Official Lance Armstrong thread

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 7, 2009
189
0
0
Escarabajo said:
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.

Epo without question increases performance. However, you can't speculate on the ability the athlete has to win a grand tour race. Saying a Club cyclist will become an elite cyclist with a 1 month cycle of EPO is absurd.

The article implies that any pro cyclist that takes EPO should be able to win the race. Then by saying that you make every cyclist in the race a doper because, if one is using all of them have to be. That's speculation not fact. The article is opinion based using Scientific research to prove the point. However, the riders natural ability is taken out of the equation. You have to include genetic variables to the study to say if one athlete is doing it they all are. You would have to include Lung capacity, VO2 max, Lactic acid threshold, muscle development, red blood cell count, oxygen saturation of muscle tissue, Overall muscle strength. testosterone production, HGH production. The list can go on.

EPO without a doubt increases an athletes endurance. It doesn't prove that if one is doing it everyone is doing it.
 

whiteboytrash

BANNED
Mar 17, 2009
525
0
0
dadoorsron said:
are you talking about the Lance to Landis book. Yeah thats a great source of information.

Not his book ! He said he didn't dope in that one ! This interview.....

http://www.orangecoastmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=156

Two quotes interest me most. The first being:

"So I don’t tell them that Floyd once offhandedly told me over burritos at a Chipotle near his home, “Just so you know, Marty, Lance doped.” Or that Floyd said it casually, as if it was common insider knowledge. "

and more importantly:

"And I don’t tell them what it’s like at the Tour, where the riders are like rock stars and where groupies camp out in the cheap hotel lobbies in which the teams stay, or the threesome two Italian riders proposed in rather graphic terms in a text message that one such groupie proudly showed me before marching off to find their room."

- Give a **** about Lance doping I wonder who the two Italians were in the spit roast !
 
dadoorsron said:
Epo without question increases performance. However, you can't speculate on the ability the athlete has to win a grand tour race. Saying a Club cyclist will become an elite cyclist with a 1 month cycle of EPO is absurd.

Correct. I am not arguing this point.

The article implies that any pro cyclist that takes EPO should be able to win the race. Then by saying that you make every cyclist in the race a doper because, if one is using all of them have to be. That's speculation not fact. The article is opinion based using Scientific research to prove the point. However, the riders natural ability is taken out of the equation. You have to include genetic variables to the study to say if one athlete is doing it they all are. You would have to include Lung capacity, VO2 max, Lactic acid threshold, muscle development, red blood cell count, oxygen saturation of muscle tissue, Overall muscle strength.

That's why I put the list of riders that Lance beat in the previous years. To that list we have to add the systematic doping of Liberty Seguros where Belokki rode and the Kelme teams. Having said that, there are too many riders around Armstrong that doped. So the whole purpose of the article is just to show you that it would be impossible to beat a whole group EPO jacked up top performance athletes (Not Club athletes like you said) riding clean.

Statistically speaking, you probably would have no chance of success.

testosterone production, HGH production. The list can go on.
Recuperation doping. That would be like over speeding on the highway. I am only talking about the EPO/Blood doping. EPO helps on the thresholds though. But I am not an expert so I won't get in any details about it.

Here is a link on the whole package experiment:
http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywork/200311/200311_drug_test_1.html

EPO without a doubt increases an athletes endurance. It doesn't prove that if one is doing it everyone is doing it.
As I said before, there were too many doing it.

I think am getting too deep on this side of the Forum and I don't want to bother other people with this topic. So I'll stick with my beliefs and you stick with yours. I have no problems with that.
Thanks.
 
Jul 7, 2009
189
0
0
Escarabajo said:
Correct. I am not arguing this point.



That's why I put the list of riders that Lance beat in the previous years. To that list we have to add the systematic doping of Liberty Seguros where Belokki rode and the Kelme teams. Having said that, there are too many riders around Armstrong that doped. So the whole purpose of the article is just to show you that it would be impossible to beat a whole group EPO jacked up top performance athletes (Not Club athletes like you said) riding clean.

Statistically speaking, you probably would have no chance of success.


Recuperation doping. That would be like over speeding on the highway. I am only talking about the EPO/Blood doping. EPO helps on the thresholds though. But I am not an expert so I won't get in any details about it.

Here is a link on the whole package experiment:
http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywork/200311/200311_drug_test_1.html


As I said before, there were too many doing it.

I think am getting too deep on this side of the Forum and I don't want to bother other people with this topic. So I'll stick with my beliefs and you stick with yours. I have no problems with that.
Thanks.

I appericate your view point and you have brought good information to your side of the argument. However, I feel you would agree with me. If there is no proof of doping then you can't speculate that person is doping. Hearsay and publicity is not proof. I do believe the rider is clean until proven other wise.

I have made this comment before. If it is all about doping. What is Armstrong and all the other riders taking that is not getting tested for? That would be the question.
 
Jul 7, 2009
189
0
0
whiteboytrash said:
Not his book ! He said he didn't dope in that one ! This interview.....

http://www.orangecoastmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=156

Two quotes interest me most. The first being:

"So I don’t tell them that Floyd once offhandedly told me over burritos at a Chipotle near his home, “Just so you know, Marty, Lance doped.” Or that Floyd said it casually, as if it was common insider knowledge. "

and more importantly:

"And I don’t tell them what it’s like at the Tour, where the riders are like rock stars and where groupies camp out in the cheap hotel lobbies in which the teams stay, or the threesome two Italian riders proposed in rather graphic terms in a text message that one such groupie proudly showed me before marching off to find their room."

- Give a **** about Lance doping I wonder who the two Italians were in the spit roast !

Very interesting. Landis says he never doped but throws Lance under the bus. It's a complex situation. do you believe a person that lost all creditablity in the sport and media. Or do you believe the article as the truth with no bias from the writer and no false statements. If you are under the opinion Lance is dirty you will see this as a smoking gun. However, why didn't this comment make shockwaves throughout the world. Another Ex-teammate stating lance doped. Either the author Martin Dugard has something to hide or the mainstream media doesn't believe anything Floyd Landis has to say.
 
May 14, 2009
151
0
0
dadoorsron said:
The article implies that any pro cyclist that takes EPO should be able to win the race. Then by saying that you make every cyclist in the race a doper because, if one is using all of them have to be. That's speculation not fact. The article is opinion based using Scientific research to prove the point. However, the riders natural ability is taken out of the equation. You have to include genetic variables to the study to say if one athlete is doing it they all are. You would have to include Lung capacity, VO2 max, Lactic acid threshold, muscle development, red blood cell count, oxygen saturation of muscle tissue, Overall muscle strength. testosterone production, HGH production. The list can go on.

EPO without a doubt increases an athletes endurance. It doesn't prove that if one is doing it everyone is doing it.
Just to recall Riis how he became a genetic freak ! Or Virenque...
It's true in ski-running with Muhlegg and the Russian girls burning the snow at Olympics .

Many riders have confessed that EPO was available in 1993, and then his use increased, we can see a correlation with riders' power.

evolution_20060711180734.jpg
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
1
0
dadoorsron said:
I have made this comment before. If it is all about doping. What is Armstrong and all the other riders taking that is not getting tested for? That would be the question.
)

There is no test (currently) for autologous blood transfusions. Apparently there is one in development, that relies on measuring the amount of an enzyme that is unstable in stored samples.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
dadoorsron said:
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.

Firstly, you did not mention the source or author of that article in your post. Now I know it is from the independent Dutch lawyer hired by the UCI, Emile Vrijman. I have skim read the entire report and I have to admit it is very interesting reading. While there are questions over the research, the main thrust is that the research results could not be used to sanction Armstrong because the samples were not handled according to doping practices. I have been stating this from my first post. The research was not conducted in a manner which could be used to publish the findings in the scientific literature, but the results are still valid. Dr. Ashenden explains the findings in his interview about the 1998-1999 TdF EPO research: http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden. Mr. Vjirman's report is also very critical of the laboratory, UCI and WADA. Most people will agree with you that **** Pound is an *** and he did no service to WADA with his rants. Interesting to see the subsequent reactions of the UCI and WADA to Mr. Vrijman's report because he was not exactly ethical himself in the manner in which he released the report.

dadoorsron said:
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.

Frankie never said he saw Lance take drugs, but he maintains that he and Betsy heard Lance's bedside answer when his doctor asked him whether he had taken PEDs. This is not the same as seeing Lance take drugs. There was also the subpoened text conversation between Vaughters and Andreau.

You may understand the SCA Promotions evidence but obviously do not understand the verdict. Again, the factual and circumstantial evidence of doping was irrelevant to the case. The result came down to the fact that the UCI declared Armstrong the winner of the TdF and his contract with SCA Promotions stated that they would pay the $5 million if he won the TdF. The contract was legally binding. It did not matter if he won using less than honest means, he was declared the winner and SCA Promotions had to pay up.

dadoorsron said:
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.

Sorry, using an interview with Lance to support these arguments is not valid. Proves nothing.

dadoorsron said:
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.

I'm following the information from start to finish. Are you? I understand that you don't believe he, or anyone, has doped until it is proven. That is your view and you're entitled to it. I am not so black and white and like to think for myself and not be told by the USADA or the UCI how to think about a certain athlete. Notice that Lance hasn't been in the suing mood since the SCA Promotions case? Wonder why? Again, his image took a huge hit with the evidence produced in that case. Mr. Vjirman's report was interesting and I thank you for this because it was enlightening. But are you prepared to think so openly about the evidence against Armstrong? I doubt it based on your ready dismissal of "From Lance to Landis". While I don't believe all of the information in this book, the reality probably lies in the middle of Armstrong on one side and Walsh on the other.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
dadoorsron said:
I appericate your view point and you have brought good information to your side of the argument. However, I feel you would agree with me. If there is no proof of doping then you can't speculate that person is doping. Hearsay and publicity is not proof. I do believe the rider is clean until proven other wise.

I made this comment before. If it is all about doping. What is Armstrong and all the other riders taking that is not getting tested for? That would be the question.

A. There is proof.
B. That is a ridiculous statement. Who says we cannot speculate? A Lance fan hell bent on protecting his little shrine of hero worship?

I read statements you made about the Andreaus and what was said in that room. I would suggest this, get to know something about Betsy and I think you will see that your regurgitation of Lance's line about her is complete bull****. I have stayed out of this little fray becase I have had this back and forth hundreds of times, and to *******ize Obie Wan "The Denial is strong in this one." Some people know what time it is, and some don't. The fact is that in a civil trial, Mr Armstrong would get slaughtered, and he knows it. That is why he went from sue happy pappy, to angst riddled twitterer.
 
dadoorsron said:
...I have made this comment before. If it is all about doping. What is Armstrong and all the other riders taking that is not getting tested for? That would be the question.

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 that hematocrit count average 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.
 

Bagster

BANNED
Jun 23, 2009
290
0
0
iceaxe said:
Nope. it's called inner rage and a need to compensate. you have to be gay or a minority or former cancer patient or something like that to over achieve in a non life threatening peace time contest. You can just look at contador and know that guy has a psychotic need to win. Put contador in the ww1 trenches and he'd be the first to have a nervous breakdown because he is so highstrung.[/QUOTE

Ah you mean like Federer or Woods or Ronaldo...go back to bed dude
 

Bagster

BANNED
Jun 23, 2009
290
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
A. There is proof.
B. That is a ridiculous statement. Who says we cannot speculate? A Lance fan hell bent on protecting his little shrine of hero worship?

I read statements you made about the Andreaus and what was said in that room. I would suggest this, get to know something about Betsy and I think you will see that your regurgitation of Lance's line about her is complete bull****. I have stayed out of this little fray becase I have had this back and forth hundreds of times, and to *******ize Obie Wan "The Denial is strong in this one." Some people know what time it is, and some don't. The fact is that in a civil trial, Mr Armstrong would get slaughtered, and he knows it. That is why he went from sue happy pappy, to angst riddled twitterer.

Wow the closer we get to Paris the more the Hateboyz start to frenzy. Back into your cage Thoughtless.
 
May 14, 2009
151
0
0
Some more points about the independent report of Vrijman:

- not so independent because of the relationchips between UCI president Verdruggen and Emile Vrijman : 2 dutch lawyers and friends.

- difficult to be independent when UCI president had backed up Lance before the end of the Vrijman's investigation

- if the report were partial, why not to mention that the testing was held under high scientific standard but not following the UCI rules?

Clearly a biased report to serve Verdruggen and Armstrong purposes.

The denial of Vrijman's report:
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/newsarticle.ch2?articleId=3115718
 

whiteboytrash

BANNED
Mar 17, 2009
525
0
0
If there was one glorious thing about the now-ended retirement of Lance Armstrong from cycling, it was that Sally Jenkins couldn’t use the column space of the Washington Post to blow sweet nothings to this amazing, brave, game, brick house of a man. Jenkins, of course, is the prominent Post sports columnist who a decade ago started writing books not about Armstrong or on Armstrong, but with Armstrong.


The distinction means everything. In the years since the collaboration started, Jenkins has proudly written her conflict of interest all over every Armstrong column she can get by her editors. Yes, the Post does routinely disclose the conflict, which gets the reader absolutely nowhere. Herewith just a few excerpts—there’s much, much more, but it all sounds the same—from Jenkins’ columnar hero worship, starting with the most recent iteration:

July 13, 2009: This Tour by rights should have been all about Contador, who is clearly, incontrovertibly the next great. Instead here is this grizzled boot-faced Texan hanging around, suggesting he’s still raw and it’s not quite his time yet. Armstrong even said on Sunday he might ride in one more Tour.

I don’t know how all this will turn out, but I’ll make one prediction: Contador may resent it right now, but in years to come he’ll appreciate the fact he rode as an equal with Armstrong in this race. Love him, hate him, or suspect him, Armstrong is a competitor of towering mental strength and cuts an indelible figure of bravado on the bike when he dances above it, as someone once remarked, like a cat climbing a tree. Contador will be glad that he had at least one chance to measure himself against that.

July 10, 2009: The e-mail that came from Lance Armstrong was cryptic, as always. “It’s happening,” he wrote.
By it, he meant everything: the fruition of his un-retirement, the promising liveliness in his legs, his menacing creep up the standings of the Tour de France, from 10th to second by a fraction, and the international frenzy he has caused by contending again at the age of almost 38.

“So what are you going to do next to electrify the world?” I asked. “Go over Niagara Falls in a barrel?” He’d probably race the water to the bottom.

“Ha,” he replied.

In fact, the next thing Armstrong is likely to do is take the lead in the Tour. One thing I know about Armstrong, my friend and book collaborator of a decade now, is how much he loves a confrontation.

July 26, 2004: It will be interesting now to see whether Armstrong remains motivated. He’s spent so much of his life in embattled striving, whether in fighting illness, or competing in the grueling Tour. For years, Armstrong has carefully weighed every morsel of pasta he put in his mouth, and denied himself basic comforts in pursuit of Tour titles.

He has spent months away from his family, lived an almost monkish life. He has elevated the race with cutting-edge training methods and technology, turning it into an almost scientific undertaking. He has probably made the race look too easy. Few people, perhaps no one, can understand the toll the race has taken on him. The thinness of his face and the jutting of his cheekbones only suggest it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bagster said:
Wow the closer we get to Paris the more the Hateboyz start to frenzy. Back into your cage Thoughtless.

Awe, isn't she cute?
 

whiteboytrash

BANNED
Mar 17, 2009
525
0
0
whiteboytrash said:
Not his book ! He said he didn't dope in that one ! This interview.....

http://www.orangecoastmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=156

Two quotes interest me most. The first being:

"So I don’t tell them that Floyd once offhandedly told me over burritos at a Chipotle near his home, “Just so you know, Marty, Lance doped.” Or that Floyd said it casually, as if it was common insider knowledge. "

and more importantly:

"And I don’t tell them what it’s like at the Tour, where the riders are like rock stars and where groupies camp out in the cheap hotel lobbies in which the teams stay, or the threesome two Italian riders proposed in rather graphic terms in a text message that one such groupie proudly showed me before marching off to find their room."

- Give a **** about Lance doping I wonder who the two Italians were in the spit roast !


Thanks WBT. Good post. Keep up the good work. I always enjoy reading your input.
 
Jul 8, 2009
14
0
0
looks like we are back to the good old days...

http://www.sudouest.com/accueil/sports/cyclisme/article/651052/mil/4866995.html#

Complaisance de l'UCI ?

Et cette année ? Rien. Après onze étapes, tout va pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes. Le dopage aurait-il donc subitement disparu du cyclisme en général et du Tour de France en particulier ? Ben voyons. On n'ose imaginer que le retour de l'UCI (où celui de Lance Armstrong...) dans le dispositif antidopage, aux côtés de l'AFLD, ait quelque chose à voir là-dedans. Et pourtant. En fin de semaine dernière, Pierre Bordry, le président de l'AFLD, a sonné l'alarme. Évoquant un contrôle « surprise » à l'hôtel de l'équipe Astana, Pierre Bordry s'est étonné que les contrôleurs assermentés de l'UCI, visiblement très proches de cette formation, se soient laissés offrir un café pour patienter 50 minutes en attendant les coureurs... Théoriquement, un contrôle surprise doit pourtant être effectué dès l'arrivée des contrôleurs. Le patron de l'AFLD n'avait alors pas hésité à accuser les hommes de l'UCI de « complaisance » dans leur façon de procéder. Pat McQuaid, le président de l'Union cycliste internationale s'est évidemment insurgé contre cette mise en cause.
Pas de ciblage

Hier, un rapide coup d'oeil à la liste des coureurs convoqués au contrôle confirmait pourtant cette drôle d'impression que la chasse serait moins acharnée. Outre les classiques vainqueur de l'étape du jour et maillot jaune, la convocation ne concernait ensuite que les 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, 6e, 7e et 8e de l'étape. En d'autres termes, pas de ciblage comme c'était systématiquement le cas l'année dernière avec certains coureurs soupçonnés ou soupçonnables. Sur le Tour 2008, c'est pourtant cette méthode d'acharnement quotidien qui avait permis de coincer Stefan Schumacher ou Ricardo Ricco, par exemple.

Depuis le début de saison, les organisateurs du Tour ne cessent de clamer qu'ils en ont assez des scandales sur leur épreuve. Leur rapprochement avec l'Union cycliste internationale aurait-il permis de recommencer, comme au bon vieux temps, à laver le linge sale en famille ? C'est une hypothèse, rien de plus pour l'instant. Après tout, ils auraient peut-être tort de se priver. Le tennis (lire en page 34, le cas Gasquet) s'embarrasse-t-il, lui ?>>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.