USADA - Armstrong

[Jeremiah]

I thought the camera lens - if a wide angle - would affect the size of whatever is closest to the lens. But then you said you know this for a fact. Interesting.

I've shaken Tyson's hand. Just a normal handshake, he could've crushed my hand but wasn't a jerk. Big hands though.

A lifelong friend of over 40 years, suspected of juicing who I haven't seen in a long time, damn, the guy nearly crushed my hand and I've noticed this with a couple of other known juicers/acquaintances.

The former pro was laughing about another former pro who's now a DS, not the hog btw. Former pro said the DS could barely dial a cell phone or type because his fingers were like sausages.

 

[Mortimer]

Hi all,
As they say - Long time lurker, first time poster...but there are a couple of things bugging me which I hope someone can answer, as my knowledge of the finer points of the anti-doping process is limited:

Let's assume all goes in USADA's favour, and they find LA guilty of a doping conspiracy, and impose a life ban from cycling/other sports on Armstrong. When would that ban begin? would they back-date to the start of the conspiracy? i.e. if they have test results for 2009 which are suspicious enough to prove guilt, they can't then project this back to 1999 can they? What if there is witness evidence for 2001, 2004, 2005 - can they assume guilt for 2002, 2003, 1998, 1999, 2000 as well? I assume they would need evidence for each season they enforce a ban, or is this wrong?

Secondly, let's assume that LA is banned by USADA, back-dated to 1993. Who is responsible for striking LA's palmares from the record? Is it a piecemeal process, each race organiser (or national fed for each race) being the custodians of their own race record? Is it the UCI? WADA? CAS? In short, I don't believe USADA can take the 7 TdF's (or any other result from Europe) from LA - that would have to be someone else right?
Thanks in anticipation for the information.
Mort

 

[Race Radio]

Hi all,
As they say - Long time lurker, first time poster...but there are a couple of things bugging me which I hope someone can answer, as my knowledge of the finer points of the anti-doping process is limited:

Let's assume all goes in USADA's favour, and they find LA guilty of a doping conspiracy, and impose a life ban from cycling/other sports on Armstrong. When would that ban begin? would they back-date to the start of the conspiracy? i.e. if they have test results for 2009 which are suspicious enough to prove guilt, they can't then project this back to 1999 can they? What if there is witness evidence for 2001, 2004, 2005 - can they assume guilt for 2002, 2003, 1998, 1999, 2000 as well? I assume they would need evidence for each season they enforce a ban, or is this wrong?

Secondly, let's assume that LA is banned by USADA, back-dated to 1993. Who is responsible for striking LA's palmares from the record? Is it a piecemeal process, each race organiser (or national fed for each race) being the custodians of their own race record? Is it the UCI? WADA? CAS? In short, I don't believe USADA can take the 7 TdF's (or any other result from Europe) from LA - that would have to be someone else right?
Thanks in anticipation for the information.
Mort

It appears they want to strip everything from 1998 on. There is precedent for this action but I am sure Armstrong will fight it

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Hi all,
As they say - Long time lurker, first time poster...but there are a couple of things bugging me which I hope someone can answer, as my knowledge of the finer points of the anti-doping process is limited:

Let's assume all goes in USADA's favour, and they find LA guilty of a doping conspiracy, and impose a life ban from cycling/other sports on Armstrong. When would that ban begin? would they back-date to the start of the conspiracy? i.e. if they have test results for 2009 which are suspicious enough to prove guilt, they can't then project this back to 1999 can they? What if there is witness evidence for 2001, 2004, 2005 - can they assume guilt for 2002, 2003, 1998, 1999, 2000 as well? I assume they would need evidence for each season they enforce a ban, or is this wrong?

Secondly, let's assume that LA is banned by USADA, back-dated to 1993. Who is responsible for striking LA's palmares from the record? Is it a piecemeal process, each race organiser (or national fed for each race) being the custodians of their own race record? Is it the UCI? WADA? CAS? In short, I don't believe USADA can take the 7 TdF's (or any other result from Europe) from LA - that would have to be someone else right?
Thanks in anticipation for the information.
Mort

Cool story bro.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

is this where I write cool story bro? cool story bro.

cool story bro.

Somebody wants to debate: cool story bro. Lance will kick *** here: cool story bro. Lance will win as alway? cool storey bro.

What kind of site is this? Lance pays for advertising and Oakly and Nike pay for advertising and a bunch of gnats run around the forum writing cool story bro and spread hate.

Who wants to debate bro?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Let's play Guess The Troll.

For the grand prize all you must do is properly answer this question: Katy In The Keys is the return of which previously banned poster?

Please only one entry per person.

Flickr FTW

 

[Berzin]

It appears they want to strip everything from 1998 on. There is precedent for this action but I am sure Armstrong will fight it.

As long as the testimony against him becomes public and he gets sanctioned for doping, his stature as a "champion" will be diminished to the extent that no one will think of him as a winner, just another low-life cheat.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Flickr FTW

This contest is now over.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Your "donkey" rationale doesn't hold up. In the EPO era it didn't matter whether you were a "natural" or not. What mattered is whether or not you were a good responder to EPO therapy--and that applied to all contenders, not just Lance. And Lance was a good responder! That we can agree on, I'm sure.

I think it is a little more complicated than that. I've been a subject in two EPO studies and I was also a grad student working in the lab, so I conducted many of the VO2max tests done in those studies. Yes there is wide variation in the response to EPO and it is probable that Lance was a "responder". However, you still need to train hard and have the natural genetics to be at the top of the crop in the first place. Also, it is likely that someone who "responds" easily to EPO therapy will also respond to high intensity training and especially altitude training. There was a time when Lance was probably not a doper (in the 80s when he was a junior triathlete) and he was pretty much top of the crop. So, I believe it is likely that had there been no doping in cycling ever, Lance probably could have or would have been a cycling champion. 7 TdF wins? Who knows.

However, by the time Lance entered pro-cycling he already had an almighty ego and was an even bigger arrogant *** than what he is today (I know this because I lived in Dallas for a time and met people in the cycling community that knew him as a junior), so I believe that when he entered pro-cycling in 1992 he had dreams already to become the best, and so did many of the powerbrokers in USA cycling. What he suddenly was faced with though, were a whole lot of seasoned pros who were already doping, and he realized that even though he was good, he wasn't good enough to beat these guys. For someone with so much arrogance and ego, it was an easy choice to make to become a doper. And thus it begins with his high test:epi-test ratios found in 1993, but amazingly, unconfirmed. He then rises from the ashes and annihilates the competition who are literally at the zenith of the doping era, tests positive to EPO in 1999 in his first tour back and gets off on a technicality.

This is the tragedy of the whole story IMO. I really think he would have and could have been a true "American hero" and a true hero to all of cycling. But he doped, just like the rest of his rivals, but they got busted and he didn't..... until now??

 

[MarkvW]

I think it is a little more complicated than that. I've been a subject in two EPO studies and I was also a grad student working in the lab, so I conducted many of the VO2max tests done in those studies. Yes there is wide variation in the response to EPO and it is probable that Lance was a "responder". However, you still need to train hard and have the natural genetics to be at the top of the crop in the first place. Also, it is likely that someone who "responds" easily to EPO therapy will also respond to high intensity training and especially altitude training. There was a time when Lance was probably not a doper (in the 80s when he was a junior triathlete) and he was pretty much top of the crop. So, I believe it is likely that had there been no doping in cycling ever, Lance probably could have or would have been a cycling champion. 7 TdF wins? Who knows.

However, by the time Lance entered pro-cycling he already had an almighty ego and was an even bigger arrogant *** than what he is today (I know this because I lived in Dallas for a time and met people in the cycling community that knew him as a junior), so I believe that when he entered pro-cycling in 1992 he had dreams already to become the best, and so did many of the powerbrokers in USA cycling. What he suddenly was faced with though, were a whole lot of seasoned pros who were already doping, and he realized that even though he was good, he wasn't good enough to beat these guys. For someone with so much arrogance and ego, it was an easy choice to make to become a doper. And thus it begins with his high test:epi-test ratios found in 1993, but amazingly, unconfirmed. He then rises from the ashes and annihilates the competition who are literally at the zenith of the doping era, tests positive to EPO in 1999 and gets off on a technicality.

This is the tragedy of the whole story IMO. I really think he would have and could have been a true "American hero" and a true hero to all of cycling. But he doped, just like the rest of his rivals, but they got busted and he didn't..... until now??

Thanks for the really thoughtful post. I was way too simplistic!

 

[Microchip]

... Also, it is likely that someone who "responds" easily to EPO therapy will also respond to high intensity training and especially altitude training. There was a time when Lance was probably not a doper (in the 80s when he was a junior triathlete) and he was pretty much top of the crop. So, I believe it is likely that had there been no doping in cycling ever, Lance probably could have or would have been a cycling champion. 7 TdF wins? Who knows.

Having regard to the knowledge you have of EPO from the lab, I understand your saying that a good responder will do better.

However, I believe that his forté would have been 1-day races. He just didn't have the make-up for such long races as the grand tours, until he changed his body by means of all of the substances that we know he used, and others that we don't even know.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I think it is a little more complicated than that. I've been a subject in two EPO studies and I was also a grad student working in the lab, so I conducted many of the VO2max tests done in those studies. Yes there is wide variation in the response to EPO and it is probable that Lance was a "responder". However, you still need to train hard and have the natural genetics to be at the top of the crop in the first place. Also, it is likely that someone who "responds" easily to EPO therapy will also respond to high intensity training and especially altitude training. There was a time when Lance was probably not a doper (in the 80s when he was a junior triathlete) and he was pretty much top of the crop. So, I believe it is likely that had there been no doping in cycling ever, Lance probably could have or would have been a cycling champion. 7 TdF wins? Who knows.

However, by the time Lance entered pro-cycling he already had an almighty ego and was an even bigger arrogant *** than what he is today (I know this because I lived in Dallas for a time and met people in the cycling community that knew him as a junior), so I believe that when he entered pro-cycling in 1992 he had dreams already to become the best, and so did many of the powerbrokers in USA cycling. What he suddenly was faced with though, were a whole lot of seasoned pros who were already doping, and he realized that even though he was good, he wasn't good enough to beat these guys. For someone with so much arrogance and ego, it was an easy choice to make to become a doper. And thus it begins with his high test:epi-test ratios found in 1993, but amazingly, unconfirmed. He then rises from the ashes and annihilates the competition who are literally at the zenith of the doping era, tests positive to EPO in 1999 in his first tour back and gets off on a technicality.

This is the tragedy of the whole story IMO. I really think he would have and could have been a true "American hero" and a true hero to all of cycling. But he doped, just like the rest of his rivals, but they got busted and he didn't..... until now??

Being top of the crop for tri at that time was not all that impressive. You have to factor in the reality that a small minority of kids were actually participating, and that there were many kids who were incredible athletes in terms of their biophysical traits who were playing sports that were much more mainstream and filled with multitudes more people. Tri was not a very popular choice. I am not saying Wonderboy is not physically gifted. Clearly he is. However, if you transplant him into Italy at that age and give him a bike, I think his competition is far superior, and the level to which he excelled would not be nearly as great.

The point I am getting to is that there is significant anecdotal evidence to suggest that Armstrong was built as a GT contender by the doping and not by his genetic traits. He was no Tour contender, and never pretended to be until he came back from cancer. His body changed as did his strengths in areas he had never shown any dominance before cancer. To suggest that response is not relevant and that he would have clearly won undoped may be valid, but I don't see it as definitive in any way.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I hope to get a "cool story bro" comment. It's a bit like the cyclingnews version of those "like" buttons on some other forums.


The thing is, the fact that doping has been so high profile in pro-cycling and TdF history especially in the last 20yrs, makes for a kind of tragic theater. Personally, I believe in clean sport, so I would prefer there to be no doping, but I accept that this period in history creates its own kind of intrigue. People are drawn to controversy and drama. Any publicity is good publicity so its actually good for business, and far from destroying the sport, cycling is bigger now in terms of participation and interest in the TdF than ever before in the history of the sport (in Australia anyway where I live, but of course Cadel prob has something to do with that )

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I hope to get a "cool story bro" comment. It's a bit like the cyclingnews version of those "like" buttons on some other forums.


The thing is, the fact that doping has been so high profile in pro-cycling and TdF history especially in the last 20yrs, makes for a kind of tragic theater. Personally, I believe in clean sport, so I would prefer there to be no doping, but I accept that this period in history creates its own kind of intrigue. People are drawn to controversy and drama. Any publicity is good publicity so its actually good for business, and far from destroying the sport, cycling is bigger now in terms of participation and interest in the TdF than ever before in the history of the sport (in Australia anyway where I live, but of course Cadel prob has something to do with that )

You only get a "cool story bro" if your originality is akin to The Monkeys. You surpassed the level of thought necessary to get a legitimate response with your first sentence. If you want a canned, condescending response, you'll need to go get a sock puppet and post arguments circa 2004 regarding Armstrong. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[Krebs cycle]

The point I am getting to is that there is significant anecdotal evidence to suggest that Armstrong was built as a GT contender by the doping and not by his genetic traits. He was no Tour contender, and never pretended to be until he came back from cancer. His body changed as did his strengths in areas he had never shown any dominance before cancer. To suggest that response is not relevant and that he would have clearly won undoped may be valid, but I don't see it as definitive in any way.

I disagree. I don't believe that doping can make a career domestique become a tour contender. Changing ones strengths in order to become a better all-rounder is not something that requires the use of PEDs (but I suspect you know this already).

 

[Krebs cycle]

You only get a "cool story bro" if your originality is akin to The Monkeys. You surpassed the level of thought necessary to get a legitimate response with your first sentence. If you want a canned, condescending response, you'll need to go get a sock puppet and post arguments circa 2004 regarding Armstrong. Sorry to disappoint.

bummer I will try harder next time and include more delusional bizarre stuff in my response. How's this.....

"No no no, you don't know anything about cycling.... Armstrong destroyed his doping rivals because he used a higher cadence on the climbs. Nobody else ever though of that"

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I disagree. I don't believe that doping can make a career domestique become a tour contender. Changing ones strengths in order to become a better all-rounder is not something that requires the use of PEDs (but I suspect you know this already).

Where did I say he was a career domestique? Changing your body type and excelling in areas in which you have never shown great promise can be accomplished through doping is quite possible. (but I suspect you know this already.) See George Hincapie for clarification. In fact, see the entire US Postal Train at the bottom of the Alpe in 2003 also.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

bummer I will try harder next time and include more delusional bizarre stuff in my response. How's this.....

"No no no, you don't know anything about cycling.... Armstrong destroyed his doping rivals because he used a higher cadence on the climbs. Nobody else ever though of that"

That's pretty good, but you forgot that he has a heart the size of a NY Pizza, so...

 

[Krebs cycle]

Where did I say he was a career domestique? Changing your body type and excelling in areas in which you have never shown great promise can be accomplished through doping is quite possible. (but I suspect you know this already.) See George Hincapie for clarification. In fact, see the entire US Postal Train at the bottom of the Alpe in 2003 also.

You didn't, but Lance was never a sprinter, so in the GTs what are you within the team if you are not the GC contender? Either you are a domestique or you are there for stage wins only. I suppose you could be a GC contender but never win. What I am speculating is that Lance had the natural goods to be a tour winner IF cycling were a clean sport. I think he likely would have been a high finisher and maybe even a podium placer if he were clean and his rivals doped. But I am certain that it is physiologically impossible for a clean rider (and a clean team) to completely dominate for 7 consecutive years, a pro-peloton in which doping remained rife.

The point about changing body type is that many cyclists have chosen to lose weight (and thus sacrifice some power) in order to improve their watts/kg which is necessary for hill climbing. This can be done regardless of EPO use. I think the point you are making is that a lighter rider is more likely to get a performance gain during hill climbing than they are on the flat, following EPO use. Lance did both of these things and hence his hill climbing ability improved to the point at which it needed to be for him to ever be a TdF contender.

 

[silverrocket]

As an aside...

I think new registrants to Cyclingnews Forum should have to have a minimum of 15-25 posts outside of the Clinic before they're allowed in here to start derailing higher-level conversations with extremely weak opening shots.

Ironically your own 1000th+ post was an extremely weak one, as it smacked of elitism and pomposity based purely on one's number of posts.

I think NO forum members should be allowed to derail conversations, regardless of how many or how few posts they have made. There is no threshold of posts above which someone suddenly knows what they are talking about.

But what do I know, based on my own low post-count I am evidently not qualified to participate in the "higher-level conversations" within the clinic.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You didn't, but Lance was never a sprinter, so in the GTs what are you within the team if you are not the GC contender? Either you are a domestique or you are there for stage wins only. I suppose you could be a GC contender but never win. What I am speculating is that Lance had the natural goods to be a tour winner IF cycling were a clean sport. I think he likely would have been a high finisher and maybe even a podium placer if he were clean and his rivals doped. But I am certain that it is physiologically impossible for a clean rider to completely dominate for 7 consecutive years, a pro-peloton in which doping remained rife.

The point about changing body type is that many cyclists have chosen to lose weight (and thus sacrifice some power) in order to improve their watts/kg which is necessary for hill climbing. This can be done regardless of EPO use. I think the point you are making is that a lighter rider is more likely to get a performance gain during hill climbing than they are on the flat, following EPO use. Lance did both of these things and hence his hill climbing ability improved to the point at which it needed to be for him to ever be a TdF contender.

There are a plethora of riders who are not GT contenders, not sprinters, and not domestiques. I don't think anyone has money on Phil winning a GT, but he certainly beat the pants off a lot of people in the spring a little over a year ago.

I think Armstrong did drugs to change his body type. See Contador's Clen positive for example. If you read what Floyd said about that drug, you can see that one of its uses is to deal with weight. I honestly don't believe he had the psychological goods to win the Tour without doping. I think the level to which he doped was extraordinary for various reasons, not the least of which were the men listed in the USADA letter. I think Fat Pat and and Hein had a little to do with it too. As well as his sponsors.

We'll agree to disagree, but you won't get a "cool story bro" out of me. You just put too much thought in your posts for that. Sorry.

 

[Race Radio]

I disagree. I don't believe that doping can make a career domestique become a tour contender.

Riis. He fetched bottles before he found EPO

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You didn't, but Lance was never a sprinter, so in the GTs what are you within the team if you are not the GC contender? Either you are a domestique or you are there for stage wins only. I suppose you could be a GC contender but never win. What I am speculating is that Lance had the natural goods to be a tour winner IF cycling were a clean sport. I think he likely would have been a high finisher and maybe even a podium placer if he were clean and his rivals doped. But I am certain that it is physiologically impossible for a clean rider (and a clean team) to completely dominate for 7 consecutive years, a pro-peloton in which doping remained rife.

The point about changing body type is that many cyclists have chosen to lose weight (and thus sacrifice some power) in order to improve their watts/kg which is necessary for hill climbing. This can be done regardless of EPO use. I think the point you are making is that a lighter rider is more likely to get a performance gain during hill climbing than they are on the flat, following EPO use. Lance did both of these things and hence his hill climbing ability improved to the point at which it needed to be for him to ever be a TdF contender.

Well, yes and no.
Your comparisons are centered on GT performance. Here is a list of great riders who will never win a GT - Gilbert, Cancellara, Sagan, wiggins (<we'll see who's paying attention)

That is not a slight on Armstrong - in fact far from it.
One thing you have not factored in to your analysis is the ability to recover. Even in a wide open race like this years TDF there are realistically only 4 or 5 contenders. Many fantastic riders have come up short in GTs as they will have a bad day. EPO helped limit that.

 

[Wolves-Lower]

Ironically your own 1000th+ post was an extremely weak one, as it smacked of elitism and pomposity based purely on one's number of posts.

I think NO forum members should be allowed to derail conversations, regardless of how many or how few posts they have made. There is no threshold of posts above which someone suddenly knows what they are talking about.

But what do I know, based on my own low post-count I am evidently not qualified to participate in the "higher-level conversations" within the clinic.

+1
But then again being smug and being a bike racer all to often go hand and hand.
Case in point Lance.

 

[Big Doopie]

What I am speculating is that Lance had the natural goods to be a tour winner IF cycling were a clean sport.

wrong. he didn't. contending for a tour requires natural recuperation. without epo armstrong did not have the ability to recuperate. fact.

sorry.