USADA - Armstrong

[poupou]

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

How was managed his 1999 corticosteroid test shows that UCI were corrupted to clear it. For record, according UCI rules, the TUE should have been given before the doping test, not when the positive test broke.

In 1996, when Lance raced, he never failed a doping test despite his cancer that should have triggered the bell. Why? Corruption or doping masking agent or method?

 

[poupou]

If Lance were clean in 1993-1995 (96 he had already a Lamborghini motor), he should have done at least as well as most of the french riders who raced at the first speed.
Did he do as great as Moncoutié?

 

[college]

How was managed his 1999 corticosteroid test shows that UCI were corrupted to clear it. For record, according UCI rules, the TUE should have been given before the doping test, not when the positive test broke.

In 1996, when Lance raced, he never failed a doping test despite his cancer that should have triggered the bell. Why? Corruption or doping masking agent or method?

Interesting thoughts or opinion, if usada and the uci were not corrupt then Lance’s cancer would have been discovered. Being discovered most likely would have saved him from having that cancer spread into the rest of his body.

 

[Northern rider]

If Lance were clean in 1993-1995 (96 he had already a Lamborghini motor), he should have done at least as well as most of the french riders who raced at the first speed.
Did he do as great as Moncoutié?

Moncoutie's tour record.
Results in Tour de France
2000 Tour de France : 48th
2001 Tour de France : 82nd
2002 Tour de France : 13th
2003 Tour de France : 43rd
2004 Tour de France : 34th & 1 stage win
2005 Tour de France : 67th & 1 stage win
2006 Tour de France : 58th
2008 Tour de France : 42nd
2009 Tour de France : 58th
2011 Tour de France : 41st

Moncoutie might have a reasonable claim for a big sack of jerseys if all the known dopers and dodgy riders were eliminated from those tours !

 

[college]

Moncoutie's tour record.
Results in Tour de France
2000 Tour de France : 48th
2001 Tour de France : 82nd
2002 Tour de France : 13th
2003 Tour de France : 43rd
2004 Tour de France : 34th & 1 stage win
2005 Tour de France : 67th & 1 stage win
2006 Tour de France : 58th
2008 Tour de France : 42nd
2009 Tour de France : 58th
2011 Tour de France : 41st

Moncoutie might have a reasonable claim for a big sack of jerseys if all the known dopers and dodgy riders were eliminated from those tours !

So riders that were placed before Moncoutié were all doped? Who are the entire known and dodgy rider’s? How do we know that Moncoutié was clean?

 

[Microchip]

I never did read Walsh's book and for certain have never seen this particular quote!
Holy cr@p! that is funny...and a bit creepy.

Transformations like that are bizarre though. From what I have seen in photos of a younger Lance vs his bulky top-heavy tanker modern look it is a striking diff.

The Graham Watson website had a section called "Lance through the years". When looking through the photos, what was striking was how much smaller he was, his legs and arms almost 'soft'-looking. (That section is no longer available on the website.) Very different to that big, solid, tall man he became.

 

[pmcg76]

Interesting thoughts or opinion, if usada and the uci were not corrupt then Lance’s cancer would have been discovered. Being discovered most likely would have saved him from having that cancer spread into the rest of his body.

How many times has it been pointed out to you that USADA did not exist until the early-mid noughties yet you try to link them back to 96 as proof of corruption

The likelihood of cancer not showing up in drug tests is much more likely due to the use of masking agents than corruption cos Lance wasnt so important to the UCI in 95/96 and probably wasnt in a position financially to make large donations.

 

[frenchfry]

Interesting thoughts or opinion, if usada and the uci were not corrupt then Lance’s cancer would have been discovered. Being discovered most likely would have saved him from having that cancer spread into the rest of his body.

USADA was created in 2000 so about 4 years after the cancer diagnosis. Difficult to be corrupt at a period when you don't even exist.

Thanks for pointing out that the UCI is very likely a corrupt organisation that quite possibly accepted bribes for covering up Armstrong's positives in 1999 and 2001 (and others?). I believe this is one of the points that (non-corrupt) USADA is going to establish.

If you want to avoid making ignorant sounding statements about USADA, here is a link that might help:

http://www.usada.org/about

 

[Microchip]

If the theory that "if the whole peloton was clean, Lance would have won" is true, then there was nothing else going on in the race but strictly riding and physical exertion.

There's more than one way to win a race, actually sitting on a saddle and riding hard is one way. What about the unseen aspects? What are the possibilities?

'Match-fixing';
Paying others not to win;
Covering up a positive;
Having someone else found to test positive

The list of underhandedness could be endless. This isn't different to the scheming and backbiting that goes on in offices of wealthy prominent businesses of the world, just to get to the top. It's just that their office is the road.

Am just saying that I don't buy into the argument that if they were all clean Lance would still have won; because it takes more than just riding on the road to win in the way that he has.

 

[college]

USADA was created in 2000 so about 4 years after the cancer diagnosis. Difficult to be corrupt at a period when you don't even exist.

Thanks for pointing out that the UCI is very likely a corrupt organisation that quite possibly accepted bribes for covering up Armstrong's positives in 1999 and 2001 (and others?). I believe this is one of the points that (non-corrupt) USADA is going to establish.

If you want to avoid making ignorant sounding statements about USADA, here is a link that might help:

http://www.usada.org/about

Thank you for the link Frenchfry. I am glad that you think my statements are ignorant.

uci is corrupt and usad is inept and possibly corrupt depending on who you listen to.

Before usada the testing was up to the USOC?

Usad is just like most government entities they live off grants and do little to nothing except keep their own jobs in perpetual motion.

 

[pmcg76]

Yes. Even in a doping peloton he probably could have done better than that after 5 or 6 yrs of GT experience. In a clean peloton, after 5 or 6 yrs he likely would have been top 10, and maybe even a winner. Super quick comeback following cancer? No way. 7 times consecutive winner? No way.

We will never know though. It's all hypothetical. I acknowledge that, but for people to come along and be certain that it is beyond the realms of possibility to become a true GT contender at age 30 because he didn't shine in stage racing at 22-25yrs of age is an ignorant approach which lacks scientific foundation. We must use results from a time when we are much more confident he was not systematically doping, and we must use our knowledge of the physiological demands of GT cycling races and the physiological characteristics of GT riders as a guide.

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. I could have envisaged Lance becoming a possible Top 10 rider at some point. When he finished 4th in the Vuelta, I thought that was the limit of his GT ability as the Vuelta was the weakest of the GTs, had lots of strange names popping up with results and that particular edition 98 had lots of riders who had been traumatised by the Festina scandal making their racing comebacks. It seemed an entirely plausible result for a guy with limited GT potntial who was focused primarily on that event. In hindsight it was probably a dry-run for the effects of EPO on his Tour potential.

I have an edition of Winning from early 96 wherein Armstrong himself discounted his possibilities as a future Tour contender but it was probably more a mentality issue.

I hear what you are saying about all Tour champions having potential as young riders based on winning Championships etc but there are also a lot of young guys who win championships who develop in other areas of the sport. They all dont necessarily develop as GT riders. Most championships are one day races so its hard to gauge. Comparing like for like, Bobby Julich who was Armstrong's age was considered the future of stage racing in the early 90s in the US, not Armstrong based on his results in Trump/ Du Pont.

However, winning 7 Tours in a row was something not even the most optimistic Lance supporter would ever have envisaged beforehand, especially in the circumstances that it occured. As you say, it is all conjecture what he might have done in a clean race but then that applies to all pro cyclists.

 

[Von Mises]

The comment about being a domestique is an analogy making the point that domestiques in GTs have inferior physiology suited to a GT than the GC contenders.

Therefore, what I am saying is that if you are a rider with inferior physiology, you will not become a tour contender even if you dope (its a moot point what your exact role in the team is). Why? Well because we know that already all of the GC contenders with the superior GT physiology are ALREADY doping. Only someone with naturally superior physiology to begin with, who then also doped, could have won the tour circa 1992-2008.

Same concept applies for Indurain, Pantani, Ullrich and other top riders of the era. If nobody was doping, none of them would have been domestiques.

The comment about being a domestique is an analogy making the point that domestiques in GTs have inferior physiology suited to a GT than the GC contenders.

Therefore, what I am saying is that if you are a rider with inferior physiology, you will not become a tour contender even if you dope (its a moot point what your exact role in the team is). Why? Well because we know that already all of the GC contenders with the superior GT physiology are ALREADY doping. Only someone with naturally superior physiology to begin with, who then also doped, could have won the tour circa 1992-2008.

Same concept applies for Indurain, Pantani, Ullrich and other top riders of the era. If nobody was doping, none of them would have been domestiques.

I still think you are still oversimplifying. World without doping can bring totally different scenarios.
Hypothetical examples. Ullrich (Indurain) without doping. Instead of trying to get TOP 10 in GC, maybe their sole focus would be TT-s and classics. This would mean very different training regimes, different racing schedule, different focus.
Pantani (Contador) without dope. Maube they would be more like Igor Anton types - still best goats, but too weak or fragile for 3 week GTs. Again, different racing schedules, different goals, different training regimes.

If nobody was doping, none of them would have been domestiques.

Point is - doping changes a lot, not just VO2 max. Maybe they have not been domestiques, but i can easily imagine that they would have been totally different riders.

 

[Fidolix]

It's isn't - just as your post mentioning me wasn't.
What, don't want to play now?

Omfg, I bet you spend 3 hours in front of the mirror each morning.

 

[veganrob]

Thank you for the link Frenchfry. I am glad that you think my statements are ignorant.

uci is corrupt and usad is inept and possibly corrupt depending on who you listen to.

Before usada the testing was up to the USOC?

Usad is just like most government entities they live off grants and do little to nothing except keep their own jobs in perpetual motion.

USAD-A is not a govt entity fool

 

[Race Radio]

I think this calls for greater speculation than looking at actual performances as a junior. The best predictor of future performance as a senior is performance as an U23 or U19. It is exceedingly rare that an 18yr old emerges from being 5th or 6th at national level, to becoming GT winning material.

I don't believe that Armstrong had access to some magical doping regime that most of his peers did not. Superior probably in terms of consistency, and that is what lead to his and his team's dominance, but not wholesale different in terms of substance and dosages.

Do all humans react the same to pharmacology? As a scientist you should know the answer. Did all riders pay off the UCI?

 

[Race Radio]

Interesting thoughts or opinion, if usada and the uci were not corrupt then Lance’s cancer would have been discovered. Being discovered most likely would have saved him from having that cancer spread into the rest of his body.

This is very true. Wouldn't it be funny if Lance used this to "Own" somebody? Yeah, that would be funny

 

[webvan]

There's more than one way to win a race, actually sitting on a saddle and riding hard is one way. What about the unseen aspects? What are the possibilities?

'Match-fixing';
Paying others not to win;
Covering up a positive;
Having someone else found to test positive

Had forgotten about the mystery of alll the guys who left Dopestrong testing positive (except Kevin L ?)...it doesn't seem the USADA is looking at that aspect, it could either be because they were "punished" or they no longer had the "protection"...

Since Julich was just mentioned as showing great qualities for GTs at a young age and while no longer very young his 1998 tour (the dopiest tour ever most likely) was impressive...then nothing apart from one week races a few years later. Hard not to conclude that he dropped the dope after Festina, would be interesting to hear his thoughts on this whole mess.

 

[JRTinMA]

Had forgotten about the mystery of alll the guys who left Dopestrong testing positive (except Kevin L ?)...it doesn't seem the USADA is looking at that aspect, it could either be because they were "punished" or they no longer had the "protection"...

Since Julich was just mentioned as showing great qualities for GTs at a young age and while no longer very young his 1998 tour (the dopiest tour ever most likely) was impressive...then nothing apart from one week races a few years later. Hard not to conclude that he dropped the dope after Festina, would be interesting to hear his thoughts on this whole mess.

Based on your logic he was clean at the Olympics?!? Your logic is flawed or you are trolling.

 

[college]

USAD-A is not a govt entity fool

Well ok veganrob. That was my mistake. Since they exist off of government grants and USOC funds for research, what are they researching? Whatever they are charged to do they are bad at it because they could not get a positive test on Lance since they started up in 2000. Not to mention the testing never caught Floyd, or Tyler. Two known dopers and liars.
By the way why call people names?

 

[GJB123]

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. I could have envisaged Lance becoming a possible Top 10 rider at some point. When he finished 4th in the Vuelta, I thought that was the limit of his GT ability as the Vuelta was the weakest of the GTs, had lots of strange names popping up with results and that particular edition 98 had lots of riders who had been traumatised by the Festina scandal making their racing comebacks. It seemed an entirely plausible result for a guy with limited GT potntial who was focused primarily on that event. In hindsight it was probably a dry-run for the effects of EPO on his Tour potential.

I have an edition of Winning from early 96 wherein Armstrong himself discounted his possibilities as a future Tour contender but it was probably more a mentality issue.

I hear what you are saying about all Tour champions having potential as young riders based on winning Championships etc but there are also a lot of young guys who win championships who develop in other areas of the sport. They all dont necessarily develop as GT riders. Most championships are one day races so its hard to gauge. Comparing like for like, Bobby Julich who was Armstrong's age was considered the future of stage racing in the early 90s in the US, not Armstrong based on his results in Trump/ Du Pont.

However, winning 7 Tours in a row was something not even the most optimistic Lance supporter would ever have envisaged beforehand, especially in the circumstances that it occured. As you say, it is all conjecture what he might have done in a clean race but then that applies to all pro cyclists.

Take a look at Lars Boom. He won just about everything there is to win the way of national and WC-titles under 23, but I don't think anyone including Boom himself feels he has it in him to win one let alone 7 TdF's.

I defense of krebs though, he isn't saying that every junior champion will automatically be a GT-contender, however every GT-contender probably was very good under 23 already.

Regards
GJ

 

[GJB123]

Well ok veganrob. That was my mistake. Since they exist off of government grants and USOC funds for research, what are they researching? Whatever they are charged to do they are bad at it because they could not get a positive test on Lance since they started up in 2000. Not to mention the testing never caught Floyd, or Tyler. Two known dopers and liars.
By the way why call people names?

Now please make up your mind. All ant-doping agencies including USADA were bad at testing, but the the +500 negative doping tests for Armstrong mean zilch or on the other hand the +500 test negative do mean something in which case USADA cs were worth their money. You can't have it both ways, now can you?

Regards
GJ

 

[ChewbaccaD]

No need to troll dude. I have a PhD in altitude training physiology, and I have been working with elite endurance athletes for over 12yrs. I spent 4yrs working in the AIS physiology lab with one of the world's leading cycling physiologists (Dave Martin), a year of which I shared an office with Inigo Mujika. I also worked with Michael Ashenden and numerous other world renowned sports scientists. I was a subject and assistant researcher in two EPO studies. I'm not a cycling physiology expert like those esteemed gentlemen, but I reckon I know a ****load more about the physiology of professional cycling than you.

My, that's quite a large **** you pulled out. None of that however lends credence to the hypothesis you suggest. The fact is that your opinion of his potential (undoped) to win a GT is PURELY speculative. You have no proof what so ever. You have provided no a single shred of scientific evidence that "responders" don't exist. You cocked up Cadel's information (someone who you claim to have worked with) badly. You suggestion that someone who wasn't riding GT's at a certain age (and therefore not winning them) is comparable to someone who was riding GT's at that same age (and was not winning them) in terms of determining potential. I realize that this is an internet forum, and as such has a significant amount of speculative commentary, but don't come in here and throw your **** on the table and expect that to legitimize your argument. You'll have to excuse me if I also recognize that the interwebz are filled with people saying they are something they are not. It is also filled with people exaggerating their accomplishments in order to legitimize their arguments. And even if you are who you say you are, you have yet to provide any proof of your assertion in terms of real data. I would think someone of your vaunted scientific status would have relied on actual data to make your argument rather than some speculative hypothesis that relies on the acceptance of a fantasy world and no actual data to back it up. Call me crazy, but that don't sound like no scientification to me. Over the years, we have had several members who backed up their assertions with actual data when they made statements that involved physiology, and lengthy discussions that completely lost me from the original sentence. I don't to the maths. That I can keep up with your argument and provide even a shred of counterpoint means that for all your credentials, your argument must be a pretty poor one. If it were legitimate, you would have left me in the dust long ago. As it stands, we both stand on equal ground. Both of us have a hypothesis that is unsubstantiated and will remain so, thus continuing to pour over and over the lack of proof doesn't do either of us any good. I suggest we move along because this is the story with no end.

 

[college]

Now please make up your mind. All ant-doping agencies including USADA were bad at testing, but the the +500 negative doping tests for Armstrong mean zilch or on the other hand the +500 test negative do mean something in which case USADA cs were worth their money. You can't have it both ways, now can you?

Regards
GJ

Wait a minute gjb123 where have I said anything about the 500 negative tests?
I have not tried to argue it both ways.

 

[gillan1969]

Originally Posted by Krebs cycle
The comment about being a domestique is an analogy making the point that domestiques in GTs have inferior physiology suited to a GT than the GC contenders.

Therefore, what I am saying is that if you are a rider with inferior physiology, you will not become a tour contender even if you dope (its a moot point what your exact role in the team is). Why? Well because we know that already all of the GC contenders with the superior GT physiology are ALREADY doping. Only someone with naturally superior physiology to begin with, who then also doped, could have won the tour circa 1992-2008.

Same concept applies for Indurain, Pantani, Ullrich and other top riders of the era. If nobody was doping, none of them would have been domestiques.
I think the above is a text book answer rather than a real world example....whilst it might be marginal, that armstrong never showed a propensity for stage races in his pre-cancer career is telling.....he was a one day racer...and that's where his talents lay...he had enough time, circa 5/6 years, to understand his own body and with his personality i can't believe that should he have shown the physiology required (i.e. recovery) for GTs, then he wouldn't have wanted success at stage races pre-cancer

of more significance is that he may well have gone at this (and certainly the current charges would suggest it) in a far more efficient and aggressive manner than any of the other (doped) GC contenders. The potential financial gains were enormous (an ex-cancer suvivor TDF winner is worth more than Zulle) and so the incentive for the UCI et al to become part of what became a money making machine were enormous. In addition I understand that post-festina in 1999 there was perhaps a reduction in PED use for the majority of GT challengers - it was a time that fortune would favour the brave....and armstrong was indeed brave. That is how he may differ and may be what explains his ability to use a PED programme with impunity because he knows that the results will always be negative. The others could not get that level of support because they could never offer that level of return....his costs might have been high but then his returns were great and supplemented by financial intrruments such as the SCA deal - i.e his financial success is as dissproprtionate as his physical succeess/improvment when compared to other GT winners....and was always going to be (hence third party confidence in him)

with this 'support' he was able to improve his physiology far more than your common, or garden, GT contender......

 

[GJB123]

Wait a minute gjb123 where have I said anything about the 500 negative tests?
I have not tried to argue it both ways.

So we are in agreement that the 500 negative tests mean nothing (although our reasoning behind that will be very different). So noted!