Official Lance Armstrong thread

[Mellow Velo]

there is some fireworks finally!!! woot!!

Yeah......underwater fireworks.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I agree with most of what you say, but you are clearly wasting your time trying to fence with TFF, Brodeal, MeloVelo, etc. They still believe the Earth is flat.

Haven't you got that ass backwards?

Over time, we have changed our opinion on "this subject", based upon developments and a ton of anecdotal evidence.
You still believe what you have always believed, I would assume.

That would make us the enlightened revisionists and you, the "flat" heads.

 

[Bronstein]

I believe the question of whether or not Armstrong is a doper has been conflated by the numerous issues regarding his personality and profile within the sport. To those who believe he is clean, I would like to pose the following question to you. If the same circumstantial evidence that exists against Armstrong actually existed against rider X (i.e. whoever), would you believe rider X is a doper?

I think it is important to consider this question specifically within the context of professional cycling i.e. the of history and culture of doping. I believe that an objective person with some knowledge of professional cycling would almost invariably conclude that it is very likely that rider X is a doper.

Year after year the suspicions of people following the sport have been in confirmed in relation to the 'unbelievable' performances of riders e.g. Ricco and Sella last year. I think it is interesting to compare the relative lack of circumstantial evidence that existed prior to such riders testing positive with the evidence that exists against Armstrong. To those who cannot accept that circumstantial evidence exists against Armstrong or that only a positive test constitutes evidence, I can only say that you do understand the definition of evidence.

 

[luckyboy]

twitter - lancearmstrong& big surprise, had antidoping control @ the finish. Keep looking, nothing to find xcept hard work & sacrifice. Never was, never will be.

 

[nobody]

The EPO results from 1999 may or may not be factual, they were never confirmed by another lab. And any objective person would have to have some doubt about the credibility and integrity of the Chateau Malabry lab.

Why would an objective person doubt about the credibility and integrity of a well-known lab world leader of EPO testing? Maybe athletes who have been found positive and their fans?

 

[williej]

Exactly

That's exactly what they should do. Just keep testing him. Right at the finish. Everywhere. That's how they catch the guys that cheat. It's good to see them testing him non-stop like this. That way, no matter what people post or think, the fact is, there can't be any questions about whether he cheated or not. I'm glad they tested him so regularly in the past as well, so that he can walk away from the Tour knowing he won them all cleanly.

 

[nobody]

There is no case. Like the rest of them, he is a hater. They claim they don't like dopers, yet here they are following a thread about someone they call a doper. They can't help themselves, this level of hatred is a sign of brain damage. Possibly being dropped in a sink and landing on their head while their mum was bathing them many years ago. This tragic accident some how turned them into forum Nazis. Though sad and pathetic, they have to patrol this forum 24/7 to attack any and all posters that don't conform to their way of thinking. Fish in a barrel, you don't even need to connect the dots to get their number.

Typicall behaviour of haters of so called haters of frauds! ;D

 

[mambo#5]

something to cheer up the LA haters with.

 

[Zen Master]

Probably not as many as you Zen Master, I recently completed a 1500 mile ten day ride and I have been an avid cycling fan for almost 60 years and know something about the sport. But that is beside the real point. I enjoy reading what others have to say but don't see why some posters just hijack the forum and attack anyone who differs in opinion. Some of the FACTS that they quote are dubious at best.

Some famous guy once said in referring to scientific facts "There are no facts, and thats a fact!" which is especially true when considering what are purported to be facts about LA. The EPO results from 1999 may or may not be factual, they were never confirmed by another lab. And any objective person would have to have some doubt about the credibility and integrity of the Chateau Malabry lab.

I'm so sorry, but you completely misunderstood my question !? Great if you are familiar with cycling and ride frequently ride your bicycle. Forget about French lab and that famous EPO test from 1999. Point of my question was that this is not possible without serious doping

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXPXHK7I1iQ

or this

Tour de France 1999
Stage 8, Metz - Metz ITT, 56 kms:
AVS: 49.417 km/h

1. Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal 1.08.36

Averege speed for the 56kms long ITT was almost 50 km/h
And these miraculous things can do Lance Armstrong with VO2 max only about ( 77-81 ) and crit 41% ?!! Very interesting Indeed......

 

[BroDeal]

twitter - lancearmstrong& big surprise, had antidoping control @ the finish. Keep looking, nothing to find xcept hard work & sacrifice. Never was, never will be.

Well, that and six samples with artificial EPO in them.

 

[Anonymous]

something to cheer up the LA haters with.

I wish that guy would have gotten pinged with the BB gun instead of Oscar or Julian. Put one right in his ass I would.

 

[goober]

Why would an objective person doubt about the credibility and integrity of a well-known lab world leader of EPO testing? Maybe athletes who have been found positive and their fans?

I am very objective and from what I have read the credibility and integrity of that lab is in question. They cannot follow procedural rules as show in the highly contested cases (scratched out, unreadable numbers), leaking information to the media, inconsistent results on A/B samples. Sounds like an integrity issue to me.

 

[vrusimov]

I'm so sorry, but you completely misunderstood my question !? Great if you are familiar with cycling and ride frequently ride your bicycle. Forget about French lab and that famous EPO test from 1999. Point of my question was that this is not possible without serious doping

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXPXHK7I1iQ

or this

Tour de France 1999
Stage 8, Metz - Metz ITT, 56 kms:
AVS: 49.417 km/h

1. Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal 1.08.36

Averege speed for the 56kms long ITT was almost 50 km/h
And these miraculous things can do Lance Armstrong with VO2 max only about ( 77-81 ) and crit 41% ?!! Very interesting Indeed......

...well Levi Leipheimer did much better than this in the 2007 Tour over 55.5km, averaging 53.1 km/h and stopping the clock in 1:02.44...hmmmm...

http://velonews.com/article/12991

 

[williej]

agree 100%

Of course they are suspect. That's why he's the 7 time Champ. If he was caught, they'd take them away. They have with other riders. If he failed a test, they'd suspend him. They do with other riders. He's just really good at bike racing. Some guys are just better than everyone else at what they do. I don't think it would matter how much doping you did, you wouldn't stop Michael Jordan from hitting that magic jumper at just the right moment. The guys that dope get caught. They keep testing Lance, he keeps taking home Yellow Jerseys. Most amazing athletes don't have supernatural powers, guys like Jordan, Woods, Armstrong, they just practice longer, sacrifice more and want it more. They don't always win, but they sure are good at what they do. I think it's called "heart". The special athletes all have. Ali had it. Lance has it.

 

[objective skeptic]

Why would I hate that I believe (know) he is a doper? I'm actually quite content with having that knowledge.

Fair enough. I may have misread a couple of your comments that weren't necessarily directed at me, just as my original question about hating Lance "the liar" or Lance "the winner" weren't necessarily directed at you.

Ehhh, I like to argue and I think the dynamics of this particular case are just fascinating. But I'm going to try and respect that most people don't necessarily "hate" Lance but are just extremely tired of the topic. So I'll try to move on.

 

[Mellow Velo]

...well Levi Leipheimer did much better than this in the 2007 Tour over 55.5km, averaging 53.1 km/h and stopping the clock in 1:02.44...hmmmm...

http://velonews.com/article/12991

Yeah and check out how great he rode in the two ITT's the previous year.
+ 6 minutes, adrift, or 5kms, if you prefer, in each.
Yet, people still wonder why there are so many sceptics......

 

[wiggintona]

I'm so sorry, but you completely misunderstood my question !? Great if you are familiar with cycling and ride frequently ride your bicycle. Forget about French lab and that famous EPO test from 1999. Point of my question was that this is not possible without serious doping

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXPXHK7I1iQ

or this

Tour de France 1999
Stage 8, Metz - Metz ITT, 56 kms:
AVS: 49.417 km/h

1. Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal 1.08.36

Averege speed for the 56kms long ITT was almost 50 km/h
And these miraculous things can do Lance Armstrong with VO2 max only about ( 77-81 ) and crit 41% ?!! Very interesting Indeed......

Ok is it your opinion that anyone riding at 49.4kph in a ITT is doping, then the British Record Holder at 50 miles(80 km) in 1:35 must have been doping too because that average is 51.13 kph for a longer distance.

The video link just showed what a great performance LA gave by crushing Pantani and then giving him the win!!

next!

 

[Padeiro]

I guess Indurain must've been doping too since he regularly averaged over 50km/h

Averege speed for the 56kms long ITT was almost 50 km/h
And these miraculous things can do Lance Armstrong with VO2 max only about ( 77-81 ) and crit 41% ?!! Very interesting Indeed......

 

[Digger]

I guess Indurain must've been doping too since he regularly averaged over 50km/h

Considering Indurain was a client of Conconi, yes I think it's fair to say he was was doping.

 

[dadoorsron]

1- EPO: There was no test for it until 2001. Before that everybody got a free ride. The test has been improved over the years. The only way to control the EPO usage was to control the limit on hematocrit count (50%). That limit was imposed in 1997. Even with that limit the riders were probably above these levels just before the stage just because the testers rarely if never came before the race to do a doping test. After the stages the hematocrit count is not usable because of the dehydration effect on the blood of the athlete. So there is no way to prove that he was doped before the stage. Remember taverage for normal males is around 41-43%. Not 50% unless you are genetically made like that. In that case the UCI will give you an exemption.

2- Autologous Blood Doping: There is really no test for it. Same benefits as the EPO. That was the reason why the created the Bio Passport. But expert think that the parameters are too laxed. UCI is afraid that it won't stand in court. Again we don't know of any rider caught or sanctioned for that. Unless you are caught with the needle in your arm, there will be a free ride. Remember that Bio Passport was just created a year and a half ago and still is under scrutiny of the scientists and lawyers.

3- HGH: Test don't work for micro dosing. Free ride.

4- Testosterone: Just recently started testing for synthetic testosterone. They used to only check for the limits. So as long as you were within the limits riders could use all they want. New limits are 4:1 testosterone to epitestosterone ratio. Old limit used to be 6:1 which is considered by experts to be very high. Here is a link to a person asking about it in other Forum. http://www.fencing.net/forums/thread25194.html

There is too much money involved and there always will be drugs that are not being tested for. In the case of Lance Armstrong in 1999 there was no test for EPO. So it is logical to think that most of the peloton was doped on it. In fact, if I am not mistaken, all the other samples from the other riders from that 1999 Tour that were tested had EPO also. Remember rampant use of EPO started in 1991 and just until 2001 there was a test for it. 10 years later. This would give you an idea of how far ahead are the doping practices over the testing. So to say that a rider have not doped based on the tests solely is not realistic.

I know there is alternatives to EPO, One that I know of that Lance Armstrong admits to using is oxygen tents. Chris Carmicheal, Lance armstrong coach said lance in preperation to this Tour trained at altitude instead of sleeping in a oxygen tent. I also recall Lance mentioning that he had to watch how long he spent in the oxygen tent because he would test positive for EPO. Now I can't find that statement. It was on his old website thepaceline.com. Now IN 2006 Pound had Wada look at banning oxygen tents and treat them like PEDs. So if WADA was looking to ban it there has to be some truth to the levels athletes can get their hematocrit levels. Now the question is should they make oxygen tents illegal? If you can get your levels that high by just sleeping in a tent why would you use EPO or do Blood transfusions.

Also, to my knowledge there is No research that micro dosing HGH could be effective for athletes. It takes about a week for regular doses of HGH be noticable to the athlete.

 

[BroDeal]

I know there is alternatives to EPO, One that I know of that Lance Armstrong admits to using is oxygen tents. Chris Carmicheal, Lance armstrong coach said lance in preperation to this Tour trained at altitude instead of sleeping in a oxygen tent. I also recall Lance mentioning that he had to watch how long he spent in the oxygen tent because he would test positive for EPO. Now I can't find that statement. It was on his old website thepaceline.com. Now IN 2006 Pound had Wada look at banning oxygen tents and treat them like PEDs. So if WADA was looking to ban it there has to be some truth to the levels athletes can get their hematocrit levels. Now the question is should they make oxygen tents illegal? If you can get your levels that high by just sleeping in a tent why would you use EPO or do Blood transfusions.

LOL. Propaganda. You gotta love it. With the bolded sentence you provided the answer about the effectiveness of altitude tents.

 

[elapid]

I know there is alternatives to EPO, One that I know of that Lance Armstrong admits to using is oxygen tents. Chris Carmicheal, Lance armstrong coach said lance in preperation to this Tour trained at altitude instead of sleeping in a oxygen tent. I also recall Lance mentioning that he had to watch how long he spent in the oxygen tent because he would test positive for EPO. Now I can't find that statement. It was on his old website thepaceline.com. Now IN 2006 Pound had Wada look at banning oxygen tents and treat them like PEDs. So if WADA was looking to ban it there has to be some truth to the levels athletes can get their hematocrit levels. Now the question is should they make oxygen tents illegal? If you can get your levels that high by just sleeping in a tent why would you use EPO or do Blood transfusions.

The direction of this thread is wandering away from the topic of Lance and is starting to belong in the Clinical section.

Firstly, I think altitude tents are illegal in Italy.

Secondly, you cannot get your hematocrit as high with altitude tents or training as you can with EPO or blood transfusions. Both altitude training and tents will increase hematocrit by a maximum of 3-4%, but EPO can increase hematocrit by 20-25%.

Studies of performance enhancement in hypobaric chambers, which result in much lower oxygen levels than altitude tents, show minimal to no improvements. With acute hypoxia, EPO is only increased during the period of hypoxia, not immediately afterwards or in the long term. With chronic hypoxic episodes (90 minutes at 5500 m, three times a week for 3 weeks), there was a significant increase in hematocrit from 42.5% to 45.0% which persisted for 2 weeks after the end of the hypoxic treatment. (See Rodriguez et al: Erythropoietin acute reaction and haematological adaptations to short, intermittent hypobaric hypoxia. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2000).

But there are other mechanisms, such as tolerance to lactate and improved anaerobic metabolism, which improve performance following altitude training. However, this is quite controversial in the scientific literature, with other researchers claiming no or little benefit to altitude training:

"While living at altitude but training near sea level may be optimal for enhancing the performance of competitive cyclists, much further research is required to confirm its benefit. If this benefit does exist, it probably varies between individuals and averages little more than 1%." (From Hahn & Gore: The effect of altitude on cycling performance: a challenge to traditional concepts. Sports Med, 2001)

And "In general, altitude training has been shown to improve performance at altitude, whereas no unequivocal evidence exists to support the claim that performance at sea level is improved." (From Bailey and Davies: Physiological implications of altitude training for endurance performance at sea level: a review. Br J Sports Med, 1997)

Moreover, there are dangers, as there is to doping, with training at altitude including "decreases in absolute training intensity, decreased plasma volume, depression of haemopoiesis and increased haemolysis, increases in sympathetically mediated glycogen depletion at altitude, and increased respiratory muscle work after return to sea level...The possible implications of changes in immune function at altitude have also been largely ignored, despite accumulating evidence of hypoxia mediated immunosuppression." (From Bailey and Davies: Physiological implications of altitude training for endurance performance at sea level: a review. Br J Sports Med, 1997)

 

[Boeing]

I must say that Lance still has mad game

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

How about opening a Lance Armstrong thread in the doping section, guys? Let's try to keep this one on non-doping topics.

Susan

 

[Zen Master]

Ok is it your opinion that anyone riding at 49.4kph in a ITT is doping, then the British Record Holder at 50 miles(80 km) in 1:35 must have been doping too because that average is 51.13 kph for a longer distance.

The video link just showed what a great performance LA gave by crushing Pantani and then giving him the win!!

next!

In front of him on that video is no one else than Marco Pantani best climber in the world ever, natural born climber doped to the roof. Only fanboys who are watching cycling just 3 weeks and ride 100 miles per year really believe that someone ( 5-10" height ; 75-79 kg weight ) with that VO2 max & crit values without any proof of some noticeable climbing skills earlier in his career can do this, but anyone who is serious about cycling know immediately who is fraud ( without any doping allegations and failed tests ). By the way it's measured that Lance produced on Mont Ventoux climb in Tdf 2000 about 550-630 watts !?? Maybe famous professor Dan Coyle can now create a new theory that Lance is not from planet earth or something like that
I'm trying to understand you guys because Lance Armstrong is an American, cancer martyr and have all corporative media power that you can imagine. But instead of real natural born champions like Greg LeMond or Andy Hampsten EPO gave as a bunch of frauds and impostors like Lance Armstrong and that famous U.S. Postal -Discovery team

P.S. I'm so sorry but you wiggintona obviously spend 60 years as cycling fan and still childishly believe in Santa