Reactions from the Pro Peloton to #USPSConspiracy (USADA) - post here

[neineinei]

What awful statements, all I read was careful diplo speak? I think he will say what he really thinks when there is a bit more evidence available in public and/or he has time to look at it. Then the repurcussions for speaking his mind should be easier to manage.

The next time he is back home in Monaco he can have a talk with Gustav Larsson who also lives there. Of course Hushovd knows Lance was doping champion of the world. But he is too chicken to say so. "He is my friend". Yes, sure. But he is also a bully and it is because of his bullyness Hushovd wont say anything, not because of their friendship. Kristoff for instance, is perfectly able to say people are his friends but also that he is very disapointed by them when some team mate or staff has been caught.

If he had only said that he is my friend and this is difficult for me I would happily have accepted it. But he also made a snide remark about the witnesses (of which one quite possibly is a team mate of his) (''Saken koker ned til at noen personer, av ulike grunner, har fortalt hva de har sett og hørt.'' "This comes down to a few persons, who for various reasons has told about what they have seen and heard.") and alleged that Lance was banned for doping only (no positive test). He is banned for far more serious stuff than just doping.

 

[Reacher]

I just read the Abt article. (Great article, BTW.) From this it's clear he wasn't using EPO then.

I think you misunderstand it when you think this means he didn't use EPO then.
94 was the year when Gewiss dominated before the tour because Ferrari had found out to boost the EPO effect by combinating it with other stuff.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

in 2001 Norwegian Skiiers still had access to Altitude tents. A couple of years later they were banned. I am pretty sure the values were high because of that.

Hell, my hemoglobin level has been in the 17's. Probably dehydrated.

So did the swedes.

Season, In-season avg, Off-season avg, Peak value

93–94 156,7±7,7 153,6±4,6 172 (No limit)
94–95 150,5±9,3 149,5±7,2 166
95–96 152,9±9,2 149,5±9,2 168
96–97 152,2±7,4 149,5±1,2 164 (limit: 185)
97–98 146,4±3,5 149,2±3,1 161
98–99 150,2±4,0 147,7±2,5 159
99–00 149,3±7,0 154,5±8,1 168
00–01 150,8±6,4 150,7±4,7 161 (limit: 175)

Not a single skier above 16 from 94/95 to 00/01. Compared to half the norwegian men's team in -01 >17.0. How come?

Did you notice this?

1999 some 30 male skiers between 17.0- 18.7 g/100 ml; medal winners > 17.0 g/100ml

http://www.powershow.com/view/5bbd2...ing_culture_be_changed_flash_ppt_presentation

1999 Worlds:

10 km classical

Medal Athlete Time
Gold Mika Myllylä (FIN) 24:19.2
Silver Alois Stadlober (AUT) 24:34.7
Bronze Odd-Bjørn Hjelmeset (NOR) 24:37.1

- Her er våre blodverdier (- Here are our blood values) (2001)

Odd-Bjørn Hjelmeset (29)
Høyest: 15,6
Lavest: 13,9
Normal: 14,5

Any comments?

 

[ToreBear]

It's very likely your skiers were on EPO at the time.

Visions,plans and hopes can the doping culture be changed? - PPT Presentation


http://www.dagbladet.no/sport/2001/03/06/245493.html

1995 Methodology problems. Testing conducted after the race. The tempreture was horrible for skiing(warm), causing more dehydration. It's likely all values were too high until the methodology was corrected in the 96/97 season when max levels were introduced.
http://www.sportsci.org/news/news9701/EPOfeat.html

1999. I think testing was carried out before the race started. Meaning at least the Norwegians would have been well rested after just having come down from altitude or working out in the Altititude house. hg levels are higher after a period of rest and altitude training as the link writes.

The numbers presented in dagbladet are I asume from the data over their careers. I don't see any problems with these numbers. Who knows the conditions during the testing of individuals(dehydration, etc). Also these values vary from time to time as per link above.

I think these issues have their own thread, I would be happy to discuss these issues more there.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10911&highlight=skiing

Ah, you are it's father. I read this thread before. It provided the information needed to alay my fears of Norwegian XC skiing.

 

[ToreBear]

So did the swedes.



Not a single skier above 16 from 94/95 to 00/01. Compared to half the norwegian men's team in -01 >17.0. How come?

Did you notice this?



http://www.powershow.com/view/5bbd2...ing_culture_be_changed_flash_ppt_presentation

1999 Worlds:



- Her er våre blodverdier (- Here are our blood values) (2001)



Any comments?

Could you provide the original source for the swedish numbers please?

I remember seeing them in an article and the authors pointing out they also had access to the Norwegian numbers and none of them were suspicious either according to the authors.

 

[mikkemus23]

Going OT here, guys...

 

[ToreBear]

The next time he is back home in Monaco he can have a talk with Gustav Larsson who also lives there. Of course Hushovd knows Lance was doping champion of the world. But he is too chicken to say so. "He is my friend". Yes, sure. But he is also a bully and it is because of his bullyness Hushovd wont say anything, not because of their friendship. Kristoff for instance, is perfectly able to say people are his friends but also that he is very disapointed by them when some team mate or staff has been caught.

If he had only said that he is my friend and this is difficult for me I would happily have accepted it. But he also made a snide remark about the witnesses (of which one quite possibly is a team mate of his) (''Saken koker ned til at noen personer, av ulike grunner, har fortalt hva de har sett og hørt.'' "This comes down to a few persons, who for various reasons has told about what they have seen and heard.") and alleged that Lance was banned for doping only (no positive test). He is banned for far more serious stuff than just doping.

Are Gustav Larsson and Armstrong "friends"? Are Kristoff and Armstrong "friends"? Is them speaking their mind more likely or less likely to illicit a response from an enraged Armstrong compared to his "friend" Hushovd?

He starts of the lines you mentioned with: Lance has never tested positive thats why this is difficult.

Meaning if there had been a positive test this would have been much easier. Well it would wouldn't it? Perhaps it becomes easier for Hushovd when more evidence comes out?

If you interpret his very diplomatic answers with the worst possible intention, then you could possibly say he is defending armstrong and attacking the witnesses. But few people unless they want to make others look bad read statements like that way.

 

[mikkemus23]

One big problem is that he is buying into the never tested positive myth. He van read, so he probably knows of the positives... He just babbles the LA talking points, which went nowhere

 

[ToreBear]

One big problem is that he is buying into the never tested positive myth. He van read, so he probably knows of the positives... He just babbles the LA talking points, which went nowhere

If he did, he did'nt do a very good job of parroting. All he is saying is that it's difficult since he never tested positive. I think you are reading his statements to negatively.

 

[hrotha]

If he did, he did'nt do a very good job of parroting. All he is saying is that it's difficult since he never tested positive. I think you are reading his statements to negatively.

Except he tested positive. He just was never sanctioned.

And even if he hadn't tested positive, that doesn't make the case difficult at all. It's pretty irrelevant considering the mountains of other evidence.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Could you provide the original source for the swedish numbers please?

I remember seeing them in an article and the authors pointing out they also had access to the Norwegian numbers and none of them were suspicious either according to the authors.

It's probably in the skiing thread somewhere.

It doesn't matter what they said about the norwegians. They didn't actually publish any norwegian numbers. The hard info we have access to tells us that 7(!) norwegian men had Hb-values so high that they would not have been allowed to compete today. Skiers still altitude train, but I can't think of a single team that has seen 7 of its athletes get slapped with a start prohibition. Furthermore - and most damningly - good old Odd-Bjørn told us his avg Hb is 14½ and his highest number is 15.6, yet we know he was above 17.0 at the -99 worlds. Sorry, but that's not legitimate.

 

[ToreBear]

Except he tested positive. He just was never sanctioned.

And even if he hadn't tested positive, that doesn't make the case difficult at all. It's pretty irrelevant considering the mountains of other evidence.

I know that, probably Hushovd knows that. But would you expect Hushovd to say that out loud now with a "friend" who takes revenge on people like Armstrong? I'm currently reading Landis interview with Kimmage. I would not want to **** off Armstrong if I could help it.

If I were in Hushovds shoes, with the tentacles armstrong has within the UCI, I would be very careful of what I say and when I say it. Perhaps I would be a coward. But experience has shown me that telling the truth is not always the most sensible option.

 

[ToreBear]

It's probably in the skiing thread somewhere.

It doesn't matter what they said about the norwegians. They didn't actually publish any norwegian numbers. The hard info we have access to tells us that 7(!) norwegian men had Hb-values so high that they would not have been allowed to compete today. Skiers still altitude train, but I can't think of a single team that has seen 7 of its athletes get slapped with a start prohibition. Furthermore - and most damningly - good old Odd-Bjørn told us his avg Hb is 14½ and his highest number is 15.6, yet we know he was above 17.0 at the -99 worlds. Sorry, but that's not legitimate.

IIRC the article was written in Swedish. Why would they lie about something like that? To protect their Norwegian neigbhours from scandal?

The swedes are my favorite neighbours, so I would like to think it's possible the professors would violate their own professional standards to protect our ski team from embarrasment.

I don't think thats likely though. If you are Swedish, you would probably understand that the likelyhood of them covering up something like this and not one of them leaking to aftonbladet or expressen is below 0.001%.

I'm sure those papers would find it excruatiatingly difficult to publish anything that could tarnish any Norwegian skier.

On Hjelmeseth. Strange that the Swedish professors did'nt notice this variation. Perhaps something is explainable and the context is lacking. Or they are covering up for their neighbours!

 

[hrotha]

I know that, probably Hushovd knows that. But would you expect Hushovd to say that out loud now with a "friend" who takes revenge on people like Armstrong? I'm currently reading Landis interview with Kimmage. I would not want to **** off Armstrong if I could help it.

If I were in Hushovds shoes, with the tentacles armstrong has within the UCI, I would be very careful of what I say and when I say it. Perhaps I would be a coward. But experience has shown me that telling the truth is not always the most sensible option.

He could have made the same statement but without the BS parts.

 

[ToreBear]

He could have made the same statement but without the BS parts.

The bs about no positive tests?

 

[hrotha]

The bs about no positive tests?

Yes, and about it being a difficult case because of it. This:

"The case boils down to some people, for different reasons, talking about what theyve seen and heard, if there was a positive test, the case would be ok"

 

[ToreBear]

Yes, and about it being a difficult case because of it. This:

It's still a fact though. It would have been a lot easier convincing people if there had been a positive test. Non analytical positives and witnesses are a new way of thinking about anti doping. People are still used to athletes testing positive.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

It's still a fact though. It would have been a lot easier convincing people if there had been a positive test. Non analytical positives and witnesses are a new way of thinking about anti doping. People are still used to athletes testing positive.

There was many positives of Lance Armstrong. And the (doped) riders know it. Only the guilty excuses with law tacticts like no B-Probe, Lance had TUI, and pretend the other stuff didn´t happen... All they do is learn from his tacticts and take us observers for fools. Anyway, since Hushovd stopped shy to "fall in love with Lance", i gave him a "-" instead of a "--".

 

[ToreBear]

There was many positives of Lance Armstrong. And the (doped) riders know it. Only the guilty excuses with law tacticts like no B-Probe, Lance had TUI, and pretend the other stuff didn´t happen... All they do is learn from his tacticts and take us observers for fools. Anyway, since Hushovd stopped shy to "fall in love with Lance", i gave him a "-" instead of a "--".

If you take the article in context, and what else is in the article I would say it's a 0 not a "-".

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Debattable. But to come up with the "no positive Lance PR BS" (yet he knows better), that can´t be a "0". He´d better say nothing then...

 

[KayLow]

It's still a fact though. It would have been a lot easier convincing people if there had been a positive test. Non analytical positives and witnesses are a new way of thinking about anti doping. People are still used to athletes testing positive.

What is odd about this to me is that a positive test often tells us a lot less about an athlete's doping than a team of knowledgeable eyewitnesses does. Tests are not infallible nor do they supply the necessary context to allow us to understand what the athlete was actually up to. Contador's positive is a good example. I know a lot of people who accept that Contador is a doper who are still puzzled by his positive test. The same goes with Frank Schleck's positive test. In many cases, the tests raise many more questions than they answer. Eyewitnesses who can piece together a complex narrative supported by surrounding evidence are far more reliable than any single failed drug test ever will be.

 

[ToreBear]

Debattable. But to come up with the "no positive Lance PR BS" (yet he knows better), that can´t be a "0". He´d better say nothing then...

One can argue thats exactly what he did. Say nothing. He was very diplomatic. He could have sung from the armstrong line. 5000 negative tests, which hunt, conspiracy etc. He gave a little to all sides.

Had he said nothing, the article would have been about his "no comment". And that would be news.

 

[ToreBear]

What is odd about this to me is that a positive test often tells us a lot less about an athlete's doping than a team of knowledgeable eyewitnesses does. Tests are not infallible nor do they supply the necessary context to allow us to understand what the athlete was actually up to. Contador's positive is a good example. I know a lot of people who accept that Contador is a doper who are still puzzled by his positive test. The same goes with Frank Schleck's positive test. In many cases, the tests raise many more questions than they answer. Eyewitnesses who can piece together a complex narrative supported by surrounding evidence are far more reliable than any single failed drug test ever will be.

That's a good point, and I agree. Since this case is built on eyewitness testimony and non analytical positives(and positves likely hidden), we are more likely to get the full picture. Or at least a more complete picture.

With Contador we will not know the process leading into his doping. Or weather the cows in spain are steroid addicts.

Was Franky framed by Brunell, or was he so desperate to get away that he would do anything to show he was worth every penny to a prospective teams?

Positives are overrated. Witnesses are needed to break the omerta.

 

[thehog]

What is odd about this to me is that a positive test often tells us a lot less about an athlete's doping than a team of knowledgeable eyewitnesses does. Tests are not infallible nor do they supply the necessary context to allow us to understand what the athlete was actually up to. Contador's positive is a good example. I know a lot of people who accept that Contador is a doper who are still puzzled by his positive test. The same goes with Frank Schleck's positive test. In many cases, the tests raise many more questions than they answer. Eyewitnesses who can piece together a complex narrative supported by surrounding evidence are far more reliable than any single failed drug test ever will be.

This post. Brilliant.

 

[Ingenerius]

Hushovd has put himself in a difficult position cause of his earlier fondling with Armstrong, which I think has more to do with him being a money hungry ***** and opportunistic in that regard than with doping. So I understand that it is difficult for him to say much. Its hard and strange to do a sudden complete 180 degree.

Him saying: I knew all the time, good riddance etc. now would expose him as such an opportunistic hypocrite being completely false with the norwegian fans and fans in general(which he is). So I understand it is hard from his point of view to say anything good.

But him reiterating some of Armstrong's talking points is disappointing and makes him a definite (-). Would be much better if he said much less.