Official Lance Armstrong thread

[dadoorsron]

Again, get your facts right. The 1999 samples were based on a research study investigating an EPO test. They were never intended to be used to sanction riders and hence were not handled as such. The only reason the results became public knowledge was a good piece of investigative journalism by an l'Equipe reporter.

Lance was always going to win the SCA Promotions case. SCA Promotions didn't want to pay Lance his bonus because they believed he won the Tours by inappropriate means (ie, he doped). However, there was no way Lance was going to lose the case because the UCI had deemed him the winner. As long as he was declared the winner by the appropriate authorities, it didn't matter whether or not he won with the assistance of PEDs. This does negate the evidence and testimonies against Lance because it had nothing to do with the results of the case. In fact, the SCA Promotions case was probably the worst move by Lance because of the amount of dirty laundry aired by ex-friends, racers and team mates.

See this is why ignorance is dangerous to the world. YOu obvisously didn't read any portion of that report because, you still hold your belief that they did everything right at the LNDD. You think good journlism lead to these findings. If you read the report it becomes more of a witch hunt. Again people are allowed opinions. The bad thing is when there is evidence that makes your opinion horribly wrong you just make yourself look bad.

The results reported by the LNDD that found their way into the L’Equipe article are
not what they have been represented to be. They did not involve proper testing of
urine samples, as explained in detail in this report. While the testing conducted may
have been useful for research purposes - which remains to be determined - the
failure of the underlying research to comply with any applicable standard and the
deficiencies in the report render it completely irresponsible for anyone involved in
doping control testing to even suggest that the analyses results that were reported
constitute evidence of anything. To suggest in any way that any of the analyses
results could properly be associated with a particular rider or riders, is misleading
and constitutes at least gross negligence, given the complete absence of an internal
or external chain of custody, proper record keeping and security with respect to the
urine samples from the 1998 and the 1999 Tours de France that were tested, and
the absence of any protection against samples having been spiked with r-EPO or
contamination by other samples. The investigator recommends the UCI to refrain
from initiating any disciplinary actions whatsoever regarding those riders alleged
to have been responsible for causing one or more alleged ‘positive’ findings, on the
basis of the confidential reports of the LNDD ‘Recherche EPO Tour de France 1998’
and ‘Recherche EPO Tour de France 1999’, and to inform all of the riders involved that
no action will be taken based on the research testing by the LNDD.

While the information and documentation presented to date is insufficient to judge
the scientific nature and validity of the research conducted by the LNDD, in particular
with regard to the analyses of the urine samples from the 1998 and 1999 Tours de
France, the investigator has found no evidence that the decision to analyse those
samples was intended as part of a deliberate effort to discredit Lance Armstrong,
as has been suggested. However, the LNDD had no right to use those samples for
research purposes without securing the permission of the rider(s) who provided
the urine samples, and no reasonable explanation has been given as to why the UCI
was not consulted before these urine samples were used for research purposes.
Because of the refusal by the LNDD to provide any documentation about the research
project, no definite conclusions can be reached about the intent of the LNDD in
selecting those urine samples or the relationship of those urine samples to the
original intentions concerning the research.

The analyses of the urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France were conducted by
the LNDD for research purposes and did not satisfy any standard for doping control
testing. The results summarized in the LNDD reports however, are questionable in
a number of other ways and for a number of other reasons as well. The investigator
has studied those summaries and finds them deficient and not credible in a
number of ways. The research reports are merely summaries, while the underlying
iso-elctropherograms and other essential documents - necessary to evaluate the
findings presented in both reports - have not been produced. The process that
generated those results and the subsequent reports was so deficient that it would
be improper in this report to discuss these reports in more detail as it would give the
reported results more credibility than they could possibly merit.

About the andreau's there were 10 people in that room with Lance. They somehow are the only ones that have this story. At the trial they were asked about questions prior to the lances so called confession and asked what happened afterwards. For some reason everyone in the group could answers those questions plus deny any of the Andreau's allegations. Lance has won legal battles about allegations others have put against him. He has won those as well. The haters will hate and I don't have a problem with that. Sometimes, your own opinion clouds anything you can possibly think about a person. Even if that person has passed every test you will always assume he's dirty because, you can't believe someone that talented is clean. Well, if he is found to be dirty I will question everything and wonder how far the cover up goes. Until then He's clean and never tested Positive.

 

[dadoorsron]

Wow.

I'm a self admitted fan of Lance, for any number of reasons.

But, I think I'm going around to the dark side. The ridiculous fawning by some here borders on disgusting. There are ways for reasonable people to argue both sides of a point without their man crushes or hero worship coming through.

LoL, Yeah I hate that too. However, when someone doesn't look at the whole story just the portion that helps there opinion. Everyone has an opinion. I tend to look at everything. Both sides of the story. All information possible then come to a educated conclusion. When you ignore information that clears a person and still preaches to the choir that it's true then that just shows ignorance and that is unfortunate.

 

[dadoorsron]

Armstrong's lawyer argued that the contract with SCA did not forbid Armstrong from doping, so it did not matter if he did. The arbitrators agreed, so the two sides settled. The arbitrators never ruled on the evidence, which was considerable, that Armstrong doped.

It is funny how four people in the hospital room have all confirmed that Armstrong admitted that he used banned substances. The doctor, after being deposed, got a cushy job with Armstrong's foundation. Since he was not in the room when Armstrong admitted he was a doper, his testimony was not worth anything anyway.

It's actually only 2 people the Andreau's, and they can't recall any other topic in the conversation other then this ghostly confession. Another 8 people in the room and only 2 people recall this. WoW that is a conspiracy. The doctor gave a sworn affidavit. about the entire time. The Andreau's had to be subpoena because they were reluctant to testify. Then you have Greg Lemond just making crap up because he's upset that Armstrong is head and shoulders better then he ever was.

I have said this before. If Lance tested positive then you have to question his entire career. However, he still hasn't tested positive and he has been tested 40 plus times. Something like 5 times at the tour already. He's 8 seconds down coming off a 4 year retirement. That's impressive.

 

[whiteboytrash]

It's actually only 2 people the Andreau's, and they can't recall any other topic in the conversation other then this ghostly confession. Another 8 people in the room and only 2 people recall this. WoW that is a conspiracy. The doctor gave a sworn affidavit. about the entire time. The Andreau's had to be subpoena because they were reluctant to testify. Then you have Greg Lemond just making crap up because he's upset that Armstrong is head and shoulders better then he ever was.

I have said this before. If Lance tested positive then you have to question his entire career. However, he still hasn't tested positive and he has been tested 40 plus times. Something like 5 times at the tour already. He's 8 seconds down coming off a 4 year retirement. That's impressive.

http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/3158304

 

[elapid]

Firstly, I am no Lance hater. If you read some of my other posts, you would realize that I have categorically stated that his comeback from retirement has been amazing especially considering his age and time off from the professional peloton, and I admire other aspects about him as well. But I can also analyze the information about him critically without being blinded by any so-called love or hate.

Dadoorsron, you seem to be refuting your own arguments and abjectly ignoring answers to some of the other rubbish you have posted.

In regards to the six positive EPO samples from the 1999 Tour, I have categorically stated that "The 1999 samples were based on a research study investigating an EPO test. They were never intended to be used to sanction riders and hence were not handled as such. The only reason the results became public knowledge was a good piece of investigative journalism by an l'Equipe reporter." And while you argue against this using an unnamed source (which is just as bad as the sourced article), you state:

The analyses of the urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France were conducted by the LNDD for research purposes and did not satisfy any standard for doping control testing.

You then concentrate on the bedside confession of a cancer-ridden Lance Armstrong heard by Frankie and Betsy Andreau, but ignore the other confessions from the likes of Emma O'Reilly, subpoened text messages between Andreau and Vaughters, and evidence of doping paraphernalia being dumped by Discovery personnel during the TdF.

You continually come out with the "I've never tested positive argument", but obviously have no answer to my counterargument: "Armstrong's hCG levels were through the roof (109,000, normal < 0.5) because of his testicular cancer. hCG is a prohibited substance because it increases testosterone levels. He was tested numerous times during this period and never had a positive to hCG despite it being known to be increased. That blows the "I've never tested positive" claims."

Lastly, you really do not understand the SCA Promotions trial verdict. As both BroDeal and I have pointed out, the verdict was based on the fact that the UCI declared Armstrong the winner of the TdF and that was all that mattered from a legal point-of-view to settle the case because of the wording of the contract between Armstrong and SCA Promotions. All the evidence, both factual and circumstantial, of doping was mute in regards to this case because of the terms of the contract. However, you are misleading yourself if you think that Lance winning this case negates all of the doping evidence. Why do you think Lance has become so shy of law suits now? He was burned so badly by the allegations aired during the SCA trial that his reputation took a permanent dint.

 

[Escarabajo]

See this is why ignorance is dangerous to the world...
... Until then He's clean and never tested Positive.

Do you believe that Lance Armstrong beat Jan Ullrich (OP), Alexander Vinokurov (2007 positive), Joseba Beloki (OP), Marco Pantani (OP, >50% crit in Giro), Mancebo (OP), Landis (Testosterone), Hamilton (OP, positive Vuelta), Botero (OP), Basso (OP), Heras (Positive Vuelta), Sevilla (OP), Rumsas (Wife's car full of dope + Giro positive), Kloden (Freiburg case), etc, etc. cleanly? All of them are known dopers.

Please note that the ones with the OP note never tested positive in any test either. We only knew of their doping practices because of the Madrid Police raid into Dr. Fuentes offices where they found all the evidence that implicated these riders.

Besides Heras, Beltran, Landis, Hamilton, all Armstrong team mates all tested positive after they left US Postal/Disco. So you think they were riding cleanly during the US Postal service years and decided to dope after? In fact Beltran was one of the riders that own some of the 1999 Tour samples that were tested for EPO also. They were positive as well. So that means the he doped before and after he was a member of the US Postal team, but he did not doped during his riding with US Postal/Disco. Do you believe that as well?

Andreu declared he doped and Vaughters implied he doped too. These two are ex-team mates also. So these two riders plus the ones above were probably doping while Armstrong the boss of the team was riding clean. Right?

Probably this should be taken to the other side of the Forum.

 

[Zen Master]

Do you believe that Lance Armstrong beat Jan Ullrich (OP), Alexander Vinokurov (2007 positive), Joseba Beloki (OP), Marco Pantani (OP, >50% crit in Giro), Mancebo (OP), Landis (Testosterone), Hamilton (OP, positive Vuelta), Botero (OP), Basso (OP), Heras (Positive Vuelta), Sevilla (OP), Rumsas (Wife's car full of dope + Giro positive), Kloden (Freiburg case), etc, etc. cleanly? All of them are known dopers.

Actually he beat them with natural values of VO2max ( 77-81 ) and about 41% crit.... Very interesting indeed ...

 

[richwagmn]

The Clinic forum is over that way-->

This forum, per the title, is "A doping discussion free forum".

 

[benlondon]

Armstrong's VO2 max varies.

Actually he beat them with natural values of VO2max ( 77-81 ) and about 41% crit.... Very interesting indeed ...

Lance's VO2 max is very hard to pin down & much more variable than you'd expect. I too was once like you. I read 'It's not about the Bike' when it first came out & believed in Armstrong. However I then read 'Tour de Force' by Dan Coyle which explained just how close Armstrong's relationship was with Dr Ferrari. I then struggled to read in French David Walsh's 'Armstrong Confidential' before reading his English language book on the same subject 'From Lance to Landis: Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France'. I defy anyone to read those three meticulously researched books & still believe in a clean Armstrong.

 

[elapid]

The Clinic forum is over that way-->

This forum, per the title, is "A doping discussion free forum".

Sorry, this is the Lance Armstrong thread where all things Lance are discussed, including his potential doping.

 

[Zen Master]

Lance's VO2 max is very hard to pin down & much more variable than you'd expect. I too was once like you. I read 'It's not about the Bike' when it first came out & believed in Armstrong.

Well I don't believe at all in clean Lance story !? This values ( i know very well a story about Lance's mysterious VO2 max ) just show that Armstrong have an average engine something like Toyota Avensis and beat seven times in a row nitro powered Ferraris and Lamborghinis

 

[euphrades]

Sorry, this is the Lance Armstrong thread where all things Lance are discussed, including his potential doping.

/yawn......the topic of his doping is so old.

 

[TrapperJohn]

Did LA dope? Of course he did. Is he a hypocrite for denying it? No more than any other top rider of the last 20 years. They all insist that they're clean. Is he using banned substances today? I'd be surprised if he wasn't, just like I'd be surprised if Contador, Wiggins, Leipheimer, the Schleck brothers, Sastre, Menchov... weren't pushing the envelope in some manner.

How many riders have confessed to doping? Very few. How many confessed to doping only after being caught? All of them. Special case for Riis, he confessed only under the threat of retrotesting his samples, and 13 years after the fact. So that doesn't count as an act of courage, or a love of the sport. More a foregone conclusion than anything.

One of LA's hallmarks is meticulous attention to detail and execution. He didn't make many mistakes, almost none. So it's no surprise that he never tested positive. Remember also that he's a genetic freak, VO2max and lactate thresholds are incredible. It's not like this is someone whose success is based only on PED usage. In fact, no one's success can be attributed to PED's - despite the outlandish figures thrown around here, objective studies seem to show that they give maybe a 10% boost. It's not like one of us could jazz up with EPO or HGH and join a ProTour team.

If you have trouble believing LA doped, try this: shrug your shoulders and say - they all do it. Congratulations, you're now a seasoned pro cycling fan.

 

[nobody]

One of LA's hallmarks is meticulous attention to detail and execution. He didn't make many mistakes, almost none. So it's no surprise that he never tested positive. Remember also that he's a genetic freak, VO2max and lactate thresholds are incredible. It's not like this is someone whose success is based only on PED usage. In fact, no one's success can be attributed to PED's - despite the outlandish figures thrown around here, objective studies seem to show that they give maybe a 10% boost. It's not like one of us could jazz up with EPO or HGH and join a ProTour team.

There is nothing that proves that lance was a genetic freak, he has a normal VO2max as a pro rider, and his lactacte thresholds should be measured under evidence of no doping!

The myth of a genetic freaks is a Coyle's creation who published an infamous study.

His first part of career never showed an ability to became a GC contender.

 

[Cobblestones]

He's a freak responder.

 

[dadoorsron]

Firstly, I am no Lance hater. If you read some of my other posts, you would realize that I have categorically stated that his comeback from retirement has been amazing especially considering his age and time off from the professional peloton, and I admire other aspects about him as well. But I can also analyze the information about him critically without being blinded by any so-called love or hate.

Dadoorsron, you seem to be refuting your own arguments and abjectly ignoring answers to some of the other rubbish you have posted.

In regards to the six positive EPO samples from the 1999 Tour, I have categorically stated that "The 1999 samples were based on a research study investigating an EPO test. They were never intended to be used to sanction riders and hence were not handled as such. The only reason the results became public knowledge was a good piece of investigative journalism by an l'Equipe reporter." And while you argue against this using an unnamed source (which is just as bad as the sourced article), you state:



You then concentrate on the bedside confession of a cancer-ridden Lance Armstrong heard by Frankie and Betsy Andreau, but ignore the other confessions from the likes of Emma O'Reilly, subpoenaed text messages between Andreau and Vaughters, and evidence of doping paraphernalia being dumped by Discovery personnel during the TdF.

You continually come out with the "I've never tested positive argument", but obviously have no answer to my counterargument: "Armstrong's hCG levels were through the roof (109,000, normal < 0.5) because of his testicular cancer. hCG is a prohibited substance because it increases testosterone levels. He was tested numerous times during this period and never had a positive to hCG despite it being known to be increased. That blows the "I've never tested positive" claims."

Lastly, you really do not understand the SCA Promotions trial verdict. As both BroDeal and I have pointed out, the verdict was based on the fact that the UCI declared Armstrong the winner of the TdF and that was all that mattered from a legal point-of-view to settle the case because of the wording of the contract between Armstrong and SCA Promotions. All the evidence, both factual and circumstantial, of doping was mute in regards to this case because of the terms of the contract. However, you are misleading yourself if you think that Lance winning this case negates all of the doping evidence. Why do you think Lance has become so shy of law suits now? He was burned so badly by the allegations aired during the SCA trial that his reputation took a permanent dint.

Im sorry I thought you would actually read the Emile Vrijman report when I gave you a link to the report. Those statements are right out of the report itself. If you take time to read the report you will see it was a leak from the LNDD to the Newspaper. This information should have never been leaked because there are rules to such testing that was not followed. I suggest reading the report before you comment on the 1999 allegations brought out by a newspaper and **** Pound acting very unprofessional.

The SCA, Brought in the Andreau's and Lemond to discredit Armstrong. The information that the Andreau's gave was countered by 8 other people. I'm not having trouble with the case. SCA brought in these three to discredit and try to prove they don't have to pay armstrong.SCA requested all his testing and medical records to try to prove he was dirty. SCA didn't want to pay him. It's a typical legal maneuver Discredit the person to prove your point. It didn't work. IF it wasn't relevant to the case the arbitrator would of not allowed the testimony. In the testimony given by Frankie Andreau he stated.", under oath, 'I have never seen Lance take performance-enhancing drugs'. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/nov/18/lancearmstrong-cycling-tourdefrance-donaldmcrae.

From the same article
A lot of people have come in - well, not a lot but a handful of people, and we both know the names, Emma O'Reilly, Steven Swart, David Walsh, Prentice Steffen. And because there was so much litigation around this we sued David Walsh in the high court and we won that case. The prosecutor in Paris opened a federal investigation in 2000 and we were completely cleared. They retroactively tested all the samples, for the record, three separate labs tested those samples. One of the experts came back and said the samples were too clean, too clean. Emma O'Reilly from this court case win is Now a liar nothing more nothing less.

The Information is out there. If you want to get both sides of the story continue to follow it from start to finish. Don't just stop at Newspaper allegations. Lance Armstrong is the only athlete that gets accused for doping and actually Sues that person. It's interesting to see that he Wins those cases all the time.

 

[dadoorsron]

Do you believe that Lance Armstrong beat Jan Ullrich (OP), Alexander Vinokurov (2007 positive), Joseba Beloki (OP), Marco Pantani (OP, >50% crit in Giro), Mancebo (OP), Landis (Testosterone), Hamilton (OP, positive Vuelta), Botero (OP), Basso (OP), Heras (Positive Vuelta), Sevilla (OP), Rumsas (Wife's car full of dope + Giro positive), Kloden (Freiburg case), etc, etc. cleanly? All of them are known dopers.

Please note that the ones with the OP note never tested positive in any test either. We only knew of their doping practices because of the Madrid Police raid into Dr. Fuentes offices where they found all the evidence that implicated these riders.

Besides Heras, Beltran, Landis, Hamilton, all Armstrong team mates all tested positive after they left US Postal/Disco. So you think they were riding cleanly during the US Postal service years and decided to dope after? In fact Beltran was one of the riders that own some of the 1999 Tour samples that were tested for EPO also. They were positive as well. So that means the he doped before and after he was a member of the US Postal team, but he did not doped during his riding with US Postal/Disco. Do you believe that as well?

Andreu declared he doped and Vaughters implied he doped too. These two are ex-team mates also. So these two riders plus the ones above were probably doping while Armstrong the boss of the team was riding clean. Right?

Probably this should be taken to the other side of the Forum.

Yes it's impressive to know that Armstrong beat all these dopers when he has tested clean this entire time. Armstrongs name has not been linked to Dr. Fuentes. However, Contadors name has been linked. He has been cleared but his name was linked to it.

Is it interesting that many of Armstrong ex teammates have tested positive? Sure it makes me wonder if armstrong is that ahead of the curve. Is Armstrong taking Peds that are undetectable? Who knows? Is there speculation to that? Sure, Can anyone prove that he is using PEDS? Nope. it's just speculation and he is being targeted by the UCI and WADA. So Can a clean rider beat dopped ones. Well, at this moment yes. He did it clean. Until He tests positive. He will have beaten riders that have doped and it just show how special a rider he is.

Again the 1999 samples were results were flawed. Read the independent report. UCI and WADA cleared Lance.

Andreau in sworn testimony changed his opinion.

You like the side of the story that fits your opinion, and you stick to it as truth. Even though if you followed the story your opinion and the allegations are proven wrong.

 

[Escarabajo]

... So Can a clean rider beat dopped ones. Well, at this moment yes. He did it clean. Until He tests positive. He will have beaten riders that have doped and it just show how special a rider he is.

I guess you are now ready to read this.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html

Again the 1999 samples were results were flawed. Read the independent report. UCI and WADA cleared Lance.

Andreau in sworn testimony changed his opinion. You like the side of the story that fits your opinion, and you stick to it as truth. Even though if you followed the story your opinion and the allegations are proven wrong.

You are wrong again. I did not have an opinion. I heard and read both sides of the story and then I created my opinion. The overwhelming evidence tell me that he doped. So did some of my compatriots (I am from Colombia). There is nothing I can do about it. Just accept it and enjoy the racing.

 

[nobody]

Im sorry I thought you would actually read the Emile Vrijman report when I gave you a link to the report. Those statements are right out of the report itself. If you take time to read the report you will see it was a leak from the LNDD to the Newspaper. This information should have never been leaked because there are rules to such testing that was not followed. I suggest reading the report before you comment on the 1999 allegations brought out by a newspaper and **** Pound acting very unprofessional.

The SCA, Brought in the Andreau's and Lemond to discredit Armstrong. The information that the Andreau's gave was countered by 8 other people. I'm not having trouble with the case. SCA brought in these three to discredit and try to prove they don't have to pay armstrong.SCA requested all his testing and medical records to try to prove he was dirty. SCA didn't want to pay him. It's a typical legal maneuver Discredit the person to prove your point. It didn't work. IF it wasn't relevant to the case the arbitrator would of not allowed the testimony. In the testimony given by Frankie Andreau he stated.", under oath, 'I have never seen Lance take performance-enhancing drugs'. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/nov/18/lancearmstrong-cycling-tourdefrance-donaldmcrae.

From the same article
A lot of people have come in - well, not a lot but a handful of people, and we both know the names, Emma O'Reilly, Steven Swart, David Walsh, Prentice Steffen. And because there was so much litigation around this we sued David Walsh in the high court and we won that case. The prosecutor in Paris opened a federal investigation in 2000 and we were completely cleared. They retroactively tested all the samples, for the record, three separate labs tested those samples. One of the experts came back and said the samples were too clean, too clean. Emma O'Reilly from this court case win is Now a liar nothing more nothing less.

The Information is out there. If you want to get both sides of the story continue to follow it from start to finish. Don't just stop at Newspaper allegations. Lance Armstrong is the only athlete that gets accused for doping and actually Sues that person. It's interesting to see that he Wins those cases all the time.

First, you have to read :
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

About the 2000 prosecution case, that was never the EPO samples of 1999 that was only reported in 2005.

Maybe that was the samples which have been found free of human EPO. So yes he was clean but too clean because he had probably used soap to destroy rEPO and by the way hEPO too!

 

[mambo#5]

for the sake of ending the argument, Lance was the best of all dopers. If none of them dope (including Lance), he still would have beaten their asses hands down. Greg Lemond has at least acknowledge that.

 

[whiteboytrash]

The one point that hasn't come up is Floyd admitting that Lance doped and that he saw it...... there is a link to the story.... its heartfelt to be honest and probably the closest account to life as a pro as you get.....

 

[dadoorsron]

I guess you are now ready to read this.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html




You are wrong again. I did not have an opinion. I heard and read both sides of the story and then I created my opinion. The overwhelming evidence tell me that he doped. So did some of my compatriots (I am from Colombia). There is nothing I can do about it. Just accept it and enjoy the racing.

The Sports science article is interesting. However, The article uses data to back up speculation that if there is a dirty rider and he gets beat then the riders ahead of him are just as dirty. With some research I was able to find the study the article was written about. I'm NOT saying EPO does not help an athlete. You have to look at the whole picture. Is that athlete good enough to win the race even with doping. IF your a horrible rider and you start using EPO you just become maybe up one level. Just because you use EPO doesn't mean you are going to get onto the podium at the Tour.




Does recombinant human Epo increase exercise capacity by means other than augmenting oxygen transport?
C. Lundby,1,2 P. Robach,3 R. Boushel,4 J. J. Thomsen,1 P. Rasmussen,5 M. Koskolou,6 and J. A. L. Calbet1,7
1Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; 2Department of Sport Science, University of Århus, Århus, Denmark; 3Ecole Nationale de Ski et d'Alpinisme, Chamonix, France; 4Department of Exercise Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 5Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre, Department of Anaesthesia, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; 6School of Physical Education, Department of Sports Medicine and Exercise Science, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; and 7Department of Physical Education, University of Las Palmas de Gran, Canaria, Spain

Submitted 3 April 2008 ; accepted in final form 29 May 2008


This study was performed to test the hypothesis that administration of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEpo) in humans increases maximal oxygen consumption by augmenting the maximal oxygen carrying capacity of blood. Systemic and leg oxygen delivery and oxygen uptake were studied during exercise in eight subjects before and after 13 wk of rHuEpo treatment and after isovolemic hemodilution to the same hemoglobin concentration observed before the start of rHuEpo administration. At peak exercise, leg oxygen delivery was increased from 1,777.0 ± 102.0 ml/min before rHuEpo treatment to 2,079.8 ± 120.7 ml/min after treatment. After hemodilution, oxygen delivery was decreased to the pretreatment value (1,710.3 ± 138.1 ml/min). Fractional leg arterial oxygen extraction was unaffected at maximal exercise; hence, maximal leg oxygen uptake increased from 1,511.0 ± 130.1 ml/min before treatment to 1,793.0 ± 148.7 ml/min with rHuEpo and decreased after hemodilution to 1,428.0 ± 111.6 ml/min. Pulmonary oxygen uptake at peak exercise increased from 3,950.0 ± 160.7 before administration to 4,254.5 ± 178.4 ml/min with rHuEpo and decreased to 4,059.0 ± 161.1 ml/min with hemodilution (P = 0.22, compared with values before rHuEpo treatment). Blood buffer capacity remained unaffected by rHuEpo treatment and hemodilution. The augmented hematocrit did not compromise peak cardiac output. In summary, in healthy humans, rHuEpo increases maximal oxygen consumption due to augmented systemic and muscular peak oxygen delivery.
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/2/581 It cost 8 bucks to read the entire thing.

 

[dadoorsron]

First, you have to read :
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

About the 2000 prosecution case, that was never the EPO samples of 1999 that was only reported in 2005.

Maybe that was the samples which have been found free of human EPO. So yes he was clean but too clean because he had probably used soap to destroy rEPO and by the way hEPO too!

Yeah funny how a UCI and WADA back independent study cleared armstrong and also, raised questions of the testing procedures used in the entire situation.

 

[dadoorsron]

The one point that hasn't come up is Floyd admitting that Lance doped and that he saw it...... there is a link to the story.... its heartfelt to be honest and probably the closest account to life as a pro as you get.....

are you talking about the Lance to Landis book. Yeah thats a great source of information.

 

[Escarabajo]

The Sports science article is interesting. However, The article uses data to back up speculation that if there is a dirty rider and he gets beat then the riders ahead of him are just as dirty. With some research I was able to find the study the article was written about. I'm NOT saying EPO does not help an athlete. You have to look at the whole picture. Is that athlete good enough to win the race even with doping. IF your a horrible rider and you start using EPO you just become maybe up one level. Just because you use EPO doesn't mean you are going to get onto the podium at the Tour.




Does recombinant human Epo increase exercise capacity by means other than augmenting oxygen transport?
C. Lundby,1,2 P. Robach,3 R. Boushel,4 J. J. Thomsen,1 P. Rasmussen,5 M. Koskolou,6 and J. A. L. Calbet1,7
1Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; 2Department of Sport Science, University of Århus, Århus, Denmark; 3Ecole Nationale de Ski et d'Alpinisme, Chamonix, France; 4Department of Exercise Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 5Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre, Department of Anaesthesia, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; 6School of Physical Education, Department of Sports Medicine and Exercise Science, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; and 7Department of Physical Education, University of Las Palmas de Gran, Canaria, Spain

Submitted 3 April 2008 ; accepted in final form 29 May 2008


This study was performed to test the hypothesis that administration of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEpo) in humans increases maximal oxygen consumption by augmenting the maximal oxygen carrying capacity of blood. Systemic and leg oxygen delivery and oxygen uptake were studied during exercise in eight subjects before and after 13 wk of rHuEpo treatment and after isovolemic hemodilution to the same hemoglobin concentration observed before the start of rHuEpo administration. At peak exercise, leg oxygen delivery was increased from 1,777.0 ± 102.0 ml/min before rHuEpo treatment to 2,079.8 ± 120.7 ml/min after treatment. After hemodilution, oxygen delivery was decreased to the pretreatment value (1,710.3 ± 138.1 ml/min). Fractional leg arterial oxygen extraction was unaffected at maximal exercise; hence, maximal leg oxygen uptake increased from 1,511.0 ± 130.1 ml/min before treatment to 1,793.0 ± 148.7 ml/min with rHuEpo and decreased after hemodilution to 1,428.0 ± 111.6 ml/min. Pulmonary oxygen uptake at peak exercise increased from 3,950.0 ± 160.7 before administration to 4,254.5 ± 178.4 ml/min with rHuEpo and decreased to 4,059.0 ± 161.1 ml/min with hemodilution (P = 0.22, compared with values before rHuEpo treatment). Blood buffer capacity remained unaffected by rHuEpo treatment and hemodilution. The augmented hematocrit did not compromise peak cardiac output. In summary, in healthy humans, rHuEpo increases maximal oxygen consumption due to augmented systemic and muscular peak oxygen delivery.
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/2/581 It cost 8 bucks to read the entire thing.

Thanks.

I am not sure if I am reading this correctly but increase in oxygen delivery was 17%. This is a high number to my knowledge. I think you are proving my point somehow.