What changed with Armstrong Post-Cancer?

[sars1981]

Lance and others were tested quite frequently during the tour. It strains credulity to think how could they have gotten away with doping during the tour.

Have you read Kohl's confessions????

 

[scribe]

You are right. I forgot about autologous blood transfusions.

What kind of access do the doping inspectors have to the riders' rooms and team staff and equipment? Can they look for blood bags before or after they are used?

You are angling to place the onus of a clean sport upon cycling and anti-doping authorities. Some, like me, think these guys, not individual cyclists, have to clean up the sport to insure a level playing field. If athletes feel confident the sport is clean and the risks of cheating high, then they will more likely resist the lure of doping.

 

[gregod]

You are angling to place the onus of a clean sport upon cycling and anti-doping authorities. Some, like me, think these guys, not individual cyclists, have to clean up the sport to insure a level playing field.

It is late at night where I am, so perhaps I am misreading, but these two sentences seem to contradict each other.

If athletes feel confident the sport is clean and the risks of cheating high, then they will more likely resist the lure of doping.

People have always and will always cheat when there is money to be made. But as my biology teacher used to say, "It's not illegal if you don't get caught."

 

[Race Radio]

You are right. I forgot about autologous blood transfusions.

What kind of access do the doping inspectors have to the riders' rooms and team staff and equipment? Can they look for blood bags before or after they are used?

They do not have access to their rooms. Some riders/teams get special access. Astana for example stalled the testers for an hour during the Tour this year. Plenty of time to get your levels back to normal.

 

[luckyboy]

It strains credulity to think how could they have gotten away with doping during the tour.

Dwain Chambers: There is an easy way around the system and one that is fool proof.
Quite simply, you hide.

I don't know how that explains how riders get away with doping

 

[scribe]

People have always and will always cheat when there is money to be made. But as my biology teacher used to say, "It's not illegal if you don't get caught."

Yes, but when the risk of getting caught is clearly greater than the risk of losing to a doper, you are logically gonna see a cleaner sport. As I was trying to say with the balance of the post above, the blame for the situation we are in belongs to cycling and anti-doping governing authorities.

 

[georgebush]

Interesting thought, i completely agree with your perspective

electric adjustable beds prices frames sleep comfort reviews the best electic adjustable beds at the lowest prices electric adjustable beds prices frames sleep comfort reviews

 

[jacksonggs]

That's really a very interesting topic. I think there are many people interested in him. I want to know your ideas. Pls discuss more. Thank you.

lobster tennis ball machine reviews used prince twist the best tennis ball machine for review with twist and lobster here lobster tennis ball machine reviews used prince twist

 

[gregod]

Yes, but when the risk of getting caught is clearly greater than the risk of losing to a doper, you are logically gonna see a cleaner sport. As I was trying to say with the balance of the post above, the blame for the situation we are in belongs to cycling and anti-doping governing authorities.

OK. Now I understand. And I mostly agree that the situation pro cycling is due to the poor handling of these matters by the governing authorities. Take football for example. It stands to reason that where the stakes are higher for the athlete that there is more incentive to cheat. Also, the average top club footballer earns far more than the average pro-tour cyclist, thereby creating more opportunity. Yet, world-wide, football doesn't carry the automatic association with doping that cycling does. On the other hand, since cyclists have to fight over the monetary scraps (so to speak) perhaps the lower salaries actually create an even greater incentive to seek an edge, further laying blame at the governing authorities' feet for failing to ensure a standard of living commensurate with the amount of skill and effort necessary to earn a living as a cyclist. Because the salaries are so low, the risks of getting caught doping really aren't that major. The roads are littered with numerous talented riders who decided there were easier ways to make a living.

Where I in a small part disagree is, ultimately, the individual is the one who decides to dope.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I know this topic is just begging for a troll war, but it would be nice to hear some considered answers.

I think it's generally agreed that Lance was a pretty good one-day rider before his bout with cancer and that he was unlikely to win a grand tour. Based on Betsy Andreu and others, it is has also been established that pre-cancer he was on a pretty intense regimen of EPO, HGH, Steroids, Testosterone, etc. In spite of all this doping, he was still a non-factor in the grand tours. It has also been established that he didn't really lose as much (or any) of the weight that he once claimed to lose during his fight with cancer.

So the question is, what did Lance start doing differently from 1999 on? It can't just be doping with all the same stuff he used pre-cancer because it didn't really work then (beyond winning a few stages). Was he not doing blood transfusions pre-'99 and that put him over the edge? I don't remember hearing if that was something he did pre-'99 or not. Is there something else out there he (and Ferrari) discovered? or is it just a matter of him and the Postal team taking it to a more organized level?

Great question.
I know that this thread has a lot of the areas covered but to bring in some points and a general timeline to his career.

LA started as a Pro in late 1992.
Throughout the years up to his cancer in 1996 he was an excellent one day racer. At no point did he show the consistency required to be a GT contender - however as a strong one rider he was capable of winning stages.

Also pre cancer he never excelled in any race lasting a week with the exception of The Tour du Point.
At the early part of his career I was following his path with interest - Lance consistently lost large amounts of time in the first mountainous stages of the Tours - for me this ruled out him ever being a GT contender.

This is what he said after the first mountain stage in 1993 - where he had lost 21 minutes on that stage alone.
'I was hurting today,' he said. 'It was a strange feeling. Complete emptiness. I guess I gave 100 per cent in the stage I won, and 100 per cent in the time trial. Maybe that's the problem.'
The following day he lost a further 28 minutes.

In 1996 he was enjoying one of the best portions of his career. This was also the time that Dr. Ferrari first started working with Lance and when there was better management within Motorola.

After his cancer in 1996 he did not race throughout 1997.
I believe a key point was the Paris Nice in 1998 - he had ridden a reasonable Prologue so it looked as though he had managed to return with pretty good condition. However he quit that race and appeared psychologically drained.

However he was eventually talked back to returning to the bike.
I believe it was at this point that the decision was made to get the very best 'programme' available.
The 4th place in the Vuelta gave both the team and Armstrong the confidence to build a team around him. This also included many other things like the signing of Bruyneel and allowing him to concentrate with the single objective of the Tour for 99.

Many factors go in to a Tour win - but the single biggest for Armstrong was the new found consistency in a 3 week race as well as becoming an excellent climber and TTer.

 

[quiensabe]

misguided or misdirected

It is pretty clear that the Biopassport is a joke. It has been a multi-million $$$ mistake.

Armstrong's own numbers have his Hct increasing 16.7% from his off season baseline during a period of heavy training and racing, yet they did nothing. That it was 10% above his off season baseline during the 3rd week of the Tour, when most people drop 12% makes it even more suspect.

Putting your faith in the UCI to do anything is misguided.

Would the UCI "do anything" against someone who gifted them half a million dollars?

 

[gregod]

Would the UCI "do anything" against someone who gifted them half a million dollars?

What would motivate the UCI to do something as fraught with conflict of interest as take money from a rider? The mind boggles.

 

[Hugh Januss]

OK. Now I understand. And I mostly agree that the situation pro cycling is due to the poor handling of these matters by the governing authorities. Take football for example. It stands to reason that where the stakes are higher for the athlete that there is more incentive to cheat. Also, the average top club footballer earns far more than the average pro-tour cyclist, thereby creating more opportunity. Yet, world-wide, football doesn't carry the automatic association with doping that cycling does. On the other hand, since cyclists have to fight over the monetary scraps (so to speak) perhaps the lower salaries actually create an even greater incentive to seek an edge, further laying blame at the governing authorities' feet for failing to ensure a standard of living commensurate with the amount of skill and effort necessary to earn a living as a cyclist. Because the salaries are so low, the risks of getting caught doping really aren't that major. The roads are littered with numerous talented riders who decided there were easier ways to make a living.

Where I in a small part disagree is, ultimately, the individual is the one who decides to dope.

Don't think football (either kind) is a good example. They seem even more interested in keeping their drug problems under wraps, that's the only reason they have a better public perception when it comes to drugs.

 

[Digger]

I don't know how that explains how riders get away with doping

He passed the test. Eventhough he was a walking pharmacy. With the proper masking agent, it is very easy to pass tests. Victor Conte said it's 'like taking candy from a child.'

 

[BroDeal]

What would motivate the UCI to do something as fraught with conflict of interest as take money from a rider? The mind boggles.

Either the money must have found its way into very few pockets or there is endemic corruption within the UCI where taking such payments is standard operating procedure. Sylvia Schenk called for an audit when she was running for the president of the UCI. Obviously it was surprising to her and the money was not properly declared on the UCI's books.

It points to thorough corruption within the UCI. It is the only thing that explains such mind boggling stupidity (looking from an outside point of view) on the part of the leadership. There must an attitude that goes beyond bending over backwards to hide doping. It must have reached a stage where the leadership tells itself that as long as they are looking the other way to protect riders, they might as well make some money for themselves.

The question is whether the UCI and its dope testing apparatus took it to the next logical stage, which would be an extortion or a protection racket. Once riders are paying to cover up doping infractions, it is a very small step to take money up front so the riders never test positive in the first place or they get tip offs for random OOC tests or testers look the other way when riders drop masking agents into samples, etc. From there it would turn into instutionized corruption similar to a protection racket run by organized crime. It also would tend to explain why certain teams, like 2007 Astana, appear to be targeted while others are never touched.

 

[blackcat]

some riders are protected in the UCI. Not just Armstrong.

I would say Cancellara is atleast one other. A Swiss rider, can't go there. Why did he fly home to Switzerland this year after the prologue in California?

 

[luckyboy]

He passed the test. Eventhough he was a walking pharmacy. With the proper masking agent, it is very easy to pass tests. Victor Conte said it's 'like taking candy from a child.'

Yeah, but wasn't Chambers talking about not showing up for tests? It looks to me like he was, not that it makes any sense.

 

[scribe]

What would motivate the UCI to do something as fraught with conflict of interest as take money from a rider? The mind boggles.

Ultimately, this is where this argument always leads to. One side says Armstrong never tested positive and they draw the meat of their conclusion on this basis. The other side says the UCI is corrupt and they (UCI) are willing to cover up doping as part of a grand conspiracy, because they (cycling fans) are convinced Armstrong doped his way to victory.

 

[Digger]

Yeah, but wasn't Chambers talking about not showing up for tests? It looks to me like he was, not that it makes any sense.

The point of the excerpt was that tests are pretty meaningless with the proper doping programme.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ultimately, this is where this argument always leads to. One side says Armstrong never tested positive and they draw the meat of their conclusion on this basis. The other side says the UCI is corrupt and they (UCI) are willing to cover up doping as part of a grand conspiracy, because they (cycling fans) are convinced Armstrong doped his way to victory.

Not quite...

No, I do not believe that Pat McQuaid goes in to his office in Lausanne every morning and starts burning through all the reports from the LNDD or is getting the Secretaries to pee in to containers to send off clean sample to the labs.

However - the UCI are willing to look the other way, and are not aggressively pursuing the cheats.

The UCI refused to retest the samples from the Giro in 2008 - fact!
After a meeting between the UCI and ASO/EPA in October 2008 Patric Clerc was 'removed' from his position, fact.

Lance has stated publicly that if Clerc was still in charge at ASO he would not have been allowed to start this years Tour.
These are facts - not conspiracy's.

 

[Escarabajo]

A timeline of Armstrong's doping may help.

Armstrong's teammate, Stephan Swart, said that Armstrong was committed to starting program of EPO in early 1995. Until then Armstrong had not finished a Tour, he dropped out both times. The EPO must have worked as in 1995 he finally finished the Tour and San Sebastian. In late 1995 Armstrong started working with Ferrari.

The change in performance after he started working with Ferrari was huge as Armstrong had his best spring yet.

Tour du Pont (overall, 4 stage wins)
La Flèche Wallonne
2nd, Liège-Bastogne-Liège
2nd, Paris-Nice

By the mid summer it was clear something was wrong and spent the next year fighting cancer.

Returning in 1998, with Ferrari's help he finishes 4th at the Vuelta.

The fact is until Armstrong started taking EPO and working with Ferrari he showed no ability to perform in GT's.

I think he doped prior to Ferrari, but not on the level he later did. It wasn't organised or as professional.
Frankie Andreu's comments are telling:
"God knows what happened during that winter, but Lance came back the spring of '96 and he was fri**ing huge. He looked like a linebacker. It was Holy Sh** man, he is big. Obviously we all noticed it and he knew we did. He said something about Ferrari not realising the effect the weight room was going to have...but with Lance it was more than just seeing him big. I mean, he was big, but he could now rip the cranks off the bike like never before. He was dropping everybody and anybody in training, whenever he wanted to. And at Paris Nice that spring, he was so fri**ing strong. He and Jaja (Jalabert) had this battle which ended with them finishing first and second. Lance was unbelievably strong, a totally different person."

The knowledge Ferrari has of doping cannot be underestimated. Lance was transformed after meeting him, because Ferrari knew what and when to take things. Whereas, Lance doping on his own, would've been more hit and miss, and slightly amateurish.

I don’t know about you guys, but these two posts sums it up for me. Maybe add some more confidence and some other little details.

 

[Escarabajo]

...
I have been involved in the amateur scene in Mexico, Central and South America and train with riders from these countries here in the states. It has given me quite an education on how riders prepare themselves for races.

Thanks for your reply. Keep posting, we are interested in your opinions. By this time you must know who the trolls are. Don't let them push away from the forum.

 

[stephens]

"But you know, it gave me a little bit of an idea about how Lance feels. Because he has a hard time everyday. People don’t like him. Like with the French press, they don’t really like him, and never refer to him by his name, but as “l’Americain”; it like if the American press would refer to Alain Prost, you know the Formula 1 driver, not by his name, but as “that French guy”. Show some respect for God’s sake!

"I mean Lance is six times Tour de France winner – ****ing hell! – show some respect. But the people like Ullrich because he always take second, I mean, what’s that about? Okay, so Lance doesn’t like to talk to the press too much, but I wonder why? Right? Lance is just the perfect example of the perfect Pro. You know, he should be an idol for young people. But they keep trying to call him positive (a doper), what a bunch of bull****.

"I mean, he is a hard guy, very determined and very professional. Maybe at the Tour de France he doesn’t smile so much and make jokes, but that is the most important race in the year for him, and he is very focused on winning the race, not winning over the press or his critics. But that is totally normal. I don’t think Michael Schumacher smiles that much when he is driving his Formula 1 car in a race. It is his job and he is serious about it. And he is the best. I don’t know why people don’t show more respect."

Q: Yeah, I don’t know. There is a bit of a pall over cycling with the issue of doping and concerns about whether someone is clean or not.

"Well, people are just jealous. You know, Lance works hard, and he pulls through and accomplishes what he sets out to do, and people are just jealous that he is so good. Because he makes it look so easy. "

Q: Yeah, anyone who saw some of those Lance Chronicles this past year has no doubt how much energy and dedication he puts into cycling.

"That’s what makes him so good. I mean, I still believe to this day that Jan Ullrich has the bigger engine, but Lance is the more dedicated driver of the engine. Lance may be a little less naturally gifted than Ullrich, but he makes up for any tiny difference by dedicating everything to knowing the race inside out. He knows the course, he knows his body, he looks at his team, and gets the strongest possible team around him, and keeps to his regime in a way that he knows will make him the best. You know, maybe Lance has five horsepower less than Ullrich, it’s not much at their level. You can’t be at that level and have 50 horsepower less, look at me, I have 50 horsepower less, but between them, there is a really small difference, and Lance makes it up by making all the conditions perfect for himself. And that’s how he wins."

---------

So, forum faithful...if a member here were to post the same statements, he'd be ridiculed as a fanboy who has drunk the koolaid. Are you prepared to make the same claim about Jens Voigt? He doesn't drink koolaid.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

..................
So, forum faithful...if a member here were to post the same statements, he'd be ridiculed as a fanboy who has drunk the koolaid. Are you prepared to make the same claim about Jens Voigt? He doesn't drink koolaid.

As often happens on this forum - I think you are mixing up the fact that because I believe Armstrong dopes that it also must mean I hate the guy or that I refuse to acknowledge that he was a great rider.
Feel free to check back over my posts.

Yes - Jens is a fan of Armstrong. So is Cav and indeed many others. Do you make your judgements on people on what others say or do you make up your own mind on people?

Also Jens was not asked specifically what changed in Armstrong Post Cancer - which is what the topic of this thread is about.

 

[stephens]

Yes - Jens is a fan of Armstrong. So is Cav and indeed many others. Do you make your judgements on people on what others say or do you make up your own mind on people?

Well, everyone on this forum bases their judgments more or less on hearsay. Are we to be influenced by the words of anonymous internet posters, or journalists, or by professional cyclists who are there and going through the same things as the cyclist we are trying to judge?

Also Jens was not asked specifically what changed in Armstrong Post Cancer - which is what the topic of this thread is about.

If you read his quotes, which center on the period we are talking about, you can see he believes Lance's success is through working harder, methods, specialization on the tour, team organization, etc. We know Lance didn't have/do these things before cancer and so that is my opinion of what is most responsible for his success post-cancer. (not that his doctor was suddenly better than his previous doctors and everyone else's doctors).