 3
- 17,485
dbrower said:
Don't like arguing with RR, but JRT, sniper and db are right.
Once upon a time, Lance actually increased my vocabulary with the word recidivist. This was in 'his' letter to the IOC about **** Pound.
Ever since then, however, the picture that comes to my mind about recidivist is Lance himself. Maybe we can add this to the Urban Dictionary.
Given the multiple EPO positives, in multiple events, perhaps we can also agree on the application of recidivist for Lance as well.
Lance: A recidivist doper that was the most frequently tested positive, and only rider in the 1999 Tour with pluralistic positives. Lance's separate positives for EPO almost equalled the positive samples for all other cyclists combined. Looking beyond the sport of cycling, Lance, in fact, may hold the record for all athletes of all time for positive EPO tests.
Catering to the Polish in the crowd, we can freely admit that Lance is by far and away the leader by any measure in this category of positive EPO tests. We have a winner!
Dave.
Polish
BANNED
- Mar 11, 2009
- 3,853
- 1
- 0
Race Radio said:
Were any riders on USPostal besides Lance using EPO at the 1999 Tour?
Probably.
Were any riders besides Beltran/Banesto, Hamburger/Cantina Tolla, Castelblanco/Kelme, and 4 other guys using EPO during the 1999 Tour?
Of course.
Probably a hundred or more lol.
Not Bassons though.
Too bad they were not tested.
Does not matter though.
1999 victory came down to being able to read tide tables.
Start list 1999 Tdf:
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/tour99/tour99teams.html
- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 884
- 19,680
Now that we have concluded that, no, 6/13 is not a majority (to my disappointment; I was beginning to hope that my candidate of choice could be elected Pres with 246 electoral votes), let’s turn to RR’s more substantive claims:
From the Vrijman report (yes, I know it’s something of a whitewash, but this is not a conclusion but a citation of other sources):
Was there ever a final resolution of these numbers? It also says in the report that 40 of the 102 samples were not found, implying that maybe only 62 were tested. Maybe this is what RR is referring to when he says 40/70??
I think it matters, because while in any case there were a greater proportion of positives in 1998, given the widespread use of EPO then, one might have expected more than 30-40% positives. Even 40/62, which seems to be the maximum estimate, might seem low if every team was organizing doping for all its members. The discrepancy could be explained if some riders who were positive didn’t test positive, because of factors such as degradation of EPO over time during storage and ambiguity in determining the band pattern (e.g., a rider with a large amount of natural EPO excreted in urine would have to have a larger amount of synthetic to trigger a positive).
What I’m getting at here is that it’s quite plausible that the proportion of positives in both 1998 and 1999 was underestimated. So even though there were more positives in 1998—I will concede this to RR—there might have been more than 13 in 1999. In fact, I believe in both years not all the samples given were tested, so the estimated numbers would have to be corrected for this factor as well.
Also, the point made earlier about LA being tested more is relevant. He won the Prologue and held the MJ for all but five stages overall. In fact, he gave samples after seventeen different stages, which is quite unusual. The only other wearer of the yellow I believe was not a GC contender, and most of the other stage winners were not, either. In contrast, six different riders wore the yellow in 1998. It may have been that the usual suspects got tested more then. Not saying this explains all the difference, but it could be a contributing factor. Specifically, about a third of LA's samples were positive, a proportion that may reflect inability to detect more positives as well as his not using EPO on certain stages. In either case, one would not expect other riders to return more than one positive sample if they were not tested more than a couple of times, and I believe that was generally the case.
As for what stages the samples corresponded to, my understanding, from DR’s CN interview in Sept. 2005, is that several of the positives of the other riders came from stages after the Prologue. Does anyone have any further information on this?
I will say that in checking back on some of the data, I am more impressed than before that these EPO tests provide support for the theory that LA was protected. But I’ve followed bike racing too long to believe that all or even most riders in the peloton would be afraid to dope in 1999, especially when a test still did not exist. Those of us watching these guys have repeatedly underestimated the risks they’re willing to take.
From the Vrijman report (yes, I know it’s something of a whitewash, but this is not a conclusion but a citation of other sources):
Was there ever a final resolution of these numbers? It also says in the report that 40 of the 102 samples were not found, implying that maybe only 62 were tested. Maybe this is what RR is referring to when he says 40/70??
I think it matters, because while in any case there were a greater proportion of positives in 1998, given the widespread use of EPO then, one might have expected more than 30-40% positives. Even 40/62, which seems to be the maximum estimate, might seem low if every team was organizing doping for all its members. The discrepancy could be explained if some riders who were positive didn’t test positive, because of factors such as degradation of EPO over time during storage and ambiguity in determining the band pattern (e.g., a rider with a large amount of natural EPO excreted in urine would have to have a larger amount of synthetic to trigger a positive).
What I’m getting at here is that it’s quite plausible that the proportion of positives in both 1998 and 1999 was underestimated. So even though there were more positives in 1998—I will concede this to RR—there might have been more than 13 in 1999. In fact, I believe in both years not all the samples given were tested, so the estimated numbers would have to be corrected for this factor as well.
Also, the point made earlier about LA being tested more is relevant. He won the Prologue and held the MJ for all but five stages overall. In fact, he gave samples after seventeen different stages, which is quite unusual. The only other wearer of the yellow I believe was not a GC contender, and most of the other stage winners were not, either. In contrast, six different riders wore the yellow in 1998. It may have been that the usual suspects got tested more then. Not saying this explains all the difference, but it could be a contributing factor. Specifically, about a third of LA's samples were positive, a proportion that may reflect inability to detect more positives as well as his not using EPO on certain stages. In either case, one would not expect other riders to return more than one positive sample if they were not tested more than a couple of times, and I believe that was generally the case.
As for what stages the samples corresponded to, my understanding, from DR’s CN interview in Sept. 2005, is that several of the positives of the other riders came from stages after the Prologue. Does anyone have any further information on this?
I will say that in checking back on some of the data, I am more impressed than before that these EPO tests provide support for the theory that LA was protected. But I’ve followed bike racing too long to believe that all or even most riders in the peloton would be afraid to dope in 1999, especially when a test still did not exist. Those of us watching these guys have repeatedly underestimated the risks they’re willing to take.
Polish said:
By probably you mean it is from the circumstantial facts likely to be the case in 1999 that other USPS riders to LA were using EPO.
CyclingNews reports in 2005from two participants' accounts (soigneur and J Vaughters) that prior to that 1999 Tour start Bruyneel expressed concerns at a team meeting that the team were all close to the 50% "health" threshold.
What products other than EPO with centrifuge monitoring can tweak a Hct to that close a margin? None.
If you rely on non pharmaceutical altitude training and altitude tents please make reference to the published evidence that those methods can significantly increase RBC counts, if at all.
PS: With avatars that had either a condom on the head or the chapeau of the Grand Wizard I presumed you were male. Being a female brings another dimension of understanding your adoration of your deity.
Polish
BANNED
- Mar 11, 2009
- 3,853
- 1
- 0
Velodude said:
It seems Lance was in the minority even within his own team.
1 out of 3? 1 out of 4?
Definitely in the minority compared to the hundred odd dopers in the Tour that year.
And my avatar?
It is my homage to France.
In July, we are ALL Frenchman lol.
- Aug 9, 2010
- 6,255
- 2
- 17,485
- May 18, 2009
- 3,757
- 0
- 0
Race Radio said:
Ah yes Rumsas, the clown that got caught with his wife transporting a trunk full of PEDs right after the tour. The clown that came out of nowhere and never tested positive in that tour until the Giro the very next year, yes the Giro that had canned 2 past champions during this time, Italians, for doping as opposed to the tour. I am sure the cycling honchos wanted this guy in the tour after the trunk debacle.
Joe Six Pack: "Hey, LA won another tour but he just kicked the azz of that guy with the trunk full of drugs". lol
Please post an interview from inside players from other teams who state their captains, and the team leadership in general, were running around all terrified they would get caught. Until then, the arm chair psycho analysis of what TH and FL say and extrapolation of LA demeanor to exclude how others in the peloton acted at that time is pretty boring to pick apart, RR. So LA was casual about the positive? So what? Does that mean nobody else had a positive covered up and when they did they were ****ing all over themselves? Everybody claims they are "tranquillo", maybe that is the truth lol.
Finally, once more, I do not have any proof of anybody giving anything to the UCI other than LA. I admit that, but that is not the point, which you are sorely missing.
You also refuse to answer the simple question I have posed to you numerous times: why didn't anybody of significance test positive ini the tour during those years, when there was a shytstorm both before and after those years? Take your time (I know I don't need to remind you of that since this question surely causes you problems with your LA dictator angle).
Actually there is a flaw in my reasoning that maybe somebody can figure out. I will not out myself, though it does make me back of a bit when I think about it. Doc?
As for the 99 samples you keep referring to, I see upthread you have no idea if any of his chief rivals were retro tested and what their results were, which is my point. I could give a rats azz if some pack fodder tested positive or negative in those samples. I am also glad that 6 is not the majority of 13. At least we have cleared that up.
Let's just agree to disagree until next time you trot out the unlevel playing field issue again. I will again point out my facts about no positives during those years and the logical incentive for that, and you will kick and scream that LA is the biggest monster in all of history and the other cyclists were all just victims of his wrath. Wash, rinse, repeat lol.
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
Again - you are the one missing the point.ChrisE said:Ah yes Rumsas, the clown that got caught with his wife transporting a trunk full of PEDs right after the tour. The clown that came out of nowhere and never tested positive in that tour until the Giro the very next year, yes the Giro that had canned 2 past champions during this time, Italians, for doping as opposed to the tour. I am sure the cycling honchos wanted this guy in the tour after the trunk debacle.
Joe Six Pack: "Hey, LA won another tour but he just kicked the azz of that guy with the trunk full of drugs". lol
Please post an interview from inside players from other teams who state their captains, and the team leadership in general, were running around all terrified they would get caught. Until then, the arm chair psycho analysis of what TH and FL say and extrapolation of LA demeanor to exclude how others in the peloton acted at that time is pretty boring to pick apart, RR. So LA was casual about the positive? So what? Does that mean nobody else had a positive covered up and when they did they were ****ing all over themselves? Everybody claims they are "tranquillo", maybe that is the truth lol.
Finally, once more, I do not have any proof of anybody giving anything to the UCI other than LA. I admit that, but that is not the point, which you are sorely missing.
You also refuse to answer the simple question I have posed to you numerous times: why didn't anybody of significance test positive ini the tour during those years, when there was a shytstorm both before and after those years? Take your time (I know I don't need to remind you of that since this question surely causes you problems with your LA dictator angle).
Actually there is a flaw in my reasoning that maybe somebody can figure out. I will not out myself, though it does make me back of a bit when I think about it. Doc?
As for the 99 samples you keep referring to, I see upthread you have no idea if any of his chief rivals were retro tested and what their results were, which is my point. I could give a rats azz if some pack fodder tested positive or negative in those samples. I am also glad that 6 is not the majority of 13. At least we have cleared that up.
Let's just agree to disagree until next time you trot out the unlevel playing field issue again. I will again point out my facts about no positives during those years and the logical incentive for that, and you will kick and scream that LA is the biggest monster in all of history and the other cyclists were all just victims of his wrath. Wash, rinse, repeat lol.
Ullrich, Pantani, Heras, Hamilton, Mayo, Landis etc all had to fall on their swords when they eventually got caught - yet Armstrong was allowed skate.
Polish
BANNED
- Mar 11, 2009
- 3,853
- 1
- 0
thirteen said:
An Insult?
I beg your pardon?
(said with attitude while rocking my head from left to right)
Anyway, I posted a picture of my bike a while back on the "Your Bike" thread.
Revenge of the Amazon Women grrrr.
ChrisE said:
+1.
What kind of shampoo do you use?
I prefer Herbal Essences Color Me Happy 2-in-1 Shampoo and Conditioner for Color-Treated Hair
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/209221-the-best-womens-shampoo-brands/#ixzz1RStqvJmp
.
.
.
- May 18, 2009
- 3,757
- 0
- 0
Dr. Maserati said:
Are you purposely being dense?
How many of those were caught in the tour during the LA years? Zero. Only 1 away from the tour, and that was TH at the Olympics which is explained away. JU was caught with something that was insignificant on the PR front.
Polish - I don't use shampoo. You figure out why lol.
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
ChrisE said:
You keep banging on about the Tour - what has that got to do with Armstrong getting preferential treatment from the UCI?
Polish
BANNED
- Mar 11, 2009
- 3,853
- 1
- 0
ChrisE said:
And Tyler could very well have been busted by the Sysmex machine Lance paid for.
Uncomfortable situation at Cache Cache.
Awkward.
- May 18, 2009
- 3,757
- 0
- 0
Dr. Maserati said:
FYI I amended the post you quoted but it was too late. BTW, how come it shows you offline but I know you are online????
Anyway, once again I bang on the tour because it was the cash cow, the American market, the money from LA could be to protect him and not make him look bad, ie the people he is beating are failing tests. The only GT LA rode. Dropping JU for example on a mt. stage and then him testing positive would look bad for LA's clean image to the general public, don't you agree?
With this theory it doesn't matter if anybody else gave money to the UCI. There was incentive for the public image of the tour and monetarily for it and the UCI, and probably members under the table and whether that was only LA is irrelevant, though he may have been the bank. If LA was the only one protected and all of his competitors went AAF you think those things would continue to happen? If Pantani, JU, Beloki, Moreau went positive in 2000 and 2001 you think LA's squeaky clean public image after beating those dopers would take a hit? Of course it would.
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
ChrisE said:
Where your (interesting, but made-up) theory that everyone got protection at the Tour falls apart is that Armstrongs 2001 positive was at the Tour of Switzerland.
To the highlighted - the American market theory didn't help Floyd.
ChrisE said:Ah yes Rumsas, the clown that got caught with his wife transporting a trunk full of PEDs right after the tour. The clown that came out of nowhere and never tested positive in that tour until the Giro the very next year, yes the Giro that had canned 2 past champions during this time, Italians, for doping as opposed to the tour. I am sure the cycling honchos wanted this guy in the tour after the trunk debacle.
Joe Six Pack: "Hey, LA won another tour but he just kicked the azz of that guy with the trunk full of drugs". lol
Please post an interview from inside players from other teams who state their captains, and the team leadership in general, were running around all terrified they would get caught. Until then, the arm chair psycho analysis of what TH and FL say and extrapolation of LA demeanor to exclude how others in the peloton acted at that time is pretty boring to pick apart, RR. So LA was casual about the positive? So what? Does that mean nobody else had a positive covered up and when they did they were ****ing all over themselves? Everybody claims they are "tranquillo", maybe that is the truth lol.
Finally, once more, I do not have any proof of anybody giving anything to the UCI other than LA. I admit that, but that is not the point, which you are sorely missing.
You also refuse to answer the simple question I have posed to you numerous times: why didn't anybody of significance test positive ini the tour during those years, when there was a shytstorm both before and after those years? Take your time (I know I don't need to remind you of that since this question surely causes you problems with your LA dictator angle).
Actually there is a flaw in my reasoning that maybe somebody can figure out. I will not out myself, though it does make me back of a bit when I think about it. Doc?
As for the 99 samples you keep referring to, I see upthread you have no idea if any of his chief rivals were retro tested and what their results were, which is my point. I could give a rats azz if some pack fodder tested positive or negative in those samples. I am also glad that 6 is not the majority of 13. At least we have cleared that up.
Let's just agree to disagree until next time you trot out the unlevel playing field issue again. I will again point out my facts about no positives during those years and the logical incentive for that, and you will kick and scream that LA is the biggest monster in all of history and the other cyclists were all just victims of his wrath. Wash, rinse, repeat lol.
Aren't you ignoring the well established scientific fact that Armstrong was a better responder?
Whew! That was quite an ordeal (reading half a dozen pages of posts of questionable worth).
I'm starting to wonder if the Doc, Chris, and Polish are having some sort of contest...
If there is indeed a competition involving this pointlessly circumulating thread, I have to say (with a bit of chagrin) that Polish is clearly winning.
His/her posts over this day have made me laugh the most.
To the others? Yawn. Done and done. Everybody knows this sh*t. Give it up Chris; keep fighting the fight Mas (although your endurance is unparalleled).
Right on! Good humour...
I'm starting to wonder if the Doc, Chris, and Polish are having some sort of contest...
If there is indeed a competition involving this pointlessly circumulating thread, I have to say (with a bit of chagrin) that Polish is clearly winning.
His/her posts over this day have made me laugh the most.
To the others? Yawn. Done and done. Everybody knows this sh*t. Give it up Chris; keep fighting the fight Mas (although your endurance is unparalleled).
Right on! Good humour...
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
thehog said:
I think you are confusing LeBlanc with Laurent Brochard who won the Worlds in 97. His positive was hidden but there was never any mention that it was paid for.
- Status
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
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram