The Article: WSJ - reopened!

[Cobblestones]

Found the post from Joe Papp on page 85 in this thread. Thank you!
Nothing in it, however, convinces me that Flandis is lying about the testosterone. Au contraire, Joe even gives us a couple of other scenarios that might be possible. ("Floyd swears that he did not KNOWINGLY use testosterone during the 2006 Tour. That leaves open the possibility that he consumed another doping product that was mistaken for something else but was actually an anabolic; that the blood he transfused contained metabolites of testosterone from previous doping; or he's lying about this point.")

yes, that's pretty much the consensus.

 

[roadfreak44]

The full monty

During their training rides in St. Moritz, Mr. Landis said, Mr. Armstrong explained the complicated logistics of transfusions, which involved carrying coolers with hidden blood bags across international borders. He said Mr. Armstrong told him that cyclists used to use erythropoietin, or EPO, a drug that controls red-blood-cell production, to enrich their blood during the Tour. But that substance was now detectable in tests, so riders had turned to transfusions.

In July 2002, with help from Mr. Landis, Mr. Armstrong won the Tour de France, claiming his fourth title

The above is from Landis' allegations to the WSJ. So LA wasnt using EPO anymore? This is cycling reality according to Landis. Yet in his initial allegations in May at TOC he said he went to Armstrongs apartment and was given "Six syringes of EPO" would that be the EPO LA didnt use anymore or the new improved EPO they were using?I m a little confused by this obvious contradiction.
So which is it Floyd?

Oddly enough he also offers that he was asked to "watch the blood" in LAs apartment . I guess you have to "watch a freezer" to make sure it doesnt do somethign unusual? what exactly does one watch a freezer for? according to Landis it is because the blood has to be exactly so many degrees and then the other side of the coin is that if it isnt then the blood is ruined and unusable..then he says that during the tour all the guys on Postal are lying down on the team bus with blood bags draining into their arms...the blood bags were stored where again?
Oh yeah in the hollow bottom of a cooler(according to Landis) which would be EXACTLY how many degrees? I guess it was ok because Floyd was probably on "cooler watch" as well as "freezer watch"
So the blood has to be exactly so many degrees but the team manger, soigneur or whoever just throws it into a fake cooler compartment where it can ferment...uh huh...
This Floyd is one logical and totally believable fellow isnt he ?

 

[joe_papp]

Oddly enough he also offers that he was asked to "watch the blood" in LAs apartment . I guess you have to "watch a freezer" to make sure it doesnt do somethign unusual? what exactly does one watch a freezer for?

You're silly. do you and your colleagues get paid to front for Lance or is it a volunteer position?

Apologies to luckyboy, but you watch the freezer to make sure that it continues functioning properly and maintains the necessary temperature range for storing blood that is intended for Lance Armstrong to reinfuse during the Tour de France when he blood dopes. Were a crappy euro-fuse to blow, or wiring short, or the BOSCH appliance just stop working, FLandis would have been there to rescue the blood and ensure that it wasn't rendered unusable.

Not sure why you thought that would be an effective point of contention...

 

[woodburn]

During their training rides in St. Moritz, Mr. Landis said, Mr. Armstrong explained the complicated logistics of transfusions, which involved carrying coolers with hidden blood bags across international borders. He said Mr. Armstrong told him that cyclists used to use erythropoietin, or EPO, a drug that controls red-blood-cell production, to enrich their blood during the Tour. But that substance was now detectable in tests, so riders had turned to transfusions.

In July 2002, with help from Mr. Landis, Mr. Armstrong won the Tour de France, claiming his fourth title

The above is from Landis' allegations to the WSJ. So LA wasnt using EPO anymore? This is cycling reality according to Landis. Yet in his initial allegations in May at TOC he said he went to Armstrongs apartment and was given "Six syringes of EPO" would that be the EPO LA didnt use anymore or the new improved EPO they were using?I m a little confused by this obvious contradiction.
So which is it Floyd?

Oddly enough he also offers that he was asked to "watch the blood" in LAs apartment . I guess you have to "watch a freezer" to make sure it doesnt do somethign unusual? what exactly does one watch a freezer for? according to Landis it is because the blood has to be exactly so many degrees and then the other side of the coin is that if it isnt then the blood is ruined and unusable..then he says that during the tour all the guys on Postal are lying down on the team bus with blood bags draining into their arms...the blood bags were stored where again?
Oh yeah in the hollow bottom of a cooler(according to Landis) which would be EXACTLY how many degrees? I guess it was ok because Floyd was probably on "cooler watch" as well as "freezer watch"
So the blood has to be exactly so many degrees but the team manger, soigneur or whoever just throws it into a fake cooler compartment where it can ferment...uh huh...
This Floyd is one logical and totally believable fellow isnt he ?

I hope you were being sarcastic. He was there to watch in case the power went out or freezer stopped working. That would cause the temperature to drop too low.

 

[luckyboy]

Riders still microdose EPO.

Landis would've needed to watch the refrigerated blood in case of a power cut or short fuse or something.

Edit: Oh, there you go.

 

[thehog]

The wedge article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703881504575345451972029546.html

Places it nicely.

Have to say Armstrong has come out of the allegations fairly well thus far.

I'd say its 1-1 at half-time.

 

[Big GMaC]

Floyd is logical and totally believable

Why thank you

 

[hektoren]

yes, that's pretty much the consensus.

Only problem I've got with JP's theory is that he mentions METABOLITES of testosterone.
If the blood went into the cooler you'd have testosterone, not metabolites of the real deal. Testosterone usually ends up as Estradiol and 5-alpha-dihydrotestosterone (if my memory serves me right), but AFAIK tests don't discern between 5-alpha-dihydrotestosterone and testosterone. Both 19-carbon molecules.
In short, nothing I've read yet makes me conclude that Landis is lying about this.

 

[joe_papp]

The wedge article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703881504575345451972029546.html

Places it nicely.

Have to say Armstrong has come out of the allegations fairly well thus far.

I'd say its 1-1 at half-time.

I don't find this to be shocking. In fact, I'm glad the sponsors are sticking with him thus far, as the material adverse event clause in his contracts has surely not been triggered yet.

Once Lance is indicted, however, watch them run. That is, if he still has sponsors 18 months from now.

 

[luckyboy]

It would've been pretty explosive if a sponsor dropped him this early. Not much of a surprise tbh.

 

[LastRide]

Our papers are running with this angle.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/lance-partied-with-strippers-20100703-zuws.html

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm puzzled by the vitriol posted here about Lance's work in the cancer world.
I have unfortunately been very effected by cancer in my lifetime and all the people I've met like me would rate Livestrong and Lance as having positive effects on cancer and I believe they would all continue to believe so even if we showed them irrefutable proof that he was blood doped for his entire career.

I suspect he really does care at least a little, but even if he didn't give a **** about cancer patients and was in it all for himself, I think most people in that world would still feel the spotlight he's put on it and the increased funding and the change in attitude has been beneficial.

So I think it'd be best if we just separate that stuff from the cycling stuff and stick to the case against him as a doper.

A lot of what you say is accurate - but with one large exception that muddys the waters.

It is Lance that plays the 'cancer card' when he talks about cycling - it is he who does not separate the two.(examples at end of post)

Yes, LA has done some great things for the cancer community - Doug Ulman does an excellent job at Livestrong - (although LA should have no financial interest in it)

Lance does do good work for cancer....but he also dopes - they are and should be separate. A doper is a doper, it's not a personality competition. Indeed to use it as your 'get out of jail card surely is more grotesque?

Quick example, todays rebuttal to the WSJ piece ended with:

"Lastly, I have too much work to do during this, my final Tour, and then after my retirement in my continued fight against cancer, to add any attention to this predictable pre-Tour sensationalism."

Or his 'reply' to Kimmages question at the ToC? (Video here)

... I am here to fight this disease, I am here so that I don't have to deal with it, you don't have to deal with it, none of us have to deal with it, my children don't have to deal with......

 

[dbrower]

First, if he transfused half a liter and his total blood volume is usually 5 liters then he put in 10% of the blood he had when he was using testosterone. Whatever was in his transfused blood would be diluted to 10% of its original value. He would have had to have been using a mega dose of testosterone.

Second, testing of FLandis' other TdF samples showed testosterone use throughout the Tour.

Some possibilities:

1) He could be lying about not using testosterone.
2) Something else he was taking contained a substance that tripped the testorone test.
3) Unbenownst to him, someone else was giving him testosterone.
4) The UCI set him up to damage the ASO, which the UCI was feuding with at the time.
5) The carbon isotope test is flawed and can produce false positives.

Testing positive while not knowingly taking testosterone does explain why he fought so hard and expended so much.

What I would have said. Thanks. FL haters note that #1 remains a possibility, and we probably won't have more clues unless and until the coded training diary comes to light.

-dB

 

[scribe]

What I would have said. Thanks. FL haters note that #1 remains a possibility, and we probably won't have more clues unless and until the coded training diary comes to light.

-dB

What is a FL hater?

If he had won without doping, like I thought he did during his miracle stage, I would have been a FL lover! But we all know that did not happen.

 

[scribe]

He is not lying to people with terminal disease to give them hope. He is doing to make money and to stroke his ego. He is a despicable excuse for a human being. At least Madoff just stole from the rich.

All successful pro athletes set up foundations. What makes the livestrong one unique, is that it became a mega-success with the sales of the bracelets in popular culture. At least 95% of the people buying them couldn't really conceptualize what pro cycling really is if they tried to. Livestrong became a this elephant that really should not have been, and certainly not by design without consequence.

 

[buckwheat]

I'm puzzled by the vitriol posted here about Lance's work in the cancer world.
I have unfortunately been very effected by cancer in my lifetime and all the people I've met like me would rate Livestrong and Lance as having positive effects on cancer and I believe they would all continue to believe so even if we showed them irrefutable proof that he was blood doped for his entire career.

I suspect he really does care at least a little, but even if he didn't give a **** about cancer patients and was in it all for himself, I think most people in that world would still feel the spotlight he's put on it and the increased funding and the change in attitude has been beneficial.

So I think it'd be best if we just separate that stuff from the cycling stuff and stick to the case against him as a doper.

He's using his charities exactly as he knows you would see them, to garner sympathy and distract from his fraud. What's the difference between Armstrong and Bonds? Answer, the halo effect.

Actually, I agree.

I also don't see how all the stuff about blow and hookers is relevant, I think less of Landis for bringing that up and on the whole it weakens his own case. I'm not sure why the WSJ covers that part, either. It's trash. Let's focus on the real stuff here: doping, organized doping, fraud, whatever.

It's relevant because Armstrong made it relevant by trumpeting his being a big family man in his biographies. I couldn't give a $hit if he picks up a different skeezer every night. I just don't want to hear people like him and Tiger yapping about how family comes first. Gimmee a break.

 

[LC - Cyclingnews]

Our papers are running with this angle.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/lance-partied-with-strippers-20100703-zuws.html

Yeah, because for Rupert to run with anything other than the party - which people will forgive Lance for as just being 'one of the boys' - would mean that he might risk his 'mateship' with Armstrong, which he loves to tell people about.

 

[LC - Cyclingnews]

Exactly - those guys saying you don't need to watch a freezer in Euroland obviously haven't been there and experienced the crappy wiring in some of the houses... Spot on Joe, this is definitely a questionable point of contention.

 

[Ferminal]

A lot of what you say is accurate - but with one large exception that muddys the waters.

It is Lance that plays the 'cancer card' when he talks about cycling - it is he who does not separate the two.(examples at end of post)

Yes, LA has done some great things for the cancer community - Doug Ulman does an excellent job at Livestrong - (although LA should have no financial interest in it)

Lance does do good work for cancer....but he also dopes - they are and should be separate. A doper is a doper, it's not a personality competition. Indeed to use it as your 'get out of jail card surely is more grotesque?

Quick example, todays rebuttal to the WSJ piece ended with:


Or his 'reply' to Kimmages question at the ToC? (Video here)

Lance the cancer crusader is simply an image booster for Lance the professional cyclist. Welcome to the world of "celebrities" and their "foundations" - they are just as much self-serving as they are philanthropic.

 

[dbrower]

"No dope before USPS for Landis
No dope @ Phonak when Landis got there."

Why is no one else commenting on this? I'm having more trouble believing Landis now than before reading this article.

The first is a good question, possibly illuminated by the traning/doping diaries if we ever see them; the second less so for two reasons. (a) He wasn't there before he was there and wouldn't know details; (b) the big management shakeup before he got there that probably cleaned out the previous doping program.

-dB

 

[stephens]

Lance the cancer crusader is simply an image booster for Lance the professional cyclist. Welcome to the world of "celebrities" and their "foundations" - they are just as much self-serving as they are philanthropic.

That's fine. But anyone who feels they've benefitted from the existence of the livestrong phenomenon won't rightfully care one bit that it was started by an egomaniac or as a cover up or any of that. They've got more important things to worry about than if some guy cheated in a bike race or is a con man or likes hookers and blow.

We like to look at the cycling angle and the fairness in sports angle and all that, but there are plenty of other people out there would be happy to accept that cheating in Le Tour gave Lance the fame that allowed him to meet personally with some head of state that resulted in increased funding for cancer research or treatment options that ended up doing some good for a lot of people in their situation. And they just won't care about the cycling side of it at all.

Face it. Even if it's a con, Lance does put in a lot of work on it. He probably spends more time talking about cancer and going to meetings and visiting patients and all that crap than he does on the bike training. It just seems too elaborate to be all about the fame/money/wins. There are much easier scams to run!

 

[Cobblestones]

Only problem I've got with JP's theory is that he mentions METABOLITES of testosterone.
If the blood went into the cooler you'd have testosterone, not metabolites of the real deal. Testosterone usually ends up as Estradiol and 5-alpha-dihydrotestosterone (if my memory serves me right), but AFAIK tests don't discern between 5-alpha-dihydrotestosterone and testosterone. Both 19-carbon molecules.
In short, nothing I've read yet makes me conclude that Landis is lying about this.

There would have to be metabolites in the bloodstream, otherwise how do they get transported to the kidneys and end up in the urine. As I said before in this thread, I don't think Landis is lying in this case. I also don't think the lab tests were wrong. Likely Landis took the testosterone unwittingly or accidentally through a transfusion. We might never know.

The main point is that Landis's claim he did not take testosterone is used to discredit him. I think there's ample room to believe his claim and still explain the presence of testosterone in his sample.

 

[Ferminal]

That's fine. But anyone who feels they've benefitted from the existence of the livestrong phenomenon won't rightfully care one bit that it was started by an egomaniac or as a cover up or any of that.

Yeh I have no problem with that either.

Do you think the power of LAF/LS would be diminished if say - Lance returned a positive test this week and was officially sanctioned? I'm genuinely asking the question as I honestly don't know, it seems as though those who believe in what he offers are willing to see through everything?

For me Lance makes a bit of a mockery out of cancer the way he plays it, just my opinion.

 

[hrotha]

The first is a good question, possibly illuminated by the traning/doping diaries if we ever see them; the second less so for two reasons. (a) He wasn't there before he was there and wouldn't know details; (b) the big management shakeup before he got there that probably cleaned out the previous doping program.

-dB

Hmmm, yes, I suppose that makes sense. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this.

I assumed a team like Phonak would have an organized doping program, since smaller teams like Kelme did, but I guess it's also possible (if less likely) that team-wide doping programs weren't that widespread at the time (or now) and that teams left that kind of thing up to the individual riders. It's easy to make baseless assumptions about such shady matters. Maybe people like Joe Papp have some insider info about this?

 

[scribe]

"No dope before USPS for Landis
No dope @ Phonak when Landis got there."



The first is a good question, possibly illuminated by the traning/doping diaries if we ever see them; the second less so for two reasons. (a) He wasn't there before he was there and wouldn't know details; (b) the big management shakeup before he got there that probably cleaned out the previous doping program.

-dB

You really trust the construction of these so-called doping diaries? Let's see, all he has to do is tear out the first few years and say it started with Bruyneel when he got off that helicopter.