USADA - Armstrong

[Hugh Januss]

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...

There is a bit of a disconnect here. Some people have certainly used the donkey/mule/plowhorse to racehorse/thoroughbred/stallion argument, but that is not the same as the difference between a great one day classics rider and a great 3 week GC rider. Road cycling covers a wide range of skill sets and athletes very rarely change very far across the spectrum during their careers. Lance's change after cancer was akin to, oh lets say Carl Lewis suddenly turning up one spring and ripping off a series of international marathon wins, highly unlikely without major medical manipulation, irregardless of what any of his competition was up to.
The fact that 28% of World Champions in the past 30 some years have gone on to win a GT is hardly an airtight argument that since LA won a WC he was an obvious choice to win 7 TDFs. Pointing that out how ever does not mean that I am saying he would have had a crap career w/o Ferrari and his magic dust. Well maybe a crap career like P. Gilbert is having.
More than one kind of bike race will yield more than one type of successful physiology. Cav to Serpa.

 

[Love the Scenery]

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

Merckx, thanks for the identification. A triathlete lawyer. I have never seen those words put together in that particular sequence. A lawyer is probably more likely than a mortgage consultant to have something to say about a formal disciplinary procedure, but it still seems like grasping at straws. And 6400 FB likes in less than four hours is a statistical anomaly.

 

[lean mean &green]

This is tinfoil hat stuff.

your illusory superiority is exhausting.

the ignored test results would only have to trigger the inappropriate relationship b/t HV and LA. it's quite likely that it grew more and more inappropriate over time because interests were aligned or for various other reasons like the economics of the sport.

try entertaining an idea you didn't think of first.

i know, i know... your response is a 3rd "tin foil hat stuff" which is the new "cool story bro" i guess

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I've been registered on this website for 3yrs more than you and I've never sprouted Armstrong crap. Maybe if you weren't such a n00b yourself would know my posting history better as the longer term residents here clearly do.

I'm lamenting at the whole miserable drug taking mess that cycling became especially in the 80s, 90s and has continued until this day. Despite my dislike of Armstrong and his systematic doping practices, I haven't lost sight of the fact that doping was almost ubiqitous in the pro-peloton in the 1990s. Busting LA is the best thing that can possibly happen to pro-cycling and I hope it becomes the catalyst for breaking the omerta in the future.

Thank you all for an entertaining day of discussion, but I must confess I have more pressing work to do. Happy clinic raving

Hey junior, I was one of the first 10 people to register on the site. I just did it under another name "Thoughtforfood." I realize that now destroys your little narrative, and that now means you are 2x for the day in that, but them's is the facts rollergirl.

 

[DirtyWorks]

And 6400 FB likes in less than four hours is a statistical anomaly.

Is this true? I don't frequent that site at all, so I don't know how it works. Talk about a cult.

 

[mastersracer]

Yes?


....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.

in fairness, these are obviously complex issues that would require more than the informal musings of an internet forum. Dickens & Flynn showed quite nicely how even the highest estimates of heritability still allow for very large environmental effects. They did it in the context of IQ, but it is a model that works for all forms of phenotypic plasticity. Ahmetov et al. (The combined impact of metabolic gene polymorphisms on elite endurance athlete status and related phenotypes) review the numerous genetic polymorphisms that have been identified in endurance performance to date, which lends itself to the Flynn type of model. As someone who works in the area of phenotypic plasticity (central adaptations to learning), even in the technical literature many confusions continue due to terminological sloppiness and lack of good quantitative models.

 

[DirtyWorks]

...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?

#1 Pat and Hein do not owe anyone anything unless it's in a contract and they can't get out of it.

#2 RR is not always right. Frequently? Yes, mostly.

This is a huge leap that just does not square with guys like Pat, Hein and Wonderboy's team. Most of the riders that mattered to the UCI were doped to life-threatening levels, why would they get sentimental with one vs. all the others?

Again, I see the personalities aligning if Hein and Pat get paid. And when the payment ends, so does the relationship.

 

[Love the Scenery]

Is this true? I don't frequent that site at all, so I don't know how it works. Talk about a cult.

I think it is. I followed Kennf1's lead and entered "Armstrong USADA" into google. As advertised, the Dockery article was top of the results list, under a heading that said "News." It also said that the article had been posted 4 hours ago (4 hours from the time I viewed the page). I clicked on the link and read the article, and at the top was a Facebook icon with the thumbs up and the characters "6.4K". A lot of web sites now have that thumbs up icon, if you are logged into Facebook and click on the icon, your Facebook profile will announce that you have "liked" the web page, and your friends will be alerted to the fact that you have "liked" it. It's a good way to attract attention to something, and truly interesting things can go viral and spread quickly.

Now, if the numbers are accurate, 6400 likes in 4 hours from publication indicates an average of 1600 people per hour clicking the like button, or nearly 27 people per minute, one like every two seconds or so. I suppose it's possible that if Lance tweets something, people will flock to the link so quickly and like the link so much that there will be an average of one like per two seconds for the next four hours, so one needn't necessarily conclude that it's the artificial doings of a PR firm. But it is an awfully high number of likes in a very short period of time.

 

[thehog]

I think it is. I followed Kennf1's lead and entered "Armstrong USADA" into google. As advertised, the Dockery article was top of the results list, under a heading that said "News." It also said that the article had been posted 4 hours ago (4 hours from the time I viewed the page). I clicked on the link and read the article, and at the top was a Facebook icon with the thumbs up and the characters "6.4K". A lot of web sites now have that thumbs up icon, if you are logged into Facebook and click on the icon, your Facebook profile will announce that you have "liked" the web page, and your friends will be alerted to the fact that you have "liked" it. It's a good way to attract attention to something, and truly interesting things can go viral and spread quickly.

Now, if the numbers are accurate, 6400 likes in 4 hours from publication indicates an average of 1600 people per hour clicking the like button, or nearly 27 people per minute, one like every two seconds or so. I suppose it's possible that if Lance tweets something, people will flock to the link so quickly and like the link so much that there will be an average of one like per two seconds for the next four hours, so one needn't necessarily conclude that it's the artificial doings of a PR firm. But it is an awfully high number of likes in a very short period of time.

More strange is the website in question has only been in exsistance for 10 days.

 

[rata de sentina]

the ignored test results would only have to trigger the inappropriate relationship b/t HV and LA.

Thrust together by unfortunate circumastances coercive blackmail soon became a mutually beneficial symbiosis. Make sense to me, might be a little subtle for the audience though..........bro

 

[thehog]

Is this true? I don't frequent that site at all, so I don't know how it works. Talk about a cult.

I wouldn't worry too much. The comments on Facebook are pulling the article to pieces.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

The ignored tests theory makes sense to me too.

 

[rata de sentina]

They did it in the context of IQ, but it is a model that works for all forms of phenotypic plasticity.

I think that your basic premise is pretty sound but I'm not that happy with the broad brush application since traits will vary in their complexity and the tightness of control of the regulatory and developmental process and that's got to impact on the extent to which different factors influence phenotype.

As a general comment I would think in about 10-20 yrs time we should have a bit of a handle on this. Everything that's been done to date is pretty much inadequate for two reasons. Firstly this is a pretty peripheral area of science most of the brain power is focussed on disease and basic science not fluff like sport (sorry krebs). So all the high end technology in high throughput analytical genomics/proteomics and bioinformatics is going to take a while to filter down. Secondly, inheritance has turned out to be a lot more complex than just a bit of polymorphism in the genes and that's only just being characterised now and there is a way to go. Sorry for going completely off topic.

 

[Anonymous]

Thrust together by unfortunate circumastances coercive blackmail soon became a mutually beneficial symbiosis. Make sense to me, might be a little subtle for the audience though..........bro

What was likely uncomfortable in the beginning turned to gold as soon as LA won th 99 TdF.

Not much of a stretch and it explains much.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I wouldn't worry too much. The comments on Facebook are pulling the article to pieces.

It's interesting that essentially a site less than a month old with a fresh article has spiked search results.

Worry about Wonderboy? Not so much. Worry that people don't really understand the consequences of participating on Facebook? Where's my tin foil hat????

 

[MarkvW]

It's interesting that essentially a site less than a month old with a fresh article has spiked search results.

Worry about Wonderboy? Not so much. Worry that people don't really understand the consequences of participating on Facebook? Where's my tin foil hat????

Yeah. They'll probably be contacted by another one of Armstrong's companies trying to sell Dopestrong or Pharmstrong T-Shirts.

 

[DomesticDomestique]

Regular reader, rare poster here.

Anyway, the one thing I don't understand about this whole "Armstrong natural talent" issue is that there is reason to believe that he was doped on at least cortisone by Chris Comical prior to becoming a pro. I can't recall the names from memory, but weren't there two junior teammates of lance who sued USAC for steroid related health problems. If that is the case, can we actually say for sure that any results prior to going pro are evidence of natural talent, or evidence of a USAC junior doping program.

Count me in among the people who think the fraud is a donkey turned racehorse. I doubt he was better than any team's GC leader in a clean peloton and was the beneficiary of hemassist, other trial drugs not available to others and primarily free reign to dope to the gils due to knowledge of testing dates and guarantees of testing results.

 

[BigBoat]

Regular reader, rare poster here.

Anyway, the one thing I don't understand about this whole "Armstrong natural talent" issue is that there is reason to believe that he was doped on at least cortisone by Chris Comical prior to becoming a pro..

Yes Lance's junior team even doped a little bit it appears!

His V02 max is pretty average amongst elite pros too... Not amongst amateur's or recreational athletes but elite pros its pretty normal. Upper 70s undoped (pre doping) is the norm out of 200 pros who will ride a big pro race like the TDF or a one day classic. I'm not so sure if all were drug free Lance could crack the top 20..... Because he's only slightly above the norm in a big pro race. Basso, Contador are both 88...Hinault was right at 88 too. Even big Mig has upper 80s clean, maybe close to 90 clean.

 

[Jeremiah]

#1 Pat and Hein do not owe anyone anything unless it's in a contract and they can't get out of it.

#2 RR is not always right. Frequently? Yes, mostly.

This is a huge leap that just does not square with guys like Pat, Hein and Wonderboy's team. Most of the riders that mattered to the UCI were doped to life-threatening levels, why would they get sentimental with one vs. all the others?

Again, I see the personalities aligning if Hein and Pat get paid. And when the payment ends, so does the relationship.

They got sentimental with the one their fraudulent activities nearly killed...

 

[webvan]

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.

Well 73% is for a metastasized testis cancer (which was his case since it had gone to the brain, i.e. "brain tumors") but when it's still local or to the nearby nodes, recovery is 99%. Most other metastasized cancers are very deadly (colon : 12% 5-year survival). I guess for testis cancer the trick is treating it in time.

Again, cancer is obviously a terrible thing but until I looked it up in detail a few years ago I was under the impression that Dopestrong's recovery was indeed miraculous and added weight to his "how could I be doping after coming back from the dead", which with a 73% survival rate it isn't exactly.

 

[Krebs cycle]

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.

Well we really are almost in agreement then. The difference seems to be that I don't deal in absolutes like you. You seem absolutely certain he could never have won in clean cycling fairyland. I deal in probabilities so I'm leaving it open to the realms of possibility.

Anyway, what just doesn't make sense to me is why a DS would even bother approaching a cyclist who apparently had no potential to win the TdF and was recovering from cancer, and then build an entire team around him with the goal of winning the TdF. It's a pretty expensive gamble that he is going to "respond" to the doping regime better than any other cyclist through the 90s isn't it? Because that is the implication here, he just isn't good enough to win the TdF, so we really need to hope to god this doping thing works really well.

Why wouldn't you just approach the cyclists that you thought had the best potential? I know if I were a DS that is exactly what I would do.

At the end of the day, some very powerful and well connected people in pro-cycling disagreed with your assertion that he had little GT potential and they chose LA to build that team with the goal of winning the TdF and then create a systematic doping regime to support that goal. Why would you choose a 2nd rate rider though? Just doesn't really make much sense to me. I guess they just got lucky and won 7 consecutive TdFs.

 

[Race Radio]

your illusory superiority is exhausting.

the ignored test results would only have to trigger the inappropriate relationship b/t HV and LA. it's quite likely that it grew more and more inappropriate over time because interests were aligned or for various other reasons like the economics of the sport.

try entertaining an idea you didn't think of first.

i know, i know... your response is a 3rd "tin foil hat stuff" which is the new "cool story bro" i guess

One of Wonderboy's key challenges is he talked to much. Bragging about "Owning" Verbruggen to multiple people, teammates, staff, Mechanics, is something that sticks with people. They don't forget it.
Much of this bragging was done far prior to his ToS positive. There was a reason he was unconcerned when he tested positive, he owned Verbruggen.

 

[Northern rider]

Lest we forget, Bruyneel was around when Armstrong finished 4th in the Vuelta in 98. No doubt he recognised an amoral, unscrupulous prospect who does at least possess a world class determination to do whatever he needs to, in order to win. Add in the potential for access to better dope and the prospect of an all American hero winning the Tour and therefore much $$$, it doesn't seem to me to be that much of a gamble. Especially if there was also a protected relationship with LA at that point as some people are suggesting.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

There was a reason he was unconcerned when he tested positive, he owned Verbruggen.

Are you able to expand on this?

 

[sniper]

Are you able to expand on this?

RR is unlikely to become more explicit, though he's already indicated that it had to do with Lance's developing cancer.

Basically, it's Verbruggen's fault that Lance had to have one ball removed.

A developing tumor can apparently be spotted by certain doping tests.
Lance's cancer was diagnosed in 1996, but the developing tumor should thus have been spotted by doping tests already prior to 1996.
However, since the UCI (/Verbruggen) were in the habit of covering up doping tests -- or making samples disappear, or whatever (this aspect remains somewhat unclear) -- Lance never found out he had a malicious tumor until 1996. Presumably, had he found out earlier, any operation to remove the tumor would have been much less dramatic/far-reaching.