USADA - Armstrong

[MarkvW]

The latest issue of Pasadena California's Arroyo magazine has an ad indicating that Lance is scheduled to speak in their Distinguished Speaker's Series. Mark your calendar for 8:00 PM on May 20, 2013.

You think he'll talk about his fight with USADA? I doubt it.

Be there and watch him get heckled. It will be a blast!

Gag me. Pay money to see that geek? You've got to be kidding!

 

[JA.Tri]

Random again

Diaries:

In addition to reasons given above: doping is a part of training. Therefore to observe efficacy you need to measure and make adjustments. Also need to modify variables so as to see what effect each variable in your "training" has what impact ...including synergistic effects.

UCI "turnaround": Who watches the watchers comes to mind.

Two parts. One; the abrupt change in stance as noted by "The Clinic". If we observed it, then others have too. Included in that population is surely a number that have significant power and influence in this case.
Two; of similar importance is the (IMO) transparent lack of credibility to the argument provided AND that it is contrary to UCI's apparent/stated position in other similar cases.

I recon UCI have set themselves up for ridicule, polite or otherwise, privately or publicly...probably the latter of both options. After this the bemusement and fog will dissipate and the "emperor's new clothes" will be revealed for what they are...

The UCI house of cards will be significantly reduced. New order? New peak body? Will IOC see fit to work towards Overseeing authority/anti corruption?

 

[Fatclimber]

Reading the transcript of Bob's testimony raises many questions for me regarding the Lance's donation for the Sysmex machine, which it seems everybody happily says that's what the money was intended for.

Isn't WADA in charge of testing?
Why would the UCI (or is it UCLhave any interest in having the SM?
When did they use it, when riders stopped by for an office visit?
Did any sanctions ever come from SM testing?
Can any Tom, ****, Harry, or Pat run the thing or did they have a doctor on staff?
Could the UCI really not afford one? Really?

As sticklers for the rules as the UCI is claiming to be as of late, I'd hate to think they would intentionally step on WADA's toes.

Also, I know all samples WADA gets are supposedly anonymous, but how hard would it be to find out how many samples were positive that were not reported publicly by the UCI? They've got to have that on record.


I am also curious about what went on when LA hired Ashenden to be his personal bio-passport overseer. Wondering how much winking went on before he got fired and if maybe he acquired any damaging information from that short time.

 

[JA.Tri]

Reading the transcript of Bob's testimony raises many questions for me regarding the Lance's donation for the Sysmex machine, which it seems everybody happily says that's what the money was intended for.

Isn't WADA in charge of testing?
Why would the UCI (or is it UCLhave any interest in having the SM?
When did they use it, when riders stopped by for an office visit?
Did any sanctions ever come from SM testing?
Can any Tom, ****, Harry, or Pat run the thing or did they have a doctor on staff?
Could the UCI really not afford one? Really?

As sticklers for the rules as the UCI is claiming to be as of late, I'd hate to think they would intentionally step on WADA's toes.

Also, I know all samples WADA gets are supposedly anonymous, but how hard would it be to find out how many samples were positive that were not reported publicly by the UCI? They've got to have that on record.


I am also curious about what went on when LA hired Ashenden to be his personal bio-passport overseer. Wondering how much winking went on before he got fired and if maybe he acquired any damaging information from that short time.

I don't recall Ashenden ever being associated with LA...I believe you are referring to some other person.

 

[Race Radio]

Reading the transcript of Bob's testimony raises many questions for me regarding the Lance's donation for the Sysmex machine, which it seems everybody happily says that's what the money was intended for.

Isn't WADA in charge of testing?
Why would the UCI (or is it UCLhave any interest in having the SM?
When did they use it, when riders stopped by for an office visit?
Did any sanctions ever come from SM testing?
Can any Tom, ****, Harry, or Pat run the thing or did they have a doctor on staff?
Could the UCI really not afford one? Really?

As sticklers for the rules as the UCI is claiming to be as of late, I'd hate to think they would intentionally step on WADA's toes.

Also, I know all samples WADA gets are supposedly anonymous, but how hard would it be to find out how many samples were positive that were not reported publicly by the UCI? They've got to have that on record.


I am also curious about what went on when LA hired Ashenden to be his personal bio-passport overseer. Wondering how much winking went on before he got fired and if maybe he acquired any damaging information from that short time.

The "Donation" Came before WADA did the testing.

LA never hired Ashenden. He Hired Catlin for a few weeks but it was just a smoke screen.

 

[Fatclimber]

The "Donation" Came before WADA did the testing.

LA never hired Ashenden. He Hired Catlin for a few weeks but it was just a smoke screen.

Apologies, thanks. I'd be interested to hear what he(Caitlin) had to say about it nontheless.

 

[hektoren]

Apologies, thanks. I'd be interested to hear what he(Caitlin) had to say about it nontheless.

This is what Dr. Don Catlin had to say about this issue on his blog ( http://thecatlinperspective.wordpress.com/ ):

"Philosophy Behind 2009 Lance Armstrong Monitoring Program:

I was approached to help develop a monitoring program for Lance Armstrong’s comeback in 2009. As initially conceived, it would have been the first time that any testing organization would be allowed to sample and test Armstrong every three days or even more often and make the analytical data available online for anyone interested to see. My laboratory would have had unrestricted ability to perform any test we wanted. Under those circumstances, I did not believe that anybody could get away with cheating. I was interested to proceed.

Clarification on the intended Armstrong monitoring program:

We were aiming to collect from Armstrong on average every three days throughout the cycling season. Such a program would be very challenging logistically and would be quite expensive. It would also likely impact the activities of the international doping control process. We did not want to impede or interfere with the sanctioning bodies’ ability to test Armstrong, which we knew they would do frequently.

As negotiations were wrapping up, we did perform one collection prior to abandoning the program. The logistical and cost realities became immediately apparent. In addition, there were difficulties with the publicity surrounding the program.

The article says that “In its months of overseeing Armstrong’s testing program, Catlin’s lab had collected only one urine sample from him, … and it is clean.”

It is correct that only one sample was collected, however we had only overseen the program for one day, not months. The results were free of any blood profile abnormalities, the urine was negative for EPO analogues and had a T/E ratio below 4."

 

[clipperton]

I recon UCI have set themselves up for ridicule, polite or otherwise, privately or publicly...probably the latter of both options. After this the bemusement and fog will dissipate and the "emperor's new clothes" will be revealed for what they are...

The UCI house of cards will be significantly reduced. New order? New peak body? Will IOC see fit to work towards Overseeing authority/anti corruption?

having watched blatter and his coterie at fifa get away with their most recent "cleansing" i'm rather pessimistic that this will all go the way we all seem to want it to go.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Reading the transcript of Bob's testimony raises many questions for me regarding the Lance's donation for the Sysmex machine, which it seems everybody happily says that's what the money was intended for.

First point - its Bill Stapleton, Lances Manager/Agent (Bob was HTC Columbia).

To the highlighted - kindof sortof, no-one knows what was bought as the UCI and the Lab refuse to show it. Also there were (at least) 2 donations.

Isn't WADA in charge of testing?
Why would the UCI (or is it UCLhave any interest in having the SM?
When did they use it, when riders stopped by for an office visit?
Did any sanctions ever come from SM testing?
Can any Tom, ****, Harry, or Pat run the thing or did they have a doctor on staff?
Could the UCI really not afford one? Really?

As sticklers for the rules as the UCI is claiming to be as of late, I'd hate to think they would intentionally step on WADA's toes.

WADA don't do testing per se - they regulate the testing and accredit the labs.
The lab in question got the machine, not the UCI - so the lab would benefit from the machine as it would be able to do more or better testing, meaning it would get more business.
The machine tests blood - so it needs samples, not athletes.

Also, I know all samples WADA gets are supposedly anonymous, but how hard would it be to find out how many samples were positive that were not reported publicly by the UCI? They've got to have that on record.

WADA have only been involved with cycling since 2004, the Armstrong positive is said to be from 2001.
It would be much more difficult to hide a positive now - but as the Contador case showed the UCI can still delay things for the benefit of the rider.

I am also curious about what went on when LA hired Ashenden to be his personal bio-passport overseer. Wondering how much winking went on before he got fired and if maybe he acquired any damaging information from that short time.

As noted already, it was Caitlin - and he only managed to do one test on Armstrong at the Tour Down Under before it was pulled because of expense and logistics - even though LA got a large payout to race in Australia.

 

[Merckx index]

Originally Posted by Merckx index
From the USADA charging letter:

A perfectly normal appearing profile can be “consistent” with blood manipulation, given how easy it is to hide evidence of doping. For this statement to be meaningful, the data have to be suspicious. That doesn’t mean they have to be positive on a standalone basis, but I stand by my original assertion that if the data do not trigger the criteria that requires sending to an expert panel for further evaluation, they are not much help. The whole point of those criteria is to prevent riders from being sanctioned on the basis of fluctuations that might have non-doping causes. If LA’s data had such fluctuations, they don’t mean much. Not unless the dates of such fluctuations can be specifically correlated with the dates that witnesses claimed he engaged in blood doping. That may be the case, but I rather doubt it.

Not exactly.

We have not seen the results of the UCI's Biopassport testing from 2010, only USADA's. The UCI refused to give USADA the Biopassport results for 2 years, then destroyed the samples.

The fluctuations also do no have to stand on their own. If, for example, a teammate said that he witnesses Armstrong take a transfusion or EPO on a certain date followed by a look at how his blood values fluctuated following that date this is compelling evidence of guilt

Priceless. Like Rata, you quote me, then argue against me by pretending I don’t say something that is plainly there in my quote.

But how likely is it that witness testimony will be specific enough to correlate with dates of fluctuations?I hope I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t hold out a lot of hope for this. I certainly don’t see how diaries of the witnesses are going to help the case against LA. Does anyone seriously believe that there will be an entry like, “Watched LA dope today”, or “LA and I transfused together”, or “the whole team did its pre-Tour fill-up today”? The information that has come out, e.g., Tyler’s stuff in 2004, is bare bones—it provides names of drugs and treatments (usually abbreviated if not in code) and dates. It is not a real diary in the sense that there is any information about where the rider was when he did this, who else might have been there with him, etc. Obviously, there is no point in recording anything more than what is needed to ensure that one is adhering strictly to the program.

LA may have had his own records, but if he still keeps them after all this time, I’m sure they’re in a very safe place. Ask yourself this: if USADA had written evidence of this kind against LA, don’t you suppose they would have mentioned it in the charging letter? And if part of the rider’s testimony against LA was information from a rider’s doping schedule that directly implicated LA at a particular date, don’t you think they would be considerably less worried about witness intimidation?

I think the best case scenario with the diaries is that if it could be established that everyone on, say, the TdF team had a similar pre-Tour schedule, so that showing that several riders on the team transfused or whatever on a particular date would be evidence that LA also did on that date, as opposed to another date. But I doubt the team was synchronized to this degree. Except, of course, on TdF rest days. If a witness says he recalls LA doping on a rest day, that might be the best possibility for a correlation with suspicious fluctuations, particularly in the light of evidence that has come out that his values at the end of one of the Tours were unusual (HT didn't drop). But probably wouldn't need a diary for that.

 

[Race Radio]

Priceless. Like Rata, you quote me, then argue against me by pretending I don’t say something that is plainly there in my quote.

But how likely is it that witness testimony will be specific enough to correlate with dates of fluctuations?I hope I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t hold out a lot of hope for this. I certainly don’t see how diaries of the witnesses are going to help the case against LA. Does anyone seriously believe that there will be an entry like, “Watched LA dope today”, or “LA and I transfused together”, or “the whole team did its pre-Tour fill-up today”? The information that has come out, e.g., Tyler’s stuff in 2004, is bare bones—it provides names of drugs and treatments (usually abbreviated if not in code) and dates. It is not a real diary in the sense that there is any information about where the rider was when he did this, who else might have been there with him, etc. Obviously, there is no point in recording anything more than what is needed to ensure that one is adhering strictly to the program.

LA may have had his own records, but if he still keeps them after all this time, I’m sure they’re in a very safe place. Ask yourself this: if USADA had written evidence of this kind against LA, don’t you suppose they would have mentioned it in the charging letter? And if part of the rider’s testimony against LA was information from a rider’s doping schedule that directly implicated LA at a particular date, don’t you think they would be considerably less worried about witness intimidation?

I think the best case scenario with the diaries is that if it could be established that everyone on, say, the TdF team had a similar pre-Tour schedule, so that showing that several riders on the team transfused or whatever on a particular date would be evidence that LA also did on that date, as opposed to another date. But I doubt the team was synchronized to this degree. Except, of course, on TdF rest days. If a witness says he recalls LA doping on a rest day, that might be the best possibility for a correlation with suspicious fluctuations, particularly in the light of evidence that has come out that his values at the end of one of the Tours were unusual (HT didn't drop). But probably wouldn't need a diary for that.

I wasn't arguing with you, just adding context

Levi......

 

[MarkvW]

Priceless. Like Rata, you quote me, then argue against me by pretending I don’t say something that is plainly there in my quote.

But how likely is it that witness testimony will be specific enough to correlate with dates of fluctuations?I hope I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t hold out a lot of hope for this. I certainly don’t see how diaries of the witnesses are going to help the case against LA. Does anyone seriously believe that there will be an entry like, “Watched LA dope today”, or “LA and I transfused together”, or “the whole team did its pre-Tour fill-up today”? The information that has come out, e.g., Tyler’s stuff in 2004, is bare bones—it provides names of drugs and treatments (usually abbreviated if not in code) and dates. It is not a real diary in the sense that there is any information about where the rider was when he did this, who else might have been there with him, etc. Obviously, there is no point in recording anything more than what is needed to ensure that one is adhering strictly to the program.

LA may have had his own records, but if he still keeps them after all this time, I’m sure they’re in a very safe place. Ask yourself this: if USADA had written evidence of this kind against LA, don’t you suppose they would have mentioned it in the charging letter? And if part of the rider’s testimony against LA was information from a rider’s doping schedule that directly implicated LA at a particular date, don’t you think they would be considerably less worried about witness intimidation?

I think the best case scenario with the diaries is that if it could be established that everyone on, say, the TdF team had a similar pre-Tour schedule, so that showing that several riders on the team transfused or whatever on a particular date would be evidence that LA also did on that date, as opposed to another date. But I doubt the team was synchronized to this degree. Except, of course, on TdF rest days. If a witness says he recalls LA doping on a rest day, that might be the best possibility for a correlation with suspicious fluctuations, particularly in the light of evidence that has come out that his values at the end of one of the Tours were unusual (HT didn't drop). But probably wouldn't need a diary for that.

The doping patterns might indicate (or help to indicate) that the riders were each working under the same doping mastermind (corroborating what the riders say). This would help buttress the USPS doping conspiracy aspect of the case. That use of the evidence wouldn't be a 'home run,' but it would be rather valuable (a bloop single).

Such evidence also corroborates that each of the witnesses really did dope, as they say. That little piece is itself valuable.

There might also be useful date/time/place information that puts the riders in the same place at the time when the riders say a doping-related event occurred. Another small piece (that could be potentially huge).

There may be a grand slam in the training diaries, but the diaries are super-useful even if there isn't.

 

[iZnoGouD]

you neglected to mention one thing. Before 1999 armstrong and all the other cyclists used to push a 52/13 or 52/12, sometimes even a 52/11 up the large alpine climbs. In 1998 johan noticed him struggling on the climbs and suggested using a lower gear. They ran this by ferrari and he thought it was a good idea too. So for the 1999 tour they fitted a double chainwheel (52/42) to his bike and whenever the gradient got steep, he'd put his chain into the bottom ring. He was laughed at at first but come the first mountain they stopped laughing. Do ye not remember the first mountain stage in the 1999 tour? The whole peloton is walking up the galibier and armstrong was the only one able to cycle it without getting off his bike. That's because he was pedaling faster but using a lower gear. Armstrong had discovered high cadence.

Since armstrong most cyclists use a lower gear in the mountains. If you look at bicycles pre 1999 none of them have a double chainwheel. Practically all bikes now come equipped with a double chainwheel.

After he discovered the benefits of using a low gear up the mountains, (he would still used a high gear on the flat and going downhill) he was a little upset as he realised he could have won more races earlier in his career.

Drugs had nothing to do with his success!

+100000000000000000

 

[MacRoadie]

+100000000000000000

God, I hope you're kidding...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

...

Drugs had nothing to do with his success!

- 100.000.000.000.000

Edit: How you explain the "drug free" ITT performance jumps? From 6 mins down to Indurain, to beating everybody (including Ullrich who himself beat the field by 3 mins like Indurain did) by at least 1 min after his transformation? Jet stream or something like that?

 

[Cerberus]

- 100.000.000.000.000

Did you just go 400 pages back to quote and complain about an obviously sarcastic post?

 

[mewmewmew13]

Did you just go 400 pages back to quote and complain about an obviously sarcastic post?

Check back one page

 

[MacRoadie]

Did you just go 400 pages back to quote and complain about an obviously sarcastic post?

No, he went back 2 posts to where someone else went back 400 pages to quote an idiotic post and subsequently gave it a "+100000000000000000" (no suggestion of sarcasm).

 

[MacRoadie]

- 100.000.000.000.000

Edit: How you explain the "drug free" ITT performance jumps? From 6 mins down to Indurain, to beating everybody (including Ullrich who himself beat the field by 3 mins like Indurain did) by at least 1 min after his transformation? Jet stream or something like that?

Gotta be those new-fangled double chainrings...

 

[Kennf1]

There's a rumor (tweeted by Neal Rogers-Velonews) that WADA sent a letter to UCI telling them not to interfere in USADA investigation.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

No, he went back 3 posts to where someone else went back 400 pages to quote an idiotic post and subsequently gave it a "+100000000000000000" (no suggestion of sarcasm).

Thanks for helping out here. B/C i was looking indeed at the "+ 1.00000..." post and was wondering.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

+100000000000000000

He got even faster when he fitted a multi-cog freewheel that different tooth configurations on each cog.

 

[mewmewmew13]

There's a rumor (tweeted by Neal Rogers-Velonews) that WADA sent a letter to UCI telling them not to interfere in USADA investigation.

Ooh ooh....
Thnx kennf

 

[Deagol]

There's a rumor (tweeted by Neal Rogers-Velonews) that WADA sent a letter to UCI telling them not to interfere in USADA investigation.

This is something I have wondered about. There is no love lost between WADA and the UCI if I recall correctly. It would be nice to see WADA issue a press release or something to substantiate this.

The plot thickens....

 

[MacRoadie]

He got even faster when he fitted a multi-cog freewheel that different tooth configurations on each cog.

They also changed the rules to allow you to stop at a local blacksmith's shop and use his forge to repair your bike. Lance was always on the cutting edge of technology so I'm sure he took full advantage of this.