USADA - Armstrong

[MarkvW]

IMHO, this is a likely scenario.

Grind away at the USADA process until Wonderboy has enough outside pressure on USADA to drop the case with a deal and another "I won" press release a decade from now when no one cares and doping in pro cycling has gone from "don't kill yourself" to "Party like it's 1995." It will create some precedent for other cases though, and that's not a bad thing.

I want a similar outcome as many do. But, this is a power and money game and for now anyway, Wonderboy still has both.

I really could care about the "wins." If I can live with Barry Bonds as the home run king, I can live with Lance as the TdF 7 timer. It sucks, but then so does bought FIFA matches.

I really want to see a finding that Lance doped, and a finding that makes clear the massive scope of his conspiracy--not because of any need for somebody else to tell me what to believe, but because (as I understand it) that's the only way the truth is going to get out.

To win, Lance doesn't just have to get a finding in his favor--he also has to suppress the truth. That is an extremely difficult task. This thing may be tough for USADA, but is also very tough for Lance. The big bias in all things legal is to give everybody their day in court. If it gets to that point in any proceeding, Lance has already lost.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Merckx doped, Lemond not, Boonen who knows (we know he snorts every now and then), for Roche there is a topic, Maertens doped, Gimondi before my time and Bugno doped. What is your point exactly?

Regards
GJ

I thought the argument was that winning WC showed talent for GT GC. By including Boonen and Maertens Andy is pretty effectively arguing against his position I'd say.

 

[patricknd]

Are you suggesting that Ullrich was a "moderate" doper?

is that politically moderate or didn't use much

 

[Epicycle]

Incorrect. There is a bilateral agreement between the government and USADA for this very purpose.

The atheletes are aware of this.

I'm not sure you are right, hog. In the BALCO case USADA only got the Feds documentation after the Justice Department was subpoenaed by the Senate Commerce Committee. That Committee then provided the documents to USADA. It was an extraordinary development, and it only happened because the Olympics were looming and lawmakers were afraid BALCO athletes would compete for the US. I don't see anything like that happening in Lance's case.

But I agree on the larger point...there is no indication USADA has done anything unethical regarding the grand jury and their investigation of Lance. None at all.

 

[pmcg76]

Like Merckx, Hinault, lemond, Boonen, Roche, Maertens, Gimondi, Bugno.....

So what is obvious is that sometimes the worlds are won by big name riders and sometimes they are not. What relevance that has to do with winning Tours I am not sure. Each world's also needs to be taken on its individual merits. Was Fondriest as worthy a World Champion in Ronse thanks to luck as for example Hinault in Sallanches when he simply destroyed the field.

 

[thehog]

Even better. So college's pint was even more moot than i Thought. Thanks for enlightening me. Never too old to learn something new.

If you get time (like 3 hours!) read the following:

Often, and particularly true in the cases arising from the BALCO
investigation, the federal government conducts a parallel investigation to that
of USADA in efforts to stop steroid-related crimes. USADA regularly
cooperates with the federal government in its information gathering. 58
Athletes and others faced with a federal government prosecution often argue
they should have the same right of access to USADA's documents as they do
to those held by the Department of Justice. 59 This argument fails, as the
Jencks Act does not apply to USADA because it is not a federal agency.

There is no evidence that the government authorizes, directs, or supervises
USADA's activities in any way, and none was presented by Graham. 79 Just as
the pawn shop's work in Jones with the ATF did not turn it into a government
agency, USADA's meeting with government agents as part of parallel
investigations similarly does not do so.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

well actually this is what I said to begin with....

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.

The only thing I have since revised is that I am more strongly in favor of the probability that 7 TdF wins would have been highly unlikely.

Everyone is saying that LA was not special in terms of his natural physiology for GT racing (because he didn't shine in stage racing), but he was special when it came to responding to PEDs.... the "donkey to the racehorse". I'm saying that donkey's don't win a plethora of junior national titles, TdF stages and one day classics when they are still U23. And donkey's might become racehorses but they don't become multiple consecutive champions over a 7yr period. You need to start with a thoroughbred if you want to achieve that level of success.

True - thats what you stared with, but then you modified your position and wrote:

...
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. ...

To the highlighted - the only one saying he is a "donkey" is you. However, I think you will find LA didnt win a plethora of anything. Yes, one stage in TdF, a WC but he didn't particularly excel as a junior.

You are starting with a position that because he was a good racer in single day events (which he was) that it shows something of GT potential, it doesn't.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Also, an old Finnish study (if you can find it) found that athletes with higher Vo2 maxes benefitted less from EPO use than those who started with lower Vo2 maxes. The more talented athlete were (generally) benefitting less. Another observation of that study was that ectomorphic body types showed less increase than mesomorphic types. So, the variables on the exact advantage are endless and vary person to person (A BIG counterpoint to the argument that just letting everyone dope is fair). I read this study in about 1995 and haven't seen it anywhere since, so i cant find a link, sorry..

Check out a study titled "The effects of red blood cell infusion on 10 km race time". The worst responder of the six runners infused with 2 units improved by 2.1% (race time reduction). The best responder improved by 4.05%. They were neck and neck (15s apart) before blood doping.

 

[andy1234]

I thought the argument was that winning WC showed talent for GT GC. By including Boonen and Maertens Andy is pretty effectively arguing against his position I'd say.

No, I am simply stating that being a pro road champ places you as one of the best in the peloton. To win it at such an early age indicates a big future.

 

[131313]

I think his point is that Armstrong might have been a top 10 GT-contender and might have won 1 or maybe 2 TdF given the right circumstances. I don't think he is dating he would have won 7.

Regards
GJ

Yeah, I believe he said that at the beginning: "What I am saying is that in a pro-peloton where PEDs are almost ubiquitous that would be true. However, if you take away PEDs from everyone, then LA had the genetics and determination to be a top 10 finisher, and maybe even a winner."

I agree: Top 10 finisher, possible winner. I could see a Jan Janssen sort of career for him. But I also agree this is pretty OT. What really matters is the the USADA looks like it's finally going to expose this for the fraud that his actual career was, rather than what his hypothetical career could have been, and good for them.

So, back to the topic... My initial thoughts were that he wasn't going to even bother fighting it, not only the review board but the charges at all. I figured he's pull the "this process is unjust, so I won't participate". One one hand, it makes sense. Most of the triathlete world is ready to create an entire new league just for him, and he could paint himself as the victim of gub'ment conspiracy. That plays well to a lot of people. Add in that he cured cancer, and well, he'll still have a small legion of true believers.

The more I think about it, the more I think he's gonna fight it. First off, he's already demonstrated his incredible hubris, just by coming back and continuing to dope. Secondly, the trial isn't just about him! Maybe he wants to avoid a public trial, so the massive evidence and testimony by folks more "credible" doesn't come out? That's all well and good...but what if Pedro Celaya wants his day in court, and wants the trial to be held in public? Oops... Sure, if LA is smart he'll funnel a few million Livestrong dollars his way, but LA is notoriously cheap. I don't see him risking that possibility without mounting a defense of his own. And ultimately, I just don't see him laying down arms. I think he'll fight it to the bitter end.

 

[Caruut]

No, I am simply stating that being a pro road champ places you as one of the best in the peloton. To win it at such an early age indicates a big future.

Yet since Armstrong's win in '93, only Olano in '95 (on a the mountainous Duitama course) has been a GT man. No-one is suggesting that pre-cancer Lance was going to be a nobody in cycling, or even that he was a nobody - he won the WC, that pretty much makes him a star. It's quite reasonable, I think, to suggest that he was going to be a bit of a nobody in GT GC terms.

 

[Hugh Januss]

No, I am simply stating that being a pro road champ places you as one of the best in the peloton. To win it at such an early age indicates a big future.

We are not in disagreement as far as you go there. Lances WC did show a big future as did Boonen's and Cavendish's and most of the rest. Some WC results are flukes and show very little however, and no 1 day race result shows very much about how a rider will fare in 3 week stage races. That is the point I was trying to make.
A multi-Classics winning rider can be a big big star without ever finishing a GT, let alone winning. That seemed to me the direction that LA was headed before something happened during his recovery from a life threatening cancer that morphed him into the winningest TDF rider of all time. I have read Coyle's theories on what happened, and I don't buy them. YMMV

 

[Jeremiah]

Anyone who wins the world pro road race is one of the best in the pack.
At that age he was also only going to get better.

First off, he was already heavily doped with cortisone, and steroids.

You understand what Bassons had to say about being treated with Kenacort injections for his knee problem?

Bassons realized that not only did it take the pain out of his knee, he was riding stronger than before the injury. He didn't compete until the drug's performance enhancing effects had diminished about two weeks later. This is part of what earned him the derisive "Mr. Clean," tag.

Secondly, Armstrong was young, but Fignon, Hinault, Coppi, Bartali, Ullrich, LeMond, Anquetil, Merckx, were also young, and either winning, or fully capable of winning GT's in their early to mid twenties.

Absolutely no one, not even Armstrong himself believed he could win a GT until the Hog supposedly told him so in late 1998. Armstrong was 27 at the time and the thought of winning the Tour never even entered his mind!

Please stop the silliness.

 

[WinterRider]

well actually this is what I said to begin with....

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.

The only thing I have since revised is that I am more strongly in favor of the probability that 7 TdF wins would have been highly unlikely.

Everyone is saying that LA was not special in terms of his natural physiology for GT racing (because he didn't shine in stage racing), but he was special when it came to responding to PEDs.... the "donkey to the racehorse". I'm saying that donkey's don't win a plethora of junior national titles, TdF stages and one day classics when they are still U23. And donkey's might become racehorses but they don't become multiple consecutive champions over a 7yr period. You need to start with a thoroughbred if you want to achieve that level of success.

Actually I don't think that is what he is saying, although it is up to him to confirm that or not. What he is saying is that all cows are animals (all Gt-contenders were outstanding under 23's) but not all animals are cows (it isn;t a given that if you are good user 23 you will be a GC-contender).

I think his point is that Armstrong might have been a top 10 GT-contender and might have won 1 or maybe 2 TdF given the right circumstances. I don't think he is dating he would have won 7.

Regards
GJ

GJB123, see the quote above? Krebs didn't say outright that he would have won all 7, but he certainly thinks it was a realistic possibility. He has since downgraded his opinion to "highly unlikely" to have won all 7, but still possible.

This is what is some people here, myself included, think is ridiculous about his position. In a clean peloton, there is no way he could do that, and most likely he wouldn't have even been a contender.

He had the best doping doctor, paid him to work with no one else, and had the best doped team to help him, and his doping was done to a much higher degree of effectiveness than anyone else. That is what made him so dominant, not his physiology.

 

[MacRoadie]

Yeah, I thought so too until I discovered ... oxygen is essential for life.

Dude, I could have told you that and saved you all that money on the PhD...

 

[MarkvW]

is that politically moderate or didn't use much

That uncertainty is the point.

Krebs makes a super-good point and it gets ignored.

In WWII the Allies bombed the living daylights out of industrialized Germany. After the war, McNamara and others did a study of the effectiveness of that bombing, and they found that after a certain point, they were just making the rubble bounce.

Think about oil,moving parts, and machinery. You put a little oil on a part and it makes the machine run way better. But if you put a lot more on, it doesn't help at all.

There is NOT a linear relationship between the amount of dope you take and the increase in your performance. That is obvious, at the extreme, because too much dope will kill you or give you cancer or make your buttocks too sludgy to ride on your bike.

What Krebs was saying is that each rider has a genetic performance limit that can't be surpassed no matter how much dope he takes. He was suggesting that most of the EPO peloton 'overdoped.' They doped more than they needed to, they're bouncing rubble, they're over-oiling--they're past the point of diminishing returns.

Nobody was moderate. Everybody was overdoping. It was the person who had the best total program (including dope) who was going to be strongest.

The champion doper could easily have been the person who took the minimum amount of dope needed to get himself to max performance.

 

[lean mean &green]

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

I'm just bumping this particular post. Most seem to have glossed over it but I actually thought it to be one of the most interesting in the thread.

Edit: I only included the first quote from the idiot as a frame of reference. nevermind his inclusion of USADA.

 

[131313]

I'm just bumping this particular post. Most seem to have glossed over it but I actually thought it to be one of the most interesting in the thread.

Well, except for the part that USADA's "corruption" was related to Lance's cancer. Kinda tough since they weren't even in existence until long after LA had cancer...

 

[lean mean &green]

Well, except for the part that USADA's "corruption" was related to Lance's cancer. Kinda tough since they weren't even in existence until long after LA had cancer...

Seriously, you're much brighter than that. RR's post!

 

[spetsa]

Yeah, I thought so too until I discovered the fact that exposure to hypoxia affects every tissue, organ, and system in the entire human body and oxygen is essential for life.

Is tat a Phd in Exercise Phisiology, or Kinesiology?
What was the title of your disertation? I would love to read it. Until then, I call BS.

 

[lean mean &green]

Is tat a Phd in Exercise Phisiology, or Kinesiology?
What was the title of your disertation? I would love to read it. Until then, I call BS.

It's not BS.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

That uncertainty is the point.

Krebs makes a super-good point and it gets ignored.

In WWII the Allies bombed the living daylights out of industrialized Germany. After the war, McNamara and others did a study of the effectiveness of that bombing, and they found that after a certain point, they were just making the rubble bounce.

Think about oil,moving parts, and machinery. You put a little oil on a part and it makes the machine run way better. But if you put a lot more on, it doesn't help at all.

There is NOT a linear relationship between the amount of dope you take and the increase in your performance. That is obvious, at the extreme, because too much dope will kill you or give you cancer or make your buttocks too sludgy to ride on your bike.

What Krebs was saying is that each rider has a genetic performance limit that can't be surpassed no matter how much dope he takes. He was suggesting that most of the EPO peloton 'overdoped.' They doped more than they needed to, they're bouncing rubble, they're over-oiling--they're past the point of diminishing returns.

Nobody was moderate. Everybody was overdoping. It was the person who had the best total program (including dope) who was going to be strongest.

The champion doper could easily have been the person who took the minimum amount of dope needed to get himself to max performance.

I think those are poor metaphors. Doping would be more accurate bomb sights, bombs less effected by the wind etc. or more airflow to the engine, more efficient gasoline. But again, still poor metaphors: we are talking about complex biological systems, which are still not fully understood.

There is no way to know that everyone reacts to PEDs the same. Unless there is research on that (I doubt it, and I'm not going to hold my breath), it is a silly conversation.

 

[131313]

Seriously, you're much brighter than that. RR's post!

Yeah, sorry, I was just responding to that College dude's part of the post. I was just too lazy to go look up his post and respond to it directly.

I do find the lame USADA corruption line just downright funny. Never mind that they weren't even involved in cycling until most of this had already happened... Seriously, what were these guys supposed to do? The fed investigation put them in a position where they literally had no other option but to go after LA, or they'd have looked ridiculous. So attempting to characterize them as being on a "which hunt" or having an axe to grind is just hilarious to me.

I think this is Tygart's worst nightmare! I'm willing to be he's rather spend his time on the low-hanging fruit, the Phil Zajiceks of the world.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Let's get back on topic please: the USADA case.

You can open another thread and continue the other topic, but not here.

Susan

 

[zigmeister]

First off, he was already heavily doped with cortisone, and steroids.

You understand what Bassons had to say about being treated with Kenacort injections for his knee problem?

Bassons realized that not only did it take the pain out of his knee, he was riding stronger than before the injury. He didn't compete until the drug's performance enhancing effects had diminished about two weeks later. This is part of what earned him the derisive "Mr. Clean," tag.

Secondly, Armstrong was young, but Fignon, Hinault, Coppi, Bartali, Ullrich, LeMond, Anquetil, Merckx, were also young, and either winning, or fully capable of winning GT's in their early to mid twenties.

Absolutely no one, not even Armstrong himself believed he could win a GT until the Hog supposedly told him so in late 1998. Armstrong was 27 at the time and the thought of winning the Tour never even entered his mind!

Please stop the silliness.

The drugs affects had diminished? How did you come up with that? You mean, it cleared his system a day or two before about 3hrs after he stopped using it? Or his HPTA after extended use was supressed and now he was at what would be a normal level?

Mr. Clean? I don't think you understand the pharmacological affects of corticosteroids, their life span in the body, and how your body reacts to them over an extended period of time.

So your entire paragraph really makes no sense regarding the use of "Kenocort".

Was it topical? Injected? Oral? Not that it really matters, the drug would be out of your system, as almost all corticosteroids in a day/two at most, that are commonly used amongst dopers.