USADA - Armstrong

[Alpe d'Huez]

Thanks for keeping on topic guys.

 

[Turner29]

I'm surprised Swart didn't talk about even earlier days with Coors and Montgormery Subaru. Granted it wasn't the nuclear race it became in Er'p but he and a few Aussies and Irishmen made good money "cleaning up" in North America because they new where Ensenada's pharmacies were.

I have not studied the Frank-Starling and other cardiac related equations in years. However, a cursory refresher leads me to believe that maximizing EPO's performance effect is a bit more complex that simply sticking yourself with a needle and waiting for new red blood cell production. For example, increased blood viscousity may counteract the benefit of increased Erythrocyte production.

Another example is that Cardiac Output depends upon Plasma Volume; thus, for optimum "performance" PV and Erythrocyte levels must be balanced.

Thus, it is entirely possible that some American cyclists many have experimented with EPO prior to 1995 and did not obtain expected results. Certainly, Armstrong must have known either directly or indirectly as early as 1991.

It is also quite possible that American cyclists, fearing the death rumors associated with EPO, may have first resorted to blood doping. Certainly Chris Carmichael knew about blood doping from his Olympic days...

 

[Oldman]

I have not studied the Frank-Starling and other cardiac related equations in years. However, a cursory refresher leads me to believe that maximizing EPO's performance effect is a bit more complex that simply sticking yourself with a needle and waiting for new red blood cell production. For example, increased blood viscousity may counteract the benefit of increased Erythrocyte production.

Another example is that Cardiac Output depends upon Plasma Volume; thus, for optimum "performance" PV and Erythrocyte levels must be balanced.

Thus, it is entirely possible that some American cyclists many have experimented with EPO prior to 1995 and did not obtain expected results. Certainly, Armstrong must have known either directly or indirectly as early as 1991.

It is also quite possible that American cyclists, fearing the death rumors associated with EPO, may have first resorted to blood doping. Certainly Chris Carmichael knew about blood doping from his Olympic days...

...and what he didn't already know he could learn from Eddie B/Montgomery Subaru. Lance was surrounded by manipulative old-school guys that were encouraged by Montgomery/Subaru ownership. His personality merged well with those opportunities.

 

[D-Queued]

I'm surprised Swart didn't talk about even earlier days with Coors and Montgormery Subaru. Granted it wasn't the nuclear race it became in Er'p but he and a few Aussies and Irishmen made good money "cleaning up" in North America because they new where Ensenada's pharmacies were.

I have not studied the Frank-Starling and other cardiac related equations in years. However, a cursory refresher leads me to believe that maximizing EPO's performance effect is a bit more complex that simply sticking yourself with a needle and waiting for new red blood cell production. For example, increased blood viscousity may counteract the benefit of increased Erythrocyte production.

Another example is that Cardiac Output depends upon Plasma Volume; thus, for optimum "performance" PV and Erythrocyte levels must be balanced.

Thus, it is entirely possible that some American cyclists many have experimented with EPO prior to 1995 and did not obtain expected results. Certainly, Armstrong must have known either directly or indirectly as early as 1991.

It is also quite possible that American cyclists, fearing the death rumors associated with EPO, may have first resorted to blood doping. Certainly Chris Carmichael knew about blood doping from his Olympic days...

Yes, Swart did talk/give testimony about (was questioned about) earlier days.

He also spoke about exactly this issue of experimentation and about how some athletes were positive responders to EPO. Others, like himself, were apparently negative responders and/or apparently needed a better program.

Recall, as noted above, that Testa helped the Motorola guys take EPO safely.

Swart could not testify to anything he did not witness himself. As he did not witness Lance doping prior to Motorola, he could not testify about that. Swart did, however, have some experience with Lance cheating.

Here is some relevant testimony on Lance's early rule-breaking (anecdotal to doping) and on early experience with EPO response:

On Lance providing bribes to other teams/riders for assistance to win the Triple Crown $1m prize:

"Q. Can you describe for us, in your own words, exactly what happened?
A. It was in 1993. There was a race series in West Virginia, or sorry, not West Virginia alone, but in the West Coast, consisted of three ra -- three races: Pittsburgh, the Tour West Virginia, and the Philadelphia Core States Classic, a one-day race. The prize for the overall that was offered that year was a million dollars.

After Pittsburgh where Lance showed his dominance and then continued on through West Virginia to dominate that race, prior to its finish, we were approached to -- to obviously help them -- well, basically not help them, but to not attack them.

Q. When you say not attack them, what do you mean?

A. Basically just go with the flow, not actually make life difficult, or, you know, like you would be aggressive in a race, to --
Q. To not push or challenge Mr. Armstrong?
A. That's correct.
Q. To, in effect, allow him to -- to continue to win?
A. Yes.
Q. Who approached you to ask you to do that?
A. The discussion came up through -- not -- not -- not directly through me, but through Scott McKinley.
Q. Who was he?
A. He was another member of my team -- my team at that stage, Coors Light -- of Coors Light.
Q. So your team at that time was the Coors Light team, and Mr. Armstrong was a member of the Motorola team?
A. That's correct.
Q. And your teammate Scott McKinley was approached?
A. Yes.
...
Q. What transpired in that (Lance Armstrong & Phil Anderson's) hotel room?
A. Basically, we'd come to an agreement about what was on offer and what we had to do to accept that and acceptance of that offer.
Q. What was the offer?
A. If my memory serves me right, I think it was $50,000, if we -- like I said, we didn't be aggressive and challenge for the rest of the race and obviously for the final race in Philadelphia.

...

Q. Now, were you in fact paid the money?
A. Yes, we were.
Q. Who paid you?
A. We received it -- it was a period later, a few weeks later. It was just in the form of cash.
Q. Was it distributed among your team members?
A. Yes.
Q. How much did you personally get; do you recall?
A. That, I can't remember. I think it was only 3 to 5,000, something like that."

On EPO Response:

"Q. You say in your statement that the feeling was that we needed to begin an EPO program, even if it were illegal and a violation of the rules. And it was agreed that those who were racing in the Tour de France would participate in this program.

Is that what happened on that road race -- during that ride?

A. That's -- that's the conclusion that came out of it, yeah. We weren't all -- not the whole -- the whole team that was racing the tour -- that was taking part in the tour that year weren't all on that ride.
Q. Okay. You say also in your statement that Lance Armstrong fully participated in the discussion and expressed his view that we should begin an EPO program.

Did that happen? Did he say those words?

A. To that effect, yes.
...

Q. Did Dr. Testa -- Max Testa tell you how to administer the EPO?
A. As far as -- as far as what quantities and time frames, yes.
...
Q. How did it -- how did EPO affect you?
A. For me it -- it backfired.
Q. In what way?
A. I started going -- feeling worse and going backwards. My lack of knowledge and understanding of it and what it does to some people, I'm not saying all people, but to me it actually robbed energy, as far as -- you know, when you put yourself under immense physical strain. And this is trying to build blood within your system. It was pulling the -- the energy was pulled towards doing that and not actually being able to perform under -- under race conditions."

Dave.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Judge Sparks has set a hearing date of August 10th. USADA has several options before then, one being moving to dismiss. I think they will make that motion. At least I hope they do.

 

[spetsa]

USADA - Lance Armstrong

REmember?

Incorrect. USAC = Lance Armstrong

USADA = Travis Tygart and multiiple witnesses

USADA + witnesses = Lance Armstrong is screwed

 

[Microchip]

 

[Turner29]

Yes, Swart did talk/give testimony about (was questioned about) earlier days.

He also spoke about exactly this issue of experimentation and about how some athletes were positive responders to EPO. Others, like himself, were apparently negative responders and/or apparently needed a better program.

Thank you -- just as I suspected. This is important, for there are those Armstrong fans who dismiss his doping as being necessary to "level the playing field" and that given he was the best natural athlete, if everyone doped, then all is fair.

My contention is that there is little evidence to back the notion that Lance Armstrong was the best natural athlete. This does not mean Lance Armstrong was not a gifted, driven, hard training cyclist. Clearly he is that. However, without a sophisticated doping regime, he is not a Tour de France champion.

 

[Deagol]

Incorrect. USAC = Lance Armstrong

USADA = Travis Tygart and multiiple witnesses

USADA + witnesses = Lance Armstrong is screwed

My take on the original post is that he was saying "stay on topic"
i.e. Lance Armstrong - USADA is the thread topic

and not Lance Armstrong = USADA

Although the actual thread title is flip-flopped from that... YMMV

 

[snackattack]

mwoah

and not Lance Armstrong = USADA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfkhEJkxxXI&feature=share


.

 

[Turner29]

Take a look at these in the doping timeline context:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21586615

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/61/9/3561.short

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1501166/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043661807000382

 

[Deagol]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfkhEJkxxXI&feature=share

.

Looks like he's still getting his Ferrari payment money's worth...

 

[MarkvW]

I think you can read quite a bit into the fact that his lawyers failed to provide any reasoning as to WHY it doesn't apply.

They will have to put their cards on the table soon enough.

 

[thehog]

They will have to put their cards on the table soon enough.

Not long now Mark. Weeks not months.

 

[MarkvW]

Thank you -- just as I suspected. This is important, for there are those Armstrong fans who dismiss his doping as being necessary to "level the playing field" and that given he was the best natural athlete, if everyone doped, then all is fair.

My contention is that there is little evidence to back the notion that Lance Armstrong was the best natural athlete. This does not mean Lance Armstrong was not a gifted, driven, hard training cyclist. Clearly he is that. However, without a sophisticated doping regime, he is not a Tour de France champion.

You lose me when you start talking about "fairness." The Lance Years were the filthy sport of pro cycling at the apex of its filthiest era (so far). Only a cheater could be a TdF champion then. Saying that "without a sophisticated doping regime, he is not a TdF champion" is to me the same thing as saying that without a sophisticated doping regime, he is not a successful cheater. I see only a simple tautology.

 

[Turner29]

You lose me when you start talking about "fairness." The Lance Years were the filthy sport of pro cycling at the apex of its filthiest era (so far). Only a cheater could be a TdF champion then. Saying that "without a sophisticated doping regime, he is not a TdF champion" is to me the same thing as saying that without a sophisticated doping regime, he is not a successful cheater. I see only a simple tautology.

I agree that while only a cheater could have been champion back then, it was the level of doping that might have determined the actual Champion, i.e., Riis vs. Indurain...

 

[Poursuivant]

If this goes to arbitration what are the chances we hear, see or read any of the evidence?

 

[D-Queued]

If this goes to arbitration what are the chances we hear, see or read any of the evidence?

Based upon the Landis precedent, pretty good. Then again, Landis requested the open hearing as part of the PR strategy. And, Lance's strategy is thus far a lot closer to Landis than anticipated.

Thank you -- just as I suspected. This is important, for there are those Armstrong fans who dismiss his doping as being necessary to "level the playing field" and that given he was the best natural athlete, if everyone doped, then all is fair.

My contention is that there is little evidence to back the notion that Lance Armstrong was the best natural athlete. This does not mean Lance Armstrong was not a gifted, driven, hard training cyclist. Clearly he is that. However, without a sophisticated doping regime, he is not a Tour de France champion.

Exactly. In fact, we have this from Lance himself through Swart's testimony where he discussed the situation and events of 1995, and how dramatically the European situation had changed since 1988 when he had previously raced in Europe.

"Q. How was 1994 as a -- as a year for the team, how did it do?
A. Performance-wise, it didn't live up to its expectations.
Q. Well, did you have difficulty competing against the Europeans?
A. Yes. I mean, for me, it was going back to Europe where I hadn't raced for -- since '88 and returning there and showing -- and fitting in with the team. And there was just -- it just wasn't happening for the team, you know.

Lance was world champion from the previous year, and we were obviously expecting some results; but, obviously, as time went on, things didn't progress.

...

Q. What made you think that the Europeans at that time period were using EPO?
A. Well, it was common -- it was highly talked about amongst us, not that you actually physically see it happening, like taking it, administering it, but, you know...
And then when -- seeing them actually race, you could see the difference in their performance.
Q. Were -- were those riders stronger at higher altitudes, for example, or in climbing?
A. Altitude didn't actually come into effect. They were just stronger.

...

Q. Now, you stated in your affidavit that in March of 1995, after the Milan/San-Remo race, you went to Como where a number of the Motorola team were staying, including Lance Armstrong, Frankie Andreu, Kevin Livingston, and George Hincapie, as well as the team doctor, Max Testa.

Do you recall that?

A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell us, in your own words, what happened while in Como at the hotel with those individuals?
A. After the race, or the following day, we went out for a -- a recovery ride, which is just basically a -- just a simple piddle down the road, no pressure, no real intensity whatsoever where, you know, you basically ride for maybe a couple of hours and just talk about anything and all sorts.

And one of the discussions there was about EPO and how we were still riding at such a disadvantage to the European teams and having to look seriously on how to rectify the problem.

Q. Who was participating in that discussion?
A. Out of the riders there, myself, Lance, Frankie were the main -- you know, we weren't like sitting in a group all talking through. It was basically one on one, as it happened.
Q. So you're riding, and as you're riding, you're also talking?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk with Lance Armstrong about the need to start using EPO to be competitive?
A. We had -- we had -- we had a discussion about it, yeah.
Q. What did Mr. Armstrong say?
A. Well, basically saying that, you know, he didn't get into the sport thinking that it would -- you know, that this is why he got into the sport -- why he got into the sport; but, you know, you have to do what you have to do.

...

Q. (BY MR. TILLOTSON) What did you conclude about Mr. Armstrong and EPO at the end of that ride?
A. That for us to be competitive at the tour that year, that we needed to start a medical program of EPO."

Dave.

 

[Turner29]

If this goes to arbitration what are the chances we hear, see or read any of the evidence?

I remember most, if not all evidence against Landis was made public. However, it might have been unilaterally from the Landis camp, under the mistaken belief that public "scrutiny" might provide some backlash, since interpreting test results is not always black and white.

This is my concern regarding Passport Data. Where most sports scientists would find a "positive" indication of doping, anyone can hire a stooge such as Arnie Baker to dispute sound science.

In addition, the public does not understand the difference between "preponderance of evidence" vs. "reasonable doubt" and I fear many, including some here, will not be convinced by Passport Data alone.

Having said that, I am convinced there exists smoking gun evidence.

 

[spetsa]

My take on the original post is that he was saying "stay on topic"
i.e. Lance Armstrong - USADA is the thread topic

and not Lance Armstrong = USADA

Although the actual thread title is flip-flopped from that... YMMV

I know, it was a failed attempt at a suttle reminder of the fact that there are many questions to be answered by USAC, along the lines of "what the h*ll happened prior to 2004 and the formation of USADA?"

 

[Oldman]

I know, it was a failed attempt at a suttle reminder of the fact that there are many questions to be answered by USAC, along the lines of "what the h*ll happened prior to 2004 and the formation of USADA?"

USA Cycling was a little more free wheelin' what with the little club setup they have there.

 

[dbrower]

Based upon the Landis precedent, pretty good. Then again, Landis requested the open hearing as part of the PR strategy. And, Lance's strategy is thus far a lot closer to Landis than anticipated.

I suspect there will not be a public hearing. Little good can come of it for Armstrong, but much damage -- having access to all the words may be overwhelming to his image.

One purpose to having an open hearing would be to threaten to rip witnesses apart in many painful ways on cross-examination. Doing so would consume limited time available to the defense, and would probably not help with in the actual result of the arbitration. It would likely be seen by the Arbs as a vindictive distraction, possibly providing itself evidence of the way the consipiracy was maintained for so long.

I don't believe a public hearing is intrinsically more expensive than a private one, so USADA can't be bled with a decision either way.

-dB

 

[D-Queued]

I suspect there will not be a public hearing. Little good can come of it for Armstrong, but much damage -- having access to all the words may be overwhelming to his image.

One purpose to having an open hearing would be to threaten to rip witnesses apart in many painful ways on cross-examination. Doing so would consume limited time available to the defense, and would probably not help with in the actual result of the arbitration. It would likely be seen by the Arbs as a vindictive distraction, possibly providing itself evidence of the way the consipiracy was maintained for so long.

I don't believe a public hearing is intrinsically more expensive than a private one, so USADA can't be bled with a decision either way.

-dB

Thanks dB,

I was hoping you would comment here, and had a follow up question - knowing you would know the answer.

Does the arbitration hearing have to be public, or is this only at the athlete's (e.g. Floyd) request?

I think you have answered that (and this was my recollection based upon Floyd), but just wanted to be clear.

Dave.

 

[AussieGoddess]

I have a question.

If (and I assume it will be) the arbitration is private ... can USADA release transcripts, give interviews, release their testimony in part or full, make statements etc after the hearing?

or is it full secrecy?

 

[Turner29]

I have a question.

If (and I assume it will be) the arbitration is private ... can USADA release transcripts, give interviews, release their testimony in part or full, make statements etc after the hearing?

or is it full secrecy?

After the hearing, the AAA (American Arbitration Association) will release a comprehensive findings report; many such examples exist and are available online.

In a previous comment, I forgot the it was Landis, via his failed "Wiki defense" who released test results and other documenting prior to the AAA hearing. This effort was spearhead by Arnie Baker, who is either a stooge or fool, given Landis' later public admissions.