USADA - Armstrong

[The Gnome]

No pro is a donkey.

Bulky guys like Armstrong are helped more by oxygen vector doping than skinny Colombian climbers.

Armstrong himself did not think he could win a Tour until late '98. When Bruyneel approached LA, LA told him he could win stages.

Sure...I get that...some folks will be helped more than others...but maybe I missing something as to why folks are being so argumentative via Krebs...someone explain and maybe I am abit slow...but what he is saying makes sense to me...I can't stand armstrong at all but to say he could have been one of the top riders in a clean peloton doesnt seem to me to be too far of a stretch...

 

[patricknd]

But think about it... By the time the 1999 TdF rolls around LA was already untouchable. The UCI allowing the Del Moral backdated TUE demonstrates that.

And btw, it may have been a simple blackmail. No lawsuit threat necessarily... Just exposure.

duh!!! it was the tour of redemption and they had a wet dream of a feel good story. it wasn't about protecting armstrong, it was all about protecting the image of the race. la lucked into a perfect situation. how many more 1998 races were you going to sell?

sorry for the repeat i didn't see the gnome's post above

 

[Microchip]

You're still focusing on the wrong details. RR's post fills in a missing piece of the puzzle for me. I could never figure out how LA got into bed with the UCI. Finger pointing after the cancer diagnosis and the UCI's liability in ignoring abnormal test results may have resulted in deals being struck. We have no way of knowing for certain but it's a better explanation then I've ever had before.

Yes. As stated earlier, I had never connected those dots.

It would explain so much.

I get it!! Now understand the talk about if Lance had been "discovered" and what-not. David Walsh's book Chapter 6 pages 73-75 helped. For those who need it clarified like I did, see this:

 

[Microchip]

What is the last possible minute they can submit?

Funny question...lol...

 

[webvan]

Not to downplay testicular cancer but compared to other cancers, like say colon cancer, very few people diagnosed die of it, even if it's metastasized, colon : 12% 5-year survival rate, testis : 73% - again not to downplay this terrible disease, but it's also part of the "LA myth" that he was about to die and therefore would never dope when he came back blah, blah, blah...

 

[MarkvW]

Yup, the UCI thought they were doing him a favor and almost wound up with his death on their hands. Quite simple.

They owed him big time and we all know what upstanding citizens Hein and Pat are.

My question is more about the source and confirmation for this, RR. Does he really need to start making stuff up at this point?

This is tinfoil hat stuff.

 

[The Gnome]

Not to downplay testicular cancer but compared to other cancers, like say colon cancer, very few people diagnosed die of it, even if it's metastasized, colon : 12% 5-year survival rate, testis : 73% - again not to downplay this terrible disease, but it's also part of the "LA myth" that he was about to die and therefore would never dope when he came back blah, blah, blah...

True...I remember reading it's not about the bike...and yeah, I was an early believer in the lie...I even drove all night from belgie to be in paris and watch him cross the line in paris on his first win (tho by three wins or so I figured it out being abit slow as I am)...I can't remember exactly, but in the book he tells the story that he was given like a 10% chance of surviving...I might have that wrong via memory tho...been a long time...wonder if that was pure disney BS...? and yeah, I remember putting out that talking point to a few older belgian riders: "but this guy had cancer...there is just no way he would risk doing that sorta stuff" ect...the sad thing via armstrong is that I can be embarrassed by that later but the way he took in those with and fighting cancer...ack, that is truly awful...

 

[JRTinMA]

But think about it... By the time the 1999 TdF rolls around LA was already untouchable. The UCI allowing the Del Moral backdated TUE demonstrates that.

And btw, it may have been a simple blackmail. No lawsuit threat necessarily... Just exposure.

Maybe, but it wasn't the first backdated TUE.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Why is it implausible? It's what has been observed with about 10 years of public data and anecdotes about doping in athletics.
.

One last thing, to answer this question in fairness to yourself DW.

From the data that I have seen regarding responders vs non-responders (which includes myself since I was a subject in 2 separate EPO studies), in addition to data surrounding responders vs non-responders to various types of physiological stimuli including high intensity training and altitude acclimatisation, I don't believe that the variability of response is that great between individuals. For example it has long been recognized that from an untrained starting baseline, you can only get about a 20% increase in VO2max. In one of the EPO studies I had a 10% increase in VO2max from 63 to 70, but a year later when I was fitter to begin with and also received a longer and higher EPO dose, I only went from 68 to 70. Talking with other subjects, and (having 100% access to all of the VO2max data), I found this to be a general trend. Now the largest increases in VO2max we ever saw in those studies were in the range of 15-20%. This suggests to me that when you combine training + PEDs, the sky is not the limit, you still achieve a plateau in VO2max (This is just one example folks, please don't come along and repeat the line VO2max isn't everything. Yes I already know this thanks ).

As a stated previously, from a purely statistical perspective, it is more likely that any given individual is not an outlier. Therefore, when faced with an unknown quantity, you can be 95% certain that the true value lies within 2 SDs of the mean. However, when faced with the unknown quantity about what sort of physiological response and performance gain LA achieved with PEDs, everyone who is disputing my line of reasoning is speculating equally as hard as me that LA was in fact an outlier, maybe 2, 3 or even 4 SDs away from the mean, and this is what enabled him to become a 7x TdF winner. Yet when faced with real world objective data (ie: junior race results), the same people are arguing that LA was decidedly "normal". Well he wasn't normal as a junior, he clearly was an outlier according to statistical definition. Therefore, IMO he probably only needed an average PED response to rise above the rest, but I guess he wasn't satisfied with that, he wanted an above average PED response too and so he pursued systematic doping like nobody's business. Lets hope he gets done for that and has his TdF wins stripped.

sorry folks I really want to give it a rest now

 

[Microchip]

... I remember putting out that talking point to a few older belgian riders: "but this guy had cancer...there is just no way he would risk doing that sorta stuff" ect...

From the NY Times - Will Olympic Athletes Dope If They Know It Might Kill Them?

There’s a well-known survey in sports, known as the Goldman Dilemma. For it, a researcher, Bob Goldman, began asking elite athletes in the 1980s whether they would take a drug that guaranteed them a gold medal but would also kill them within five years. More than half of the athletes said yes. When he repeated the survey biannually for the next decade, the results were always the same. About half of the athletes were quite ready to take the bargain.

 

[Love the Scenery]

Srsly doc?
I disagree with the first because history clearly shows he was an outstanding junior endurance athlete.....

Krebs, you confuse physiology and genetics. If you do have expertise in altitude training you will know that the human body is labile when it comes to oxygen carrying capacity, depending on time spent at altitude, diseases had or not had, etc. Take twins born at sea level, put one at altitude to grow up, and when they are adults the altitude twin, with the same genes, will have bigger lungs by far and more oxygen carrying capacity. Physiology does not depend on genetics. The notion that anyone's ability is purely genetic is false. Your basic argument is that the results of doped races would be the same as the results of clean races with the same racers involved. That argument is false, and it is false because there is no way to distinguish natural talent from the consequences of growth and development patterns and training systems. But as you say, this is a tangent and we've been warned. Happy to argue in another thread.

 

[mastersracer]

One last thing, to answer this question in fairness to yourself DW.

From the data that I have seen regarding responders vs non-responders (which includes myself since I was a subject in 2 separate EPO studies), in addition to data surrounding responders vs non-responders to various types of physiological stimuli including high intensity training and altitude acclimatisation, I don't believe that the variability of response is that great between individuals. For example it has long been recognized that from an untrained starting baseline, you can only get about a 20% increase in VO2max. In one of the EPO studies I had a 10% increase in VO2max from 63 to 70, but a year later when I was fitter to begin with and also received a longer and higher EPO dose, I only went from 68 to 70. Talking with other subjects, and (having 100% access to all of the VO2max data), I found this to be a general trend. Now the largest increases in VO2max we ever saw in those studies were in the range of 15-20%. This suggests to me that when you combine training + PEDs, the sky is not the limit, you still achieve a plateau in VO2max (This is just one example folks, please don't come along and repeat the line VO2max isn't everything. Yes I already know this thanks ).

As a stated previously, from a purely statistical perspective, it is more likely that any given individual is not an outlier. Therefore, when faced with an unknown quantity, you can be 95% certain that the true value lies within 2 SDs of the mean. However, when faced with the unknown quantity about what sort of physiological response and performance gain LA achieved with PEDs, everyone who is disputing my line of reasoning is speculating equally as hard as me that LA was in fact an outlier, maybe 2, 3 or even 4 SDs away from the mean, and this is what enabled him to become a 7x TdF winner. Yet when faced with real world objective data (ie: junior race results), the same people are arguing that LA was decidedly "normal". Well he wasn't normal as a junior, he clearly was an outlier according to statistical definition. Therefore, IMO he probably only needed an average PED response to rise above the rest, but I guess he wasn't satisfied with that, he wanted an above average PED response too and so he pursued systematic doping like nobody's business. Lets hope he gets done for that and has his TdF wins stripped.

sorry folks I really want to give it a rest now

what is the dosage-dependent relationship between EPO and VO2max - at what level does it saturate etc? Since riders appear to use a cocktail of substances, particularly testosterone and HGH, is anything known about their interaction and VO2max?

 

[rata de sentina]

..wonder if that was pure disney BS...? .

Yes, most testicular cancer is very sensitive to chemotherapy drugs. So even if you are riddled with it you have a very good chance of survival. I actually think the 73% cited above might be a little conservative these days but might be accurate back then. Pity not many other cancers are so easy to cure.

 

[pedaling squares]

Not to downplay testicular cancer but compared to other cancers, like say colon cancer, very few people diagnosed die of it, even if it's metastasized, colon : 12% 5-year survival rate, testis : 73% - again not to downplay this terrible disease, but it's also part of the "LA myth" that he was about to die and therefore would never dope when he came back blah, blah, blah...

True...I remember reading it's not about the bike...and yeah, I was an early believer in the lie...I even drove all night from belgie to be in paris and watch him cross the line in paris on his first win (tho by three wins or so I figured it out being abit slow as I am)...I can't remember exactly, but in the book he tells the story that he was given like a 10% chance of surviving...I might have that wrong via memory tho...been a long time...wonder if that was pure disney BS...? and yeah, I remember putting out that talking point to a few older belgian riders: "but this guy had cancer...there is just no way he would risk doing that sorta stuff" ect...the sad thing via armstrong is that I can be embarrassed by that later but the way he took in those with and fighting cancer...ack, that is truly awful...

To be fair, it wasn't the testicular cancer that was necessarily life-threatening so much as the brain tumours that developed thereafter.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Krebs, you confuse physiology and genetics. If you do have expertise in altitude training you will know that the human body is labile when it comes to oxygen carrying capacity, depending on time spent at altitude, diseases had or not had, etc. Take twins born at sea level, put one at altitude to grow up, and when they are adults the altitude twin, with the same genes, will have bigger lungs by far and more oxygen carrying capacity. Physiology does not depend on genetics. The notion that anyone's ability is purely genetic is false. Your basic argument is that the results of doped races would be the same as the results of clean races with the same racers involved. That argument is false, and it is false because there is no way to distinguish natural talent from the consequences of growth and development patterns and training systems. But as you say, this is a tangent and we've been warned. Happy to argue in another thread.

Dios mio, give me a break folks and stop putting words in my mouth. I am not confusing genetics vs environment, I never said physiology depends entirely on genetics, and I never said that the results of undoped races would be the same as doped races. Claude Bouchard, one of the world leading experts on the genetic influence on performance has stated that somewhere between 60-80% of the variability in performance is down to genetics. Are you happy now? Don't pester me with irrelevant picky little points when you haven't even read my posts properly.

 

[Ferminal]

Armstrong just linked this article:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/spor...rosecutor-jury-and-judge-lance-armstrong-case

USADA is a government program masquerading as a non-profit organization. This non-profit status allows it to investigate and prosecute athletes without affording them the constitutional and due process protections required of other federal agencies. This status also allows it to prosecute athletes with a lower burden of proof than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that would have been required in the previous investigation by the USDOJ. Finally, it allows a situation where the same man, Mr. Travis T. Tygart is allowed to serve as Prosecutor, Jury and Judge in the investigation of Lance Armstrong.

Do I think Mr. Tygart has some kind of personal vendetta against Lance? My personal opinion is yes, but I also think actions sometime speak louder than words. The 2012 London Olympic Games are a little more than a month away. Mr. Tygart and his staff are responsible for testing all US athletes headed to the games. However, he has chosen to use the majority of his offices resources investigating whether a retired cyclist doped 16 years ago.

The investigation and sanctioning process at the USADA is unconscionable. The partiality of the prosecutor, the lack of due process for the accused, and the lack of an independent fact finder are completely at odds with our American system of justice and fairness.

In the words of Heinlein, “To give a man power without accountability is to establish a tyrant.”

When in the last 15 years has Lance been held to account?

 

[Krebs cycle]

what is the dosage-dependent relationship between EPO and VO2max - at what level does it saturate etc? Since riders appear to use a cocktail of substances, particularly testosterone and HGH, is anything known about their interaction and VO2max?

Its a good question and I don't think anyone really knows the answer (hence the reason why I throw caution to the wind and take a more conservative statistical approach). One thing I can tell you is that beyond about 55% Hct, blood doping becomes counter productive due to the viscosity of blood and the associated increase in vascular resistance. Since the UCI rule is 50% and these most riders need to stay within the bio-passport levels I don't think that is a factor. However, there is always going to be feedback regulation of blood volume. You cannot simply keep increasing both red cell mass and plasma volume indefinitely because you will get an almighty hormonal response from various sources telling the body to excrete water. I think it has even been suggested that examining level of water regulation hormones such as aldosterone could be a supplementary approach to detecting suspicious athletes. Secondly, you can increase blood volume only so much before VO2max becomes limited by other factors such as lung and tissue diffusing capacity, ventilation/perfusion inequality, and the size and strength of the heart. I went to a lecture recently about the athletic heart and sudden cardiac death. It really makes me wonder sometimes how damaged some of these pro-cyclist hearts must get over the years having to pump enlarged blood volumes. The right ventricle becomes scarred and fibrous since it has to push against an elevated pulmonary vascular resistance.

 

[Neworld]

Cadel Evans holds the lab record for VO2max at the Australian Institute of Sport. Bradley Wiggins I have heard also has a similarly high VO2max.

Can you share with us all the VO2Max values that you are aware of.

Cadel
Wiggo
Lance
A. Schleck
A. Contador
J. Ullrich
Cancellara

I realize that winning a GT takes more than just a high VO2, but if you konw of some VO2's it may help start with a basic level of understanding. I understand that Lances is an outlier, a low outlier in that group.

 

[Big Doopie]

armstrong -- high 70s-80.

same as bassons.

do we need say any more?

 

[Jeremiah]

yeah ok!

This is tinfoil hat stuff.

"What would happen if Lance Armstrong employed attorneys to investigate the case, figured out why his elevated levels of beta-hCG had not shown up in drug tests, and then sought compensation from the governing body?" This was a failure of doping control that could have cost him his life. Armstrong, however, was calm about the failure of the drug tests to detect his cancer in its early stages."

From Lance to Landis page 77

Yup tin foil hat stuff. I wish I had your confidence when I was talking out of my .....

 

[Jeremiah]

armstrong -- high 70s-80.

same as bassons.

do we need say any more?

Actually Bassons was 85, to Armstrong's 83 in From Lance to Landis although I've seen LA's as low as 71 tested by Coyle and testified to by Ashenden at the SCA trial. later in the book

 

[Kretch]

He’s a lawyer: http://iamtri.com/profile/TimDockery

Or maybe this is our Tim: http://www.thespec.com/print/article/587144

He's part of the "family".

 

[MarkvW]

"What would happen if Lance Armstrong employed attorneys to investigate the case, figured out why his elevated levels of beta-hCH had not shown up in drug tests, and then sought compensation from the governing body?" This was a failure of doping control that could have cost him his life. Armstrong, however, was calm about the failure of the drug tests to detect his cancer in its early stages."

From Lance to Landis page 77

Yup tin foil hat stuff. I wish I had your confidence when I was talking out of my .....

Yes. It's tinfoil hat stuff. Sorry.

 

[Love the Scenery]

Picky, prickly

Dios mio

Yes?

The point is that, you simply do not become a GT contender without being physiologically superior to begin with.

Only someone with naturally superior physiology to begin with, who then also doped, could have won the tour circa 1992-2008.

What do you mean by "naturally superior physiology" if not "physiology that you are born with"? At the very least, calling someone's physiology 'natural' implies that it is what one is born with, not what someone has trained to accomplish, nor the result of chance processes during growth and development, such as living or not living at altitude, having or not having a particular diet, or having or not having diseases that affect red blood cells. I call that a conflation of genetics and physiology. If that is not what you mean, then use more precise language.

However, you still need to train hard and have the natural genetics to be at the top of the crop in the first place.

In this post, "genetics" occupies the place that "physiology" occupies in your later posts. Here, genetics is "natural" and it is necessary in order to be a GT winner. In your other posts, physiology is "natural" and it is necessary in order to be a GT winner. You use the terms interchangeably and variably attribute GT success to one or the other. I call that a conflation of physiology and genetics. Again, if that is not what you mean, use more precise language.

What I am suggesting is that all of the top riders who were doping, probably had fairly similar enhancements in BOTH performance and recovery. If you take that away from ALL of them, then they all go a bit slower and recover a bit more poorly, which makes them go a bit slower in the last week of a GT

You've made several statements of this sort, regarding the hypothetical clean peloton, proposing that doping enhancements were "fairly similar" for all top riders. The cumulative effect of the arguments is that Armstrong is naturally talented in genetics/physiology (you never tell us which, because you do not distinguish between the two), and the effects of doping are similar for all top riders. The implication is clear, that in a clean peloton the results would be the same as in a doped peloton, given that your other variable is training intensity, which presumably would stay the same in the absence of doping.

I never said physiology depends entirely on genetics

I didn't say you said that. I said you are conflating them, failing to distinguish that they are distinct, and rhetorically unifying them into one causal factor. This is a mistake. I am not putting words in your mouth, you are using imprecise language and confusing very distinct concepts.

Don't pester me with irrelevant picky little points when you haven't even read my posts properly.

They aren't irrelevant picky points, they are the central thrusts of your rhetorical constructs, and if I read your posts any more carefully, you'd be Plato. Sorry if it bothers you that random people on forums have intellects and can analyze arguments. You might consider that there are probably dozens of other PhDs on this forum, only they don't throw their degrees around when their arguments are questioned ... they just argue.

Edit: Quote links have been edited for accuracy.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Srsly doc? I respect your opinions and in depth knowledge of cycling, but how can you say I am the only one saying LA is a donkey? I have been saying the complete opposite all along. Many others in this thread, including you, are disputing this and are thus implying either directly or indirectly that LA simply didn't have the natural goods to ever be a top 10 and maybe even podium placer if he were clean in a dirty peloton and you said yourself, you think he never would have won had pro-cycling been a totally clean sport. Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are basing it on several lines of reasoning 1) LA did not excel as a junior and he was only a "good" one day race 2) good one day racers cannot become GT contenders and 3) he did not shine at stage racing prior to being diagnosed with cancer

I disagree with the first because history clearly shows he was an outstanding junior endurance athlete.....

1989 and 1990 at 18 and 19, respectively. National sprint-course triathlon champion
1991 19 U.S.A. National Amateur Road Cycling Champion
1992 20 14th place in Olympic Road Race; Barcelona
1993 21 1st place in World Championships, Road Racing;
Oslo. Winner, one stage in Tour de France

Regarding lines of reasoning 2 and 3, it is my opinion that objectivity becomes clouded as soon as he entered pro-cycling due to the unknown doping factor, but regardless nobody has given a satisfactory reason why an outstanding junior and good one day racer cannot become a GT contender. Why not? "oh oh its all about recovery"?... no sorry, that is an unsatisfactory answer because objectivity is clouded due to doping in cycling.

The only real objective data we have on LA is what he achieved as a junior, and that is what I am largely basing my reasoning on.

I think some people want to discredited LA so much that they overlook the natural talent and potential he very clearly did show as a junior and then make believe that he never could have been a GT contender without PEDs even if his rivals were clean too. I want him discredited too, but having watched Cadel Evans' rise from skinny mtb kid to TdF winner, I can at least recognize the fact LA was also a similarly outstanding junior. I think Cadel possesses more natural talent than LA because his raw numbers are higher than published values for LA, but then again, I believe Cadel has remained a clean rider in a peloton which is still not completely free of PEDs, and he likely would have been a multiple TdF winner had pro-cycling been much cleaner over the past 10yrs (and if he had a stronger team starting back in 2006).

Anyway, I am repeating myself, you are repeating yourself. I don't want to take the thread on a tangent any longer.

I said quite clearly that LA would probably have finished top 10 in a GT, just that he would not have won. I didnt imply anything I stated it quite clearly.

Also - I don't really rate triathlon as a measure for future GT potential in particular when the whole sprint triathlon event lasted less than an hour.
As for the Olympics - again a one day event which was won by poor Casartelli who was not a GT force either.