USADA - Armstrong

[Krebs cycle]

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

Of course not, but IMO the variability is not as great as what people are suggesting in here. Another way to look at this (good) question is to examine variability in non-doped populations. It has long been recognized that inter-individual variability in physiology decreases (ie: population becomes more homogenous) as you become more elite. And within an individual what we see is that the more trained you are, the closer you get to your genetic limit and so performance variability flattens right out and goes down to about 1%. No matter how hard you train, you just can't seem to improve performance further due to physiological limitations.

I believe that a similar effect occurs with drug interaction on the grounds that there is lots of evidence which demonstrates tolerance/saturation kinetics with chronic long term drug use. I strongly believe that doping was at the level where they were taking so much for so long and doing literally everything possible to improve performance, that they simply maxed out their physiological + pharmacological limit and reached a new performance ceiling, thus lowering the variability. In fact, what I believe is that everyone was probably doping 5 fold greater than what they needed to reach this ceiling. Everyone in here seems to be of the opinion that LA was the chosen one who either responded better than not only his closest rivals, but even riders out of the top 20, OR his doping regime was far superior to many of his rivals even though a lot of them were using the same doctors and the same methods.

I'm saying, no he wasn't the chosen one who responded best, and no he didn't have a massively greater performance advantage as a result of a massively superior doping regime compared to the rest of the top 20 or maybe even the entire peloton. He definitely had a better program, and that was what raised him from being a say a one time tour winner, to a 7x winner.

 

[JRTinMA]

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?

I know USADA didn't start operations until 2001 and I believe they did not start testing professional cyclists until '03 or '04. Regarding the testing, doping athletes have discussed how easy it was to beat the tests. How do you label USADA bad when they are only as good as the technology that exists today. USADA only accredits labs with WADA, they don't do the actual testing. This is done so vendettas real or imagined can't effect the outcome.

 

[MD FACG FACP]

Kristin Armstrong has been tested more by USADA than Lance Armstrong. College if you claim Lance has been tested 500 + times please show some proof. It's not the USA today comments section.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Cool story bro.

 

[JRTinMA]

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.

You have a Ph.D in altitude training physiology? Man that's narrow...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Of course not, but IMO the variability is not as great as what people are suggesting in here. Another way to look at this (good) question is to examine variability in non-doped populations. It has long been recognized that inter-individual variability in physiology decreases (ie: population becomes more homogenous) as you become more elite. And within an individual what we see is that the more trained you are, the closer you get to your genetic limit and so performance variability flattens right out and goes down to about 1%. No matter how hard you train, you just can't seem to improve performance further due to physiological limitations.

I believe that a similar effect occurs with drug interaction on the grounds that there is lots of evidence which demonstrates tolerance/saturation kinetics with chronic long term drug use. I strongly believe that doping was at the level where they were taking so much for so long and doing literally everything possible to improve performance, that they simply maxed out their physiological + pharmacological limit and reached a new performance ceiling, thus lowering the variability. In fact, what I believe is that everyone was probably doping 5 fold greater than what they needed to reach this ceiling. Everyone in here seems to be of the opinion that LA was the chosen one who either responded better than not only his closest rivals, but even riders out of the top 20, OR his doping regime was far superior to many of his rivals even though a lot of them were using the same doctors and the same methods.

I'm saying, no he wasn't the chosen one who responded best, and no he didn't have a massive advantage in terms of doping regime compared to the rest of the top 20 or maybe even the entire peloton.

Cool story bro.

 

[Anonymous]

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

I never put this together. I just thought it was a combination of payola and the feel-good resusitaion of pro cycling after the Festina affair.

 

[sniper]

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

ok, so pre-1996, Lance is already Verdruggen's chosen one. (Or perhaps Verdruggen gave free passes to several cyclists, one of them being Lance.)
Then...
the cancer turns up, and Lance starts extorting Verdruggen?
Or perhaps no extortion was necessary?
Perhaps Verdruggen himself was smart enough to see that if Armstrong would at some point get caught, the UCI pre-1996 'anti-'doping policy would come under scrutiny of the press? And correlations between UCI's 'anti-'doping policy and Lance's cancer would sooner or later turn up in the media, and would have put the UCI in a destructive daylight.
So in any case, after Lance is diagnosed with cancer, there is basically no more turning back for the UCI and Verdruggen is compelled to cover Lance's *** unconditionally.

But then what do you mean by "own"? It suggests some sort of blackmailing was going on.
Would thus be interesting to know if Lance was in the position to extort Verdruggen with releasing pre-1996 information on the UCI endulging doping as in covering up positives.

 

[GJB123]

Of course not, but IMO the variability is not as great as what people are suggesting in here. Another way to look at this (good) question is to examine variability in non-doped populations. It has long been recognized that inter-individual variability in physiology decreases (ie: population becomes more homogenous) as you become more elite. And within an individual what we see is that the more trained you are, the closer you get to your genetic limit and so performance variability flattens right out and goes down to about 1%. No matter how hard you train, you just can't seem to improve performance further due to physiological limitations.

I believe that a similar effect occurs with drug interaction on the grounds that there is lots of evidence which demonstrates tolerance/saturation kinetics with chronic long term drug use. I strongly believe that doping was at the level where they were taking so much for so long and doing literally everything possible to improve performance, that they simply maxed out their physiological + pharmacological limit and reached a new performance ceiling, thus lowering the variability. In fact, what I believe is that everyone was probably doping 5 fold greater than what they needed to reach this ceiling. Everyone in here seems to be of the opinion that LA was the chosen one who either responded better than not only his closest rivals, but even riders out of the top 20, OR his doping regime was far superior to many of his rivals even though a lot of them were using the same doctors and the same methods.

I'm saying, no he wasn't the chosen one who responded best, and no he didn't have a massively greater performance advantage as a result of a massively superior doping regime compared to the rest of the top 20 or maybe even the entire peloton. He definitely had a better program, and that was what raised him from being a say a one time tour winner, to a 7x winner.

You lost me in the bolded part. You strongly believe one thing, I strongly believe something else. You offer no proof whatsoever for your belief, whereas other people have linked to statements by people riding in the same team as Ullrich who clearly stated the Ullrich was riding at a crit level of 43%. so he wasn't maxed out in his doping as you would have us believe.

Regards
GJ

 

[college]

Kristin Armstrong has been tested more by USADA than Lance Armstrong. College if you claim Lance has been tested 500 + times please show some proof. It's not the USA today comments section.

Please show me the post where I said that he was tested 500 times. I only quoted or mentioned 500 because GJB123 mentioned them in their post. Why not ask GJB123 where is the prof of the 500 test. You will not ask because GJB123 follows in with your own opinion.
What has USA today have to do with this forum?

 

[Von Mises]

Of course not, but IMO the variability is not as great as what people are suggesting in here. Another way to look at this (good) question is to examine variability in non-doped populations. It has long been recognized that inter-individual variability in physiology decreases (ie: population becomes more homogenous) as you become more elite. And within an individual what we see is that the more trained you are, the closer you get to your genetic limit and so performance variability flattens right out and goes down to about 1%. No matter how hard you train, you just can't seem to improve performance further due to physiological limitations.

I believe that a similar effect occurs with drug interaction on the grounds that there is lots of evidence which demonstrates tolerance/saturation kinetics with chronic long term drug use. I strongly believe that doping was at the level where they were taking so much for so long and doing literally everything possible to improve performance, that they simply maxed out their physiological + pharmacological limit and reached a new performance ceiling, thus lowering the variability. In fact, what I believe is that everyone was probably doping 5 fold greater than what they needed to reach this ceiling. Everyone in here seems to be of the opinion that LA was the chosen one who either responded better than not only his closest rivals, but even riders out of the top 20, OR his doping regime was far superior to many of his rivals even though a lot of them were using the same doctors and the same methods.

I'm saying, no he wasn't the chosen one who responded best, and no he didn't have a massive advantage in terms of doping regime compared to the rest of the top 20 or maybe even the entire peloton.

But isn´t it true that variability increases if you add more variables? What I mean? Lets take rider A and B, both have same VO2 max, both take EPO and both respond to EPO equally. With or without dope, thay are equal. But lets add another variable - weight. Rider A does not have weight problems, rider B does. For rider B, it is very hard to get his weight down, his weight fluctuates lot, he gains weight very easily and so and so on. He has to put considerable effort to get his weight "right", maybe it means even different training regime, at the end different racing schedule and diffrent results for rider B and rider A. But then comes another game changer, another drug, like clen, what solves all problems for rider B.

And if you start add all these variables (and there are many-many more of them), it all becomes so complicated, taht it is almost impossible to predicts what kind of racing and what kind of results we would see without doping.

 

[thehog]

Sorry his has already been posted: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycl...-armstrong-legal-process-questions/55603628/1

Robert Luskin, does not seem to be in not-contesting-anything-case-closed mode. In a letter to USADA dated June 8, obtained by USA TODAY Sports, he wrote if the USADA continues to " vilify" Armstrong that his side "will not hesitate to expose your motives and your methods and to hold you accountable for your conduct."

 

[MD FACG FACP]

Please show me the post where I said that he was tested 500 times. I only quoted or mentioned 500 because GJB123 mentioned them in their post. Why not ask GJB123 where is the prof of the 500 test. You will not ask because GJB123 follows in with your own opinion.
What has USA today have to do with this forum?

Fair enough. GJB123 how does Armstrong come up with the 500 number, and why is it 500, and not 497 or 511, exactly 500 seems rather random.

College (or who ever you really are) you cheat you open the door to being caught. Nobody even remembers Giambi was busted and admitted he doped. If Lance would have come clean years ago and spun some second chance at life story. People would have forgiven him, most still probably will.

 

[Race Radio]

Still nothing filed in Federal court. Looks like tomorrow's meeting will go on uncontested.

Wonderboy, all talk no action.

 

[Anonymous]

Still nothing filed in Federal court. Looks like tomorrow's meeting will go on uncontested.

Wonderboy, all talk no action.

Equal to no contest which is equal to guilty.

Maybe LA is trying to protect 8 of the 10 eye witness's.

 

[Ferminal]

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?

Yet those evil French were testing Lance more than USADA and couldn't catch him either?

Who is the benchmark anti-doping agency who is good at making tests positive? Not being able to detect PED use is nothing to do with Lance/USADA.

 

[Ferminal]

BTW could we please move on from the "cool story bro"s.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

BTW could we please move on from the "cool story bro"s.

Sure, if the troll brigade would stop posting cool stories...

You guys continue to pretend that most of the new posters who are spouting the same crap defenses of Armstrong that the multitudes have been spouting since 2003 are providing legitimate discourse, so you leave me with little else to do. You can't engage them in serious conversation, so I engage them in the most appropriate way.

It drives me crazy to continually hear the "all viewpoints are welcome" mantra when anyone with a brain and 2 months experience in interwebz forums knows that they are nothing but common trolls. If I engage them by calling them that, you give me a warning. If I engage them in my most colorful language, I get banned. I could not engage them, but writing "cool story bro" only takes a couple of seconds, and it is loads more fun.

 

[thehog]

Still nothing filed in Federal court. Looks like tomorrow's meeting will go on uncontested.

Wonderboy, all talk no action.

I have a feeling he'll issue a statement about how unjust the process would be and not contest.

You never know he might say how Tyler & Floyd's hearings were an abortion of justice!!*

 

[Krebs cycle]

You lost me in the bolded part. You strongly believe one thing, I strongly believe something else. You offer no proof whatsoever for your belief, whereas other people have linked to statements by people riding in the same team as Ullrich who clearly stated the Ullrich was riding at a crit level of 43%. so he wasn't maxed out in his doping as you would have us believe.

Regards
GJ

Come on you cannot be serious? I should not have to provide specific proof when there are dozens of books and dozens of ex riders and dozens of journalists all throughout the pro-cycling community that have graphically detailed how deep the doping went, what they were doing, how much, how often, dosages etc. Were you living under a rock when the Festina affair broke?

 

[JRTinMA]

BTW could we please move on from the "cool story bro"s.

Thank you, "cool story bro" was cool if you were an obese nerd-raging gamer in 2008. Sorry Chewie.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Still nothing filed in Federal court. Looks like tomorrow's meeting will go on uncontested.

Wonderboy, all talk no action.

Deadline is the 22nd. They have another full day. I don't see any reason to file something today rather than tomorrow. That's another FULL day of billable work.

 

[JRTinMA]

You lost me in the bolded part. You strongly believe one thing, I strongly believe something else. You offer no proof whatsoever for your belief, whereas other people have linked to statements by people riding in the same team as Ullrich who clearly stated the Ullrich was riding at a crit level of 43%. so he wasn't maxed out in his doping as you would have us believe.

Regards
GJ

And you should read the numerous accounts of how easy it is to manipulate a Hct test with the smallest of advanced warning or some simple planning.

 

[andy1234]

Sure, if the troll brigade would stop posting cool stories...

You guys continue to pretend that most of the new posters who are spouting the same crap defenses of Armstrong that the multitudes have been spouting since 2003 are providing legitimate discourse, so you leave me with little else to do. You can't engage them in serious conversation, so I engage them in the most appropriate way.

It drives me crazy to continually hear the "all viewpoints are welcome" mantra when anyone with a brain and 2 months experience in interwebz forums knows that they are nothing but common trolls. If I engage them by calling them that, you give me a warning. If I engage them in my most colorful language, I get banned. I could not engage them, but writing "cool story bro" only takes a couple of seconds, and it is loads more fun.

Krebs posts have been courteous and reasonable.
Try it out yourself.

 

[Microchip]

Still nothing filed in Federal court. Looks like tomorrow's meeting will go on uncontested.

Wonderboy, all talk no action.

Deadline is the 22nd. They have another full day. I don't see any reason to file something today rather than tomorrow. That's another FULL day of billable work.

Yes, time is money! Plus it's probably taking the secretary very long to type out all those numerous paragraphs of adjectives describing the process.

Anyway, joking aside, if it goes uncontested, what happens?