The Sports Illustrated Article

[theswordsman]

A bonus quote from the AFP version

Embattled Tour de France icon Lance Armstrong has angrily brushed off fresh doping allegations that emerged in a magazine report.

When pressed on Sports Illustrated's claims, he hit back: "Dude, are you that stupid? Which part of 'I'm not commenting' is not clear to you?"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.6d766131923947fefa8d4cd43080b5e0.231

 

[Race Radio]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1180944/1/index.htm

Complete article online now

 

[Ferminal]

Was just on Sportscenter very briefly, only detail it mentioned was the testosterone levels.

 

[GoGarmin]

The article is really going to kill Armstrong in the United States as it continues to circulate. He is going down hard, very hard, especially after Novitzky indicts him.

I was blown away by the Popo stuff. What does that knucklehead think, keeping that stuff on his computer? Wow. Just wow.

 

[luckyboy]

I was blown away by the Popo stuff. What does that knucklehead think, keeping that stuff on his computer? Wow. Just wow.

Yeah that did seem strange.

 

[stephens]

Well, if it sounds too good to be true, maybe it is.

 

[Ferminal]

For the same reason Lance kept charging on EPO after being warned by Ferrari. Why he walked through customs with a bag full of gear, why Astana threw IVs out in the garbage.

They are delusional and think that they are invincible.

 

[Siriuscat]

I was blown away by the Popo stuff. What does that knucklehead think, keeping that stuff on his computer? Wow. Just wow.

Perhaps he's been learning from the master and keeping his own "get out of jail free card"

 

[Kennf1]

For the same reason Lance kept charging on EPO after being warned by Ferrari. Why he walked through customs with a bag full of gear, why Astana threw IVs out in the garbage.

They are delusional and think that they are invincible.

And he still is. By tweeting "That's it?" in response to today's article, he's really showing the extent of it.

 

[Ferminal]

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2011/01/18/talking-points/

Interesting

HBOCs have up to twice as much hemoglobin concentration as human blood. And, the independent hemoglobin molecules can also bond to up to four times as many oxygen molecules as hemoglobin in whole blood. Finally, those covalent bonds in free hemoglobin are not as strong as in whole blood, meaning the body does less work to break free the oxygen and use it.

All of that makes HBOCs, on paper, anyway, far more efficient at delivering oxygen to muscles than whole blood.

It turns out they’re likely not. Dr. Michael Ashenden, founder of the Science and Industry Against Blood Doping consortium and member of the UCI bio-passport panel, told me two years ago that HBOCs never delivered the kind of oxygen-transport capacity they seemed to offer. As a result of that and their scarcity, they fell out of favor compared to less exotic regimens like blood doping and micro-dosing EPO.

 

[MacRoadie]

Another interesting nugget from Joe's column:

While Baxter formally pulled the plug on HemAssist in the fall of 1998, the year before Armstrong began his run of Tour de France wins (this fact was cited in a CyclingNews story as refuting SI’s contention), as the SI story notes, stocks of the drug may have continued to be available after that. Clinical studies using HemAssist continued to publish until at least 2002 and possibly as late as 2004.

Will this information find it's way into the CyclingNews story?

 

[stephens]

A few questions/comments prompted by the article.

If a pin *** is enough to do a hematocrit test, how come I have to give a whole vial full every time. Damn it!

They make HemAssist sound better than EPO: if so, wonder why it got shelved instead of going to market.

FWIW, all, or at least nearly all, "evidence" in that article also carries with it more prominent voices discrediting the evidence. For example, supposed high testosterone levels - excused when B samples did not confirm. In other words, there is so much wiggle room in this "case" that it will never lead to conviction by a jury and would even allow Armstrong to save face with much of his fan base since, basically, none of it contradicts the most powerful piece of evidence he has on his side, the one he relies on: never *officially* tested positive, never sanctioned. (no, the cream doesn't count).

Like I keep saying, the only charge that will likely ever stick and kill Armstrong's image would be if they can prove that there were actual failed official tests and that bribes were paid to cover them up. Absent that, the legend survives, no matter what any of us here might think.

 

[Kennf1]

A few questions/comments prompted by the article.

If a pin *** is enough to do a hematocrit test, how come I have to give a whole vial full every time. Damn it!

They make HemAssist sound better than EPO: if so, wonder why it got shelved instead of going to market.

FWIW, all, or at least nearly all, "evidence" in that article also carries with it more prominent voices discrediting the evidence. For example, supposed high testosterone levels - excused when B samples did not confirm. In other words, there is so much wiggle room in this "case" that it will never lead to conviction by a jury and would even allow Armstrong to save face with much of his fan base since, basically, none of it contradicts the most powerful piece of evidence he has on his side, the one he relies on: never *officially* tested positive, never sanctioned. (no, the cream doesn't count).

Like I keep saying, the only charge that will likely ever stick and kill Armstrong's image would be if they can prove that there were actual failed official tests and that bribes were paid to cover them up. Absent that, the legend survives, no matter what any of us here might think.

I guess you missed the implication that USOC and Catlin's lab were covering up positives. These prominent voices discrediting the evidence...are you talking about the people accused?
You do understand that the article is not the entire file of the Justice Department, right?

 

[BikeCentric]

A few questions/comments prompted by the article.

If a pin *** is enough to do a hematocrit test, how come I have to give a whole vial full every time. Damn it!

They make HemAssist sound better than EPO: if so, wonder why it got shelved instead of going to market.

FWIW, all, or at least nearly all, "evidence" in that article also carries with it more prominent voices discrediting the evidence. For example, supposed high testosterone levels - excused when B samples did not confirm. In other words, there is so much wiggle room in this "case" that it will never lead to conviction by a jury and would even allow Armstrong to save face with much of his fan base since, basically, none of it contradicts the most powerful piece of evidence he has on his side, the one he relies on: never *officially* tested positive, never sanctioned. (no, the cream doesn't count).

Like I keep saying, the only charge that will likely ever stick and kill Armstrong's image would be if they can prove that there were actual failed official tests and that bribes were paid to cover them up. Absent that, the legend survives, no matter what any of us here might think.

Going down with the ship eh? Well isn't that cute.

 

[Publicus]

A few questions/comments prompted by the article.

If a pin *** is enough to do a hematocrit test, how come I have to give a whole vial full every time. Damn it!

They make HemAssist sound better than EPO: if so, wonder why it got shelved instead of going to market.

FWIW, all, or at least nearly all, "evidence" in that article also carries with it more prominent voices discrediting the evidence. For example, supposed high testosterone levels - excused when B samples did not confirm. In other words, there is so much wiggle room in this "case" that it will never lead to conviction by a jury and would even allow Armstrong to save face with much of his fan base since, basically, none of it contradicts the most powerful piece of evidence he has on his side, the one he relies on: never *officially* tested positive, never sanctioned. (no, the cream doesn't count).

Like I keep saying, the only charge that will likely ever stick and kill Armstrong's image would be if they can prove that there were actual failed official tests and that bribes were paid to cover them up. Absent that, the legend survives, no matter what any of us here might think.

On your second question, I would check the link to the Boulder Report a couple of posts up. It explains that none of the artificial blood substitutes delivered on their promise.

Here's the link: http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2011/01/18/talking-points/

 

[redtreviso]

On your second question, I would check the link to the Boulder Report a couple of posts up. It explains that none of the artificial blood substitutes delivered on their promise.

Here's the link: http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2011/01/18/talking-points/

They didn't deliver on their promise if you arrived at the ER with a gunshot wound or had your arm lopped off in a car accident,,,but as a PED what promises were expected and produced?

 

[Publicus]

They didn't deliver on their promise if you arrived at the ER with a gunshot wound or had your arm lopped off in a car accident,,,but as a PED what promises were expected and produced?

I think the paragraph summarizing Joe's conversation with Dr. Ashenden sums it up nicely:

All of that makes HBOCs, on paper, anyway, far more efficient at delivering oxygen to muscles than whole blood.

It turns out they’re likely not. Dr. Michael Ashenden, founder of the Science and Industry Against Blood Doping consortium and member of the UCI bio-passport panel, told me two years ago that HBOCs never delivered the kind of oxygen-transport capacity they seemed to offer. As a result of that and their scarcity, they fell out of favor compared to less exotic regimens like blood doping and micro-dosing EPO.

Obviously Ashenden could be wrong and it was still used, but that's the answer to your question (to the extent there is a definitive answer).

 

[MacRoadie]

A few questions/comments prompted by the article.

Maybe you should go back and try reading it again:

"in both cases the confirmation was unsuccessful and the samples were reported negative."

They didn't test negative, he was unsuccessful in retesting them. That's why you get this further down:

As for the three high T/E ratio results detailed in the letter, he says, "that's very strange." When Catlin's letter was read to Breidbach recently, he too expressed concern, saying, "Wow, that should not happen. If you find a nine and can't confirm, then something is very wrong with your screening test."

They make HemAssist sound better than EPO: if so, wonder why it got shelved instead of going to market.

And coutesy of Joe Lindsey and the Boulder Report:

All of that makes HBOCs, on paper, anyway, far more efficient at delivering oxygen to muscles than whole blood.

It turns out they’re likely not. Dr. Michael Ashenden, founder of the Science and Industry Against Blood Doping consortium and member of the UCI bio-passport panel, told me two years ago that HBOCs never delivered the kind of oxygen-transport capacity they seemed to offer. As a result of that and their scarcity, they fell out of favor compared to less exotic regimens like blood doping and micro-dosing EPO

 

[stephens]

Going down with the ship eh? Well isn't that cute.

We'll see. So far my predictions seem quite bit less outrageous than those of most members around here. And I'm putting a few bucks where my mouth is. To repeat my previous pledges:

I will offer $100 to the charity of Berzin's choice if even 3/5 of the following predictions he's made about Armstrong come true: no more hobnobbing with the rich and famous, no more corporate speeches, no money for his 'fake' charity, politicians will avoid him like the plague, and quite a few companies will see about recovering endorsement money they paid him.

$100 to the charity of Race Radio's choice if the u.s. courts directly allow the '99 samples as evidence.

$100 to the Hog's charity choice if he's right that Lance will be proven to have run a drug network in Europe (Hog:"In this case Armstrong set up the network through Europe."), and $200 if the big three are handcuffed by the end of the year (Hog: "Levi, Hincapie, Armstrong and co. ale l think its about using dope but expect them all to be lead away in handcuffs by year out[2010].")Oops, sorry Hog, time's already up on that last one.

 

[MacRoadie]

We'll see. So far my predictions seem quite bit less outrageous than those of most members around here. And I'm putting a few bucks where my mouth is. To repeat my previous pledges:

How about instead of throwing up a ridiculous straw man, you address your simple inability to comprehend the contents of the article in question?

 

[Ferminal]

We'll see. So far my predictions seem quite bit less outrageous than those of most members around here. And I'm putting a few bucks where my mouth is. To repeat my previous pledges:

Not sure how that's relevant to the SI article?

 

[stephens]

So...regarding HemAssit: So Armstrong possibly had access to a substance which didn't work and therefore isn't a PED. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

We all know he doped. We all know they all do. We all know that as my signature says, the thirst is stronger than the rules. But the "proof" is going to have to get a lot, lot better for this investigation to end up with charges and for those charges to succeed. The "proof" against many other athletes was much more obvious and solid and Novitsky hasn't had much luck there (Heck, he hasn't even gotten to Bonds yet).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

A few questions/comments prompted by the article.

If a pin *** is enough to do a hematocrit test, how come I have to give a whole vial full every time. Damn it!

They make HemAssist sound better than EPO: if so, wonder why it got shelved instead of going to market.

FWIW, all, or at least nearly all, "evidence" in that article also carries with it more prominent voices discrediting the evidence. For example, supposed high testosterone levels - excused when B samples did not confirm. In other words, there is so much wiggle room in this "case" that it will never lead to conviction by a jury and would even allow Armstrong to save face with much of his fan base since, basically, none of it contradicts the most powerful piece of evidence he has on his side, the one he relies on: never *officially* tested positive, never sanctioned. (no, the cream doesn't count).

Like I keep saying, the only charge that will likely ever stick and kill Armstrong's image would be if they can prove that there were actual failed official tests and that bribes were paid to cover them up. Absent that, the legend survives, no matter what any of us here might think.

Really - tell that to Basso or Valverde who never tested positive or bribed the UCI.

 

[theswordsman]

I was just at twitter and did a search for replies to @lancearmstrong. Apparently Sports Illustrated made it all up.

http://twitter.com/#search?q=@lancearmstrong

 

[stephens]

Not sure how that's relevant to the SI article?

Some are viewing the article as a slam dunk and it reminded me of all their other slam dunk claims that have so far not come to fruition. I'm just attempting to get people to accept a little bit of reality and not let their enthusiasm lead them to keep the blinders on in regards to what all this really looks like to the general public and potential jury.