What changed with Armstrong Post-Cancer?

[Dr. Maserati]

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?



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).

Perhaps you make your judgements on hearsay - I dont!

Di Luca isn't hearsay - its a fact he doped. Perhaps you should check out this- there is not much hearsay there.

Also Jens doesnt say it is exclusively down to hard work either. He wasnt asked about doping - and he also he gives an endorsement to Ullrich so....

Yes Armstrong worked vey hard throughout his career - he has a very single minded and professional approach to his methods - training, diet, equipment and also his 'medical programme'.

 

[stephens]

Perhaps you make your judgements on hearsay - I dont!

So you're there holding the cup and the needle, huh?

Also Jens ...wasnt asked about doping -

Jens:"But they [french press] keep trying to call him positive (a doper), what a bunch of bull****. "

Yes Armstrong worked vey hard throughout his career - he has a very single minded and professional approach to his methods - training, diet, equipment and also his 'medical programme'.

Sure. As did everyone else. The only question is, is it easier to have an equivalent 'medical programme' or to have an equivalent work ethic, diet, team, etc.? I still have faith in pro-cycling and that the outcomes are due to differences in talent and preparation and not differences in 'medical programmes".

 

[elapid]

Sorry, I don't buy the work harder argument. These guys are professional cyclists. Its not only their profession, but they have sacrificed may things to achieve their position in the peloton. It doesn't stop at getting a contract. All of these guys work hard, day in and day out.

I agree with the team organization and dedication to a single race in the year.

However, these two do not do enough to explain his unique transformation from a one-day specialist to a three-week stage racer. IMO, response to PEDs and work with Ferrari are at the very least equal contributors to this transformation as team organization and exclusive focus on the TdF. And I also disagree with the "hearsay" part of your argument, because much of the evidence of Armstrong's doping is more than hearsay.

As for Jens, he is the consumate professional. He is one of my favourite riders, but I don't have to agree with him. His opinion on banning race radios was surprising considering he would be one of the most prominent riders to profit from such a ban. Also, why do you think no one is speaking out about Valverde racing the Vuelta despite a 2-year doping-related ban potentially looming in his future? No rider who wants to remain a professional is going to speak out about doping. This is not just conspiracy talk - look at suspended riders who break the code of silence and those that do their time silently. The latter return to the peloton and the former rarely ride with another professional team.

 

[elapid]

I still have faith in pro-cycling and that the outcomes are due to differences in talent and preparation and not differences in 'medical programmes".

It may not be so much the medical program per se, although what a rider can afford will certainly determine the type of drugs and advice they receive, but the individual's response to certain drugs. It has been reported that an individual's response to EPO can vary quite widely and this is why some suspect that Armstrong's success is not because of the drugs he was taking (because everyone was taking EPO) but rather his exceptional response to those drugs.

 

[mikkemus23]

Excellent point. The silence among the peloton regarding Valverde really says it all.

Silence is not the new loud.

 

[Race Radio]

Well, everyone on this forum bases their judgments more or less on hearsay.

Please tell us how this is hearsay?

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So you're there holding the cup and the needle, huh?



Jens:"But they [french press] keep trying to call him positive (a doper), what a bunch of bull****. "



Sure. As did everyone else. The only question is, is it easier to have an equivalent 'medical programme' or to have an equivalent work ethic, diet, team, etc.? I still have faith in pro-cycling and that the outcomes are due to differences in talent and preparation and not differences in 'medical programmes".

Firstly - are you denying that there is massive problem with doping within Pro Cycling? (and indeed many other sports)

Also Jens comments were made pre 2005 - before the 6 EPO positives were known from the 1999 TdF. (If you have an issue on those samples then I suggest bringing it up on that thread or start a new one)

However the time frame of this discussion is from 1992- 2005 - that was a very different time in Pro Cycling.

I do believe that certain cyclists can achieve clean results in certain races in 2009.

No I am not holding the 'cup and needle" - or the blood bag, but these guys did:
Di Luca, Rebellin, Colom, Pfannberger, Serrano etc from this year alone - this is not hearsay this is fact.

 

[Race Radio]

I still have faith in pro-cycling and that the outcomes are due to differences in talent and preparation and not differences in 'medical programmes".

The difference that separates the top contenders is minuscule. EPO produced a wide variety of responses in Athletes. Please tell us how you have a level playing field if one rider gets a 3% improvement from EPO and the other gets a 13% improvement?

Fuentes charges his top clients $100,000 per year. Please tell us how a Neo-Pro making $40,000 a year affords such a program?

The comments by Jens are over 5 years old. You think that he would have the same stance now that we all know that Armstrong tested positive for EPO 6 times?

 

[BroDeal]

Why is it that fanboys continue to dismiss evidence by labeling it "hearsay"? Word of advice: If you are going to use a word, make sure you know what it means so you do not appear to be a moron.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Because they've all seen too many episodes of "Law and Order" and associate the word "hearsay", with a judge throwing such content out of court of law; often on the grounds of a "technicality".
They conveniently forget, that it is more commonly associated with the word "evidence".

 

[Hugh Januss]

The comments by Jens are over 5 years old. You think that he would have the same stance now that we all know that Armstrong tested positive for EPO 6 times?

He very well might if he has reason to believe that the same thing could happen to him.

 

[Anonymous]

Because they've all seen too many episodes of "Law and Order" and associate the word "hearsay", with a judge throwing such content out of court of law; often on the grounds of a "technicality".
They conveniently forget, that it is more commonly associated with the word "evidence".

+1.....................

 

[stephens]

Firstly - are you denying that there is massive problem with doping within Pro Cycling? (and indeed many other sports)

Of course I am not denying that pro cyclists take substances that the rules (made by non-competitors) have banned. I am denying that there is only one rational way to feel about this situation and that all the rest of us are fanboys or ignorant or whatever insults you all wish to toss out. I'm also not convinced that the opinions of actual professional cyclists match up perfectly with those expressed here by the zero-doping crowd.

The difference that separates the top contenders is minuscule. EPO produced a wide variety of responses in Athletes. Please tell us how you have a level playing field if one rider gets a 3% improvement from EPO and the other gets a 13% improvement?

Sorry, but I remain unconvinced on this point. I'm still of the opinion that there is at least as much possible variation in the response to natural training methods as there is in response to "medical programs".

I also deny the fact that such a thing as a level playing field can ever exist or is even necessarily desirable. Much of the race takes place off the road. This is not spec-class auto racing. The cyclists is both driver and engine and we are in an era of performance enhancement. Doesn't bother me one bit.

I'd be tempted to draw the line at totally unhealthy behavior, but cycling remains safer than many other sports we celebrate. And the most famous doper of all time, the one claimed to be a super-responder, has not only not suffered from his doping, but has managed to beat cancer and turn his once sterile single pelota into a potent force of procreation. He's a super-responder to something, that's for sure.


Regarding "hearsay": we are all presenting as evidence things we have heard/read from other people. I haven't read anyone here mention actual experience with any of this stuff. None of us here knows for himself that, say, those six samples really belonged to Armstrong or that they were really tested properly and that the results are legitimately known. We just repeat as gospel something that another person has told us about those tests. That is what I mean by hearsay. I tend to error on the side of caution when making accusations regarding something I didn't personally see.

 

[Race Radio]

Sorry, but I remain unconvinced on this point. I'm still of the opinion that there is at least as much possible variation in the response to natural training methods as there is in response to "medical programs".

Please tell of what natural training method results in a 13% increase in power in one professional athlete and a 3% increase in another. I am eagerly waiting for this info as I would like to try it myself.

I'd be tempted to draw the line at totally unhealthy behavior, but cycling remains safer than many other sports we celebrate. And the most famous doper of all time, the one claimed to be a super-responder, has not only not suffered from his doping, but has managed to beat cancer and turn his once sterile single pelota into a potent force of procreation. He's a super-responder to something, that's for sure.

Tell that to the family's of the many cyclists who died when EPO first came out. If you think that Armstrong's admited use of Cortisone, HGH, and Steroids, did not fuel the rapid spread of his cancer then you know little of this topic.

Regarding "hearsay": we are all presenting as evidence things we have heard/read from other people. I haven't read anyone here mention actual experience with any of this stuff. None of us here knows for himself that, say, those six samples really belonged to Armstrong or that they were really tested properly and that the results are legitimately known. We just repeat as gospel something that another person has told us about those tests. That is what I mean by hearsay. I tend to error on the side of caution when making accusations regarding something I didn't personally see.

This article answers your questions. Please read it and have an informed opinion for a change
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

 

[Hugh Januss]

Of course I am not denying that pro cyclists take substances that the rules (made by non-competitors) have banned. I am denying that there is only one rational way to feel about this situation and that all the rest of us are fanboys or ignorant or whatever insults you all wish to toss out. I'm also not convinced that the opinions of actual professional cyclists match up perfectly with those expressed here by the zero-doping crowd.

This reminds me of the "Betsy should have just perjured herself" argument that that idiot BPC raised in another thread. Are all Lance defenders morally bankrupt? Just because most pros cheat doesn't make it right to do so. Maybe the rules need to be changed and maybe they don't, but the crowd that is calling for the riders to be held to the current rules while they are in place are the real fans of bike racing.

 

[stephens]

Please tell of what natural training method results in a 13% increase in power in one professional athlete and a 3% increase in another. I am eagerly waiting for this info as I would like to try it myself.

That's not the claim. I claimed that there is at least as much variation possible in natural training responses as what you claim exists with EPO. Here let me google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=variation+in+response+to+training

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Of course I am not denying that pro cyclists take substances that the rules (made by non-competitors) have banned. I am denying that there is only one rational way to feel about this situation and that all the rest of us are fanboys or ignorant or whatever insults you all wish to toss out. I'm also not convinced that the opinions of actual professional cyclists match up perfectly with those expressed here by the zero-doping crowd.



Sorry, but I remain unconvinced on this point. I'm still of the opinion that there is at least as much possible variation in the response to natural training methods as there is in response to "medical programs".

I also deny the fact that such a thing as a level playing field can ever exist or is even necessarily desirable. Much of the race takes place off the road. This is not spec-class auto racing. The cyclists is both driver and engine and we are in an era of performance enhancement. Doesn't bother me one bit.

I'd be tempted to draw the line at totally unhealthy behavior, but cycling remains safer than many other sports we celebrate. And the most famous doper of all time, the one claimed to be a super-responder, has not only not suffered from his doping, but has managed to beat cancer and turn his once sterile single pelota into a potent force of procreation. He's a super-responder to something, that's for sure.


Regarding "hearsay": we are all presenting as evidence things we have heard/read from other people. I haven't read anyone here mention actual experience with any of this stuff. None of us here knows for himself that, say, those six samples really belonged to Armstrong or that they were really tested properly and that the results are legitimately known. We just repeat as gospel something that another person has told us about those tests. That is what I mean by hearsay. I tend to error on the side of caution when making accusations regarding something I didn't personally see.

Obviously you have not read the post on this forum by Beroepsrenner - a Pro in the 80's about the consequences of taking PED's on his family. (or is that just hearsay!)

Ask Johannes Draaijer’s widow how life has been since her husband died at 26 of EPO.

So Cyclists should set up the rules - just one question - which ones the dopers or the clean ones?
Murders should be allowed set up the rules for murderers, drug dealers should set the sentences for drug dealing offenses - interesting viewpoint.

 

[Race Radio]

That's not the claim. I claimed that there is at least as much variation possible in natural training responses as what you claim exists with EPO. Here let me google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=variation+in+response+to+training

You do know that by just given http://www.google.com as a you source it means you have nothing.

Time to back up your claim. Give us link to a study that shows a form of natural training that results in a 13% increase in power in a highly trained Pro. We are all eager to hear of this wonder method.

while you are at it give us your input on the Ashenden interview.

 

[stephens]

So Cyclists should set up the rules - just one question - which ones the dopers or the clean ones?
Murders should be allowed set up the rules for murderers, drug dealers should set the sentences for drug dealing offenses - interesting viewpoint.

Very poor analogy. We are talking about a contest: of course the participants should be the ones to set the rules for that contest, as it only effects them. Unless you think it more important to cater to the wishes of sponsors trying to make money off of the efforts of the athletes, or the gamblers wishing to play along. I don't care anything about those last two and so of course I'd prefer the participants to set the rules for their own internal competition.

 

[Race Radio]

Very poor analogy. We are talking about a contest: of course the participants should be the ones to set the rules for that contest, as it only effects them. Unless you think it more important to cater to the wishes of sponsors trying to make money off of the efforts of the athletes, or the gamblers wishing to play along. I don't care anything about those last two and so of course I'd prefer the participants to set the rules for their own internal competition.

Sounds like you like Gladiator movies

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Very poor analogy. We are talking about a contest: of course the participants should be the ones to set the rules for that contest, as it only effects them. Unless you think it more important to cater to the wishes of sponsors trying to make money off of the efforts of the athletes, or the gamblers wishing to play along. I don't care anything about those last two and so of course I'd prefer the participants to set the rules for their own internal competition.

Well I was using your anology!

So - who gets to decide? Someone well respected in the cycling community- someone who has no offical sanction like Pantani.... o no wait....

Ok - how about Bjarne Riis? He has never been caught or convicted - yes he admitted to taking EPO, but we werent there so its only hearsay.

 

[stephens]

Time to back up your claim. Give us link to a study that shows a form of natural training that results in a 13% increase in power in a highly trained Pro. We are all eager to hear of this wonder method.

That is not my claim. Stop making strawmen. I pointed you to a list of various studies that showed even as much as a 50% variation in improvement of VO2 by natural training methods. Those studies perfectly support what I actually claimed. Exact quote: I'm still of the opinion that there is at least as much possible variation in the response to natural training methods as there is in response to "medical programs".

Have you considered that the mechanism by which some respond better to EPO than others is the very same that accounts for some responding better to altitude training than others?

 

[Race Radio]

That is not my claim. Stop making strawmen. I pointed you to a list of various studies that showed even as much as a 50% variation in improvement of VO2 by natural training methods. Those studies perfectly support what I actually claimed. Exact quote: I'm still of the opinion that there is at least as much possible variation in the response to natural training methods as there is in response to "medical programs".

Have you considered that the mechanism by which some respond better to EPO than others is the very same that accounts for some responding better to altitude training than others?

You pointed me to nothing but Google. You have provided NO study that shows such a wide difference with PROFESSIONAL athletes. EPO does not provide the same benefits as altitude training. With EPO you can raise your Hct from 38 to 49.9, let us know when you find a study showing that level of improvement with altitude training.

Let us know when you can back up your claims, the cycling world eagerly awaits your breakthrough.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Very poor analogy. We are talking about a contest: of course the participants should be the ones to set the rules for that contest, as it only effects them. Unless you think it more important to cater to the wishes of sponsors trying to make money off of the efforts of the athletes, or the gamblers wishing to play along. I don't care anything about those last two and so of course I'd prefer the participants to set the rules for their own internal competition.

That's a great idea. Do we sit on the startline of each race and decide where the course will go as well?
Which "competitors" will decide these rules? The ones who are currently on top, the ones trying to break in or the retired ones? Do we vote on every rule or do we vote for one king who will decide the other questions himself?
Oh wait aren't the UCI and IOC already kind of that sort of organizations?
You are right not to care about the sponsors too, nobody needs them.

 

[Cobber]

Very poor analogy. We are talking about a contest: of course the participants should be the ones to set the rules for that contest, as it only effects them. Unless you think it more important to cater to the wishes of sponsors trying to make money off of the efforts of the athletes, or the gamblers wishing to play along. I don't care anything about those last two and so of course I'd prefer the participants to set the rules for their own internal competition.

OK... maybe a better analogy would be letting Wall Street bankers make the rules about capitalism then? Your point, regardless of the analogies that Dr Maserati presented, is still ridiculous.

Of course different athletes respond to the same training differently, otherwise we would all be TdF cyclists. There is always going to be genetic variation in response to any test. However, we use professional cycling races as a measure of how good a particular athlete is at cycling, not as a measure of how well they respond to a particular drug. Training is legal. Taking doping products is not!