Official Lance Armstrong thread

[Amsterhammer]

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.....

What part of Susan's post didn't you understand?

Kindly delete your doping post and go re-post in the other place.

 

[Greg Johnson]

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

Susan

Please follow Susan's request. Any further posts along these lines in this thread will see you banned for the rest of July. Don't say we didn't warn you!

Cheers
Greg Johnson

 

[nobody]

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

from http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates.html

 

[nobody]

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.

According you, IOC were stupid to give LNDD the retesting of Bejing samples. But they could have given them to many other labs...
OK IOC is not a good exemple, but what about Italian police, which end them 2008 GIRO samples for a restesting. Should we believe that they have not read about the lack of LNDD credibility.

How could LNND leak the name of an athletes with anonymous samples? Who gave the names of athletes?

 

[rhubroma]

Here guys have a go with this:

l'Equipe opened with an interview of Bernhard Hinault, who, as ever, wasn't tender with Armstrong: "He won't win the Tour. He has a certain age and Contador can make big differences in the mountains. He's not particularly agreeable to me? No, he simply leaves no impression upon me, he leaves me indifferent. His return, whether or not at the Tour, doesn't excite me nor put me off. He would have impressed my had he at the hight of his career also ridden the Giro, or the the classics. He was the champion of the Tour, nothing more. If Merckx had done like him, he'd have won 15 Tours..."

 

[elapid]

OK, in an effort to discuss Lance and not doping, what about Lance's cancer awareness program in Europe? The vast majority of us have been critical about his cancer awareness program. He has said it was the reason for his return to the professional peloton, but then we don't hear much about it in the news or during interviews. However, we also know Lance is promoting cancer issues in the background, particularly with politicians. I know he did this in Australia when he rode the TDU. From CN:

Sporting aspects aside, the cancer survivor was very happy with the attention his presence at the Tour generated for the Livestrong cancer foundation. The yellow Livestrong wristbands have sold 138,000 times since the start of the race, raising 138,000 Euros for the Princess Grace hospital and the French national league against cancer.

"Since we started [selling the Livestrong wristbands], we've sold 75 million of these bracelets," said Armstrong. "What's different this year, is that anybody who buys a bracelet during the Tour, all the money stays here. I think it's important for people to understand that the money they spend - 1 Euro - is not going to Texas or the United States, it stays in France."

I, for one, am impressed that the money raised from the sale of his Livestrong wristbands in Europe stays in Europe. Lance is also obviously raising awareness of cancer during his return from retirement in ways that we are not aware of. Unusually for Lance, he is also doing this without twittering or tooting his own horn. On both accounts, he should be praised for his efforts of increasing cancer awareness.

 

[Anonymous]

Here guys have a go with this:

l'Equipe opened with an interview of Bernhard Hinault, who, as ever, wasn't tender with Armstrong: "He won't win the Tour. He has a certain age and Contador can make big differences in the mountains. He's not particularly agreeable to me? No, he simply leaves no impression upon me, he leaves me indifferent. His return, whether or not at the Tour, doesn't excite me nor put me off. He would have impressed my had he at the hight of his career also ridden the Giro, or the the classics. He was the champion of the Tour, nothing more. If Merckx had done like him, he'd have won 15 Tours..."

Gotta say that Hinault is a genius. I never really liked the guy, but he is certainly growing on me.

 

[elapid]

For Lance and doping, there is now a thread in the Clinical section: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=2278

 

[issoisso]

Random thought of the day: Armstrong is always immensely better in cold weather, especially in the rain.

Tomorrow's forecast is snow.

God damn it.

 

[Danilot]

Random thought of the day: Armstrong is always immensely better in cold weather, especially in the rain.

Tomorrow's forecast is snow.

God damn it.

In mid-July?

 

[Amsterhammer]

Of course!

*smacks self on forehead*

LA and JB have got the fix in for tomorrow. JB has had a word with St. Peter to ensure that unseasonably foul weather prevails, thereby giving LA a major advantage over all those other sissies who can't take a bit of cold and wet.

 

[knewcleardaze]

Here guys have a go with this:

l'Equipe opened with an interview of Bernhard Hinault, who, as ever, wasn't tender with Armstrong: "He won't win the Tour. He has a certain age and Contador can make big differences in the mountains. He's not particularly agreeable to me? No, he simply leaves no impression upon me, he leaves me indifferent. His return, whether or not at the Tour, doesn't excite me nor put me off. He would have impressed my had he at the hight of his career also ridden the Giro, or the the classics. He was the champion of the Tour, nothing more. If Merckx had done like him, he'd have won 15 Tours..."

Rhubroma,
Thanks for posting. I don't pay Armstrong much mind one way nor another. The reason being that's all Armstrong does, focus on The Tour.
The majority of the peloton race year round. Armstrong doesn't wear himself out in the Spring Classics. It's a great advantage. I have to agree with the Badger. There's a reason they call Merckx the Cannibal.

 

[lean mean &green]

l'Equipe opened with an interview of Bernhard Hinault, who, as ever, wasn't tender with Armstrong: "He won't win the Tour. He has a certain age and Contador can make big differences in the mountains. He's not particularly agreeable to me? No, he simply leaves no impression upon me, he leaves me indifferent. His return, whether or not at the Tour, doesn't excite me nor put me off. He would have impressed my had he at the hight of his career also ridden the Giro, or the the classics. He was the champion of the Tour, nothing more. If Merckx had done like him, he'd have won 15 Tours..."

If you have to try hard to communicate indifference you are not indifferent. He clearly doesn't like LA but is trying get away from the mud-slinging. The smartest move I've seen him make in a while.

Gotta say that Hinault is a genius. I never really liked the guy, but he is certainly growing on me.

Hinault is clearly not a genius. He is jealous of LA's tour success and that his record of 5 tours has been surpassed. He uses Merckx, a neutral figure, to minimize LA's record which is another amatuerish move. For the record I don't like LA's comments toward Hinault either. Their war of words only serves to discredit both of them.

The most interesting statement here is the one about Merckx number of tour wins had he focused more on the event. I mostly agree with the Badger on that one. I think Merckx would have won 10-12 tours in the era of periodization. Focusing almost entirely on the tour, who knows? Maybe 15 with some good luck.

 

[gree0232]

So prove it?

Well, when I start seeing connections to the world of politics, bland generalized science about what doping can be done, and then 'proof' seen in the denials that obviously follow an accusation.

Lets be clear, unless you plan on moving to Iran or something we have a standard that is called the presumption of innocence. So lets take a look at the actual evidence of doping and realize that there were a lot of people out there who were pouring over everything Lance did to try and find proof of doping in addition to his status as the 'most tested athlete.' In all those years, they never found anything that stood up before the a court of law. At some point, the abscence of proof after an exhaustive search is indeed proof -- just not of guilt.

Lets take a look at the most often quoted Lance accusations:

1. Lance tested positive in 1999!

Actually, he didn't. He allowed his blood to be tested by LNDD, who subsequently violated basic anti-doping standards using a test that was still in the expiramental stage and just happened to find that the samples, which they knew were Lance's, just happened to confirm what the French Press were saying about Lance in 1999. The 'results' were then leaked to the Press. Curious.

As an interesting aside, part of the lopsided victory was due to an incident at the Passage du Gois in which several of the GC contenders were left floundered in the lower tides wake in a massive pile up. That did not require any dope at all.

As crashes do not require dope, it is probably not surprising that when the issue was examined by an independant commission appointed by the UC that it's conclusion was, "[The report] exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de FranceTour de France."

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lance...g--according+to+an+independent...-a0169017227

Perhaps it was because the breach of these basic standards of conduct were known by the authors of this accusation that the 'results' were leaked to the press where they make for an effective smear campaign but do not amount to proof of anything.

2. Mrs. Andreau knows all about Lance's doping.

I am sure she does. However, Lance's doctor directly countered her claims in court. Furthermore, doctors keep records of their decisions, actions, and treatments, and it would be fairly safe to say that a doctor would have to take steps to avoid complications with known drug use to make effective treatments for something like say .... cancer. There appears to be no evidence that the doctor, indeed a team of medical staff, took actions that were consistant with dealing with doping products in Lance Armstrong.

Mrs. Andreau's statements, as convincing and as forceful as they appear, do not appear to meet the requisite evidentary standard. Those statements have the same problem that all the statements made about Armstrong have: they lack any supporting proof.

There is no syringe ala Roger Clemens, indeed no paraphernalia even after seven years of constant searching. There is no Peurto blood like there is apparently for Hamilton and indeed for Ullrich and Basso. There is no positive test like there is for Ricco and other 'targeted' riders, bearing in mind that Lance was targeted for seven straight years without a positive test.

The question at this point to many of those convinced that Armstrong doped, what could he possibly do that would convince you of his innocence? Bring in an independant comission to look at the facts? Take the matter to court and have an impartial judge decide where the preponderance of the truth lies? He has done so.

If that isn't enough, please ask yourself how you would feel if you showed up at work and had your boss call you into your office and fired you because:

1. You tested positive THC in a retroactive research test from eight years ago, even though the test was conducted in such a way as that the 'result' violated basic testing standards and was conducted inside a meth lab.

2. A peer's wife says she saw you smoking dope in front of a doctor while under his care. The doctor denies this and his notes back up his claim.

If you would honestly tell your boss, "Fair enough, I obviously smoked dope so its best that you just fire me," with a cheery smile, then you would be willing to do what you are demanding Lance do because he is clearly guilty by the same standard.

There are standards for guilt and innocence, and all those benchmarks that must be met to prove innocence, which is not a requirement in our system, have been met. However, not a single standard of guilt has been produced against Lance despite years of trying to do so. That in and of itself speaks volumes.

He may of doped, but if it is so obvious, kindly prove it or shut up.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, when I start seeing connections to the world of politics, bland generalized science about what doping can be done, and then 'proof' seen in the denials that obviously follow an accusation.

Lets be clear, unless you plan on moving to Iran or something we have a standard that is called the presumption of innocence. So lets take a look at the actual evidence of doping and realize that there were a lot of people out there who were pouring over everything Lance did to try and find proof of doping in addition to his status as the 'most tested athlete.' In all those years, they never found anything that stood up before the a court of law. At some point, the abscence of proof after an exhaustive search is indeed proof -- just not of guilt.

Lets take a look at the most often quoted Lance accusations:

1. Lance tested positive in 1999!

Actually, he didn't. He allowed his blood to be tested by LNDD, who subsequently violated basic anti-doping standards using a test that was still in the expiramental stage and just happened to find that the samples, which they knew were Lance's, just happened to confirm what the French Press were saying about Lance in 1999. The 'results' were then leaked to the Press. Curious.

As an interesting aside, part of the lopsided victory was due to an incident at the Passage du Gois in which several of the GC contenders were left floundered in the lower tides wake in a massive pile up. That did not require any dope at all.

As crashes do not require dope, it is probably not surprising that when the issue was examined by an independant commission appointed by the UC that it's conclusion was, "[The report] exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de FranceTour de France."

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lance...g--according+to+an+independent...-a0169017227

Perhaps it was because the breach of these basic standards of conduct were known by the authors of this accusation that the 'results' were leaked to the press where they make for an effective smear campaign but do not amount to proof of anything.

2. Mrs. Andreau knows all about Lance's doping.

I am sure she does. However, Lance's doctor directly countered her claims in court. Furthermore, doctors keep records of their decisions, actions, and treatments, and it would be fairly safe to say that a doctor would have to take steps to avoid complications with known drug use to make effective treatments for something like say .... cancer. There appears to be no evidence that the doctor, indeed a team of medical staff, took actions that were consistant with dealing with doping products in Lance Armstrong.

Mrs. Andreau's statements, as convincing and as forceful as they appear, do not appear to meet the requisite evidentary standard. Those statements have the same problem that all the statements made about Armstrong have: they lack any supporting proof.

There is no syringe ala Roger Clemens, indeed no paraphernalia even after seven years of constant searching. There is no Peurto blood like there is apparently for Hamilton and indeed for Ullrich and Basso. There is no positive test like there is for Ricco and other 'targeted' riders, bearing in mind that Lance was targeted for seven straight years without a positive test.

The question at this point to many of those convinced that Armstrong doped, what could he possibly do that would convince you of his innocence? Bring in an independant comission to look at the facts? Take the matter to court and have an impartial judge decide where the preponderance of the truth lies? He has done so.

If that isn't enough, please ask yourself how you would feel if you showed up at work and had your boss call you into your office and fired you because:

1. You tested positive THC in a retroactive research test from eight years ago, even though the test was conducted in such a way as that the 'result' violated basic testing standards and was conducted inside a meth lab.

2. A peer's wife says she saw you smoking dope in front of a doctor while under his care. The doctor denies this and his notes back up his claim.

If you would honestly tell your boss, "Fair enough, I obviously smoked dope so its best that you just fire me," with a cheery smile, then you would be willing to do what you are demanding Lance do because he is clearly guilty by the same standard.

There are standards for guilt and innocence, and all those benchmarks that must be met to prove innocence, which is not a requirement in our system, have been met. However, not a single standard of guilt has been produced against Lance despite years of trying to do so. That in and of itself speaks volumes.

He may of doped, but if it is so obvious, kindly prove it or shut up.

Oh dear, another one.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh dear, another one.

You should probably call him a saddle sniffing, 3-week fanboy.

In lieu of refuting his points, of course.

 

[Anonymous]

You should probably call him a saddle sniffing, 3-week fanboy.

In lieu of refuting his points, of course.

Why don't you just call him your boyfriend. He has all of the qualifications.

As to his points. I have refuted that drivel many times, and will just wait out you seasonal posters this time because you just aren't worth the effort anymore.

 

[dadoorsron]

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

You have failed to mention that Lance armstrong lost 10 plus pounds of muscle mass during his cancer fight. He lost upper body muscle mass. An elite endurance athlete losing that much muscle mass is a drastic change. Chris CarMicheal his coach stated in his book that lance trained different post cancer then he did pre cancer. Physically Lance was different allowed him to train to win a tour instead just a stage in a tour.

 

[dadoorsron]

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......

yes you can question the performance. People that think all the cyclist are doping you are going to think that he has come up with some new doping program. Maybe equipment has helped? New training program. new diet allowing him to train harder. Maybe a supplement program (not the Illegal stuff) better designed for his physiology. You can also say he is training better. there are many variables that can be looked at other then Doping.

 

[dadoorsron]

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).

The use states 90 minutes at 5500 m Three times a week for three weeks. 2.5 percent increase . That's a big bump just for 90 minutes. How about adding that up to 9 hours a day everyday for one year. I think you can bump your Hemacrit level right to the 50% limit what do you think.

This is a lance thread and this is part of lance training so what better place then here.


Intermittent hypobaric hypoxia induces altitude acclimation and improves the lactate threshold.Casas M, Casas H, Pagés T, Rama R, Ricart A, Ventura JL, Ibáñez J, Rodríguez FA, Viscor G.
Departament de Fisiologia, Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.

The physiological responses to short-term intermittent exposure to hypoxia in a hypobaric chamber were evaluated. The exposure to hypoxia was compatible with normal daily activity. The ability of the hypoxia program to induce hematological and ventilatory adaptations leading to altitude acclimation and to improve physical performance capacity was tested. Six members of a high-altitude expedition were exposed to intermittent hypoxia and low-intensity exercise (in cycle-ergometer) in the INEFC-UB hypobaric chamber over 17 d, 3-5 h x d(-1), at simulated altitude of 4,000 m to 5,500 m. Following this hypoxia exposure program, significant increases were found in packed cell volume (41 to 44.6%; p<0.05), red blood cells count (4.607 to 4.968 10(6) cells x microL(-1); p<0.05), and hemoglobin concentration (14.8 to 16.4 g x dL(-1); p<0.05), thus implying an increase in the blood oxygen transport capacity. Significant differences in exercise blood lactate kinetics and heart rate were also observed. The lactate vs. exercise load curve shifted to the right and heart rate decreased, thus indicating an improvement of aerobic endurance. These results were associated with a significant increase in the ventilatory anaerobic threshold (p<0.05). Significant increases (p<0.05) in pulmonary ventilation, tidal volume, respiratory frequency, O2 uptake, CO2 output and ventilatory equivalents to oxygen (VE/Vo2) and carbon dioxide (VE/co2) were observed at the ventilatory threshold and within the transitional zone of the curves. We conclude that short-term intermittent exposure to moderate hypoxia, in combination with low-intensity exercise in a hypobaric chamber, is sufficient to improve aerobic capacity and to induce altitude acclimation.


It might just show that Lance Armstrong and his team of coaches, and equipment providers pushed the sport of cycling into future.

 

[Escarabajo]

Well, when I start seeing connections to the world of politics, bland generalized science about what doping can be done, and then 'proof' seen in the denials that obviously follow an accusation...

...He may of doped, but if it is so obvious, kindly prove it or shut up.

I suggests you take this information to the "Clinic Forum" which is where we can talk about doping freely. There is already a thread in the "Clinic" about Lance Armstrong and specifically about doping.
Thanks.

 

[gree0232]

I suggests you take this information to the "Clinic Forum" which is where we can talk about doping freely. There is already a thread in the "Clinic" about Lance Armstrong and specifically about doping.
Thanks.

Yes, yes, I see Lance being campared to .... Clinton in terms of arrogance with its obvious implications. The point is not to debate whether he did or didn't, the point is to mention those things that are actually facts and can be proven.

Is he arrogant? Probably.

Is he constantly accussed of doping? Yep.

Has he ever been 'proven' to have doped? Nope.

Is he an incredible bike rider with an inspiring story? Yep.

Very few of the posts on this thread have anything to do with the later and almost everything to do with the first three questions.

So the question then really is:

Why do so many people want Lance to have doped? Why are they more focused on his arrogance, which I have seen in everything from bankers to meat cutters, and forget about the all of the beneficial things he has done? The man has inspired millions to get off their **** and bike bikes, and in doing so has probably brought hundreds of millions to bike manufacturers and helped bring cycling into the mainstream here in the US.

For that he is as arrogant as the worst of the world's politicians? What the hell is that about?

 

[objective skeptic]

Why do so many people want Lance to have doped? Why are they more focused on his arrogance, which I have seen in everything from bankers to meat cutters, and forget about the all of the beneficial things he has done? The man has inspired millions to get off their **** and bike bikes, and in doing so has probably brought hundreds of millions to bike manufacturers and helped bring cycling into the mainstream here in the US.

First off, show me a top elite athlete who is not arrogant and I will show you an underachiever. Some are just better at feigning humility than others.

Second, I think a lot of the hate stems from the belief that he is a hypocrite. Seems many are able to forgive people that make mistakes, but continued aggressive denial (assuming he is guilty, not the place for that debate here) is, understandably, a more heinous offense.

LA is more or less an arrogant jerk, on and off the bike. At least some is justified, but let's go back to that whole thing about humility in a champion. Champions are expected to be above such pettiness. But, oddly enough, that creates a lose-lose situation for Armstrong: He's a jerk if he defends himself against attacks, and then if he doesn't it must be "because it's true".

I think the fairest thing you can say is that LA is a very polarizing champion due mainly to his actions and choices he's made. And I haven't even touched on how he's changed the dynamic of the TdF for the worse.

 

[Padeiro]

And I haven't even touched on how he's changed the dynamic of the TdF for the worse.

That's a bit of a stretch, no? Is the man bigger than the race? I know that he is god to some but I don't think he could've done this by himself. The race has changed with the times. I think LA is an indicator of the change, not its cause.

 

[BroDeal]

Has he ever been 'proven' to have doped?

Yes he has, and if you go over to the Clinic we will discuss the clear evidence.