• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team. Thanks!

Why LA is not a doper (seriously)

Jul 24, 2009
11
0
0
No the dog did not eat my homework. Here is my thoughts, you probably saw it before:
1.he had been tested more than anybody in any sports, and everyone is after him – still no positives
2.Can it be that the ‘99 epo test results were somehow affected by medication he still was under for his cancer (and were approved)?
3.He may have (I guess he surely did) doped before his cancer. It is unfathomable to think that he continued after his cancer with what many believed was the cause of his cancer. You don’t barely survive just to commit suicide
4.If he doped before (almost certain) and after (as most people believe), what accounts to his amazing improvement? It is still weight loss mainly. He was always much stronger than any cyclist in the peloton, but now the power/weight is coming into play, as well as a better cardiovascular efficiency.
5.Coming back from 3+ years of no bicycle competition, claiming he is trying to raise awareness for his charity, what can he gain by doping? He can only lose if getting caught – his charity will be dusted, his reputation completely tarnished. On the other hand, losing now makes almost no difference as long as his charity (and his new cycling team) gets bigger and more famous, paving the way to possible political career, as many mentioned. In short, coming back and doping again makes no sense – he can only lose
6. Phil Anderson smile is not convincing

Am I naïve? Most probably, so what?
 
May 1, 2009
149
0
0
AAMilne said:
No the dog did not eat my homework.
6. Phil Anderson smile is not convincing

Am I naïve? Most probably, so what?

Oh dear. Here we go....

Srsly, have you actually read any other threads here before starting this one?
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
1. False ! Less tested than many others athletes including riders (Cippolini, Zabel, Jalabert,...). Marion Jones was reported to have been tested 160 times (no positive) when Lance was only tested around 80 times (before his comeback), Kohl had been tested around 200 times!
Cevendish 60 times in last year!

2. No.

3. How many people stop dirving after a car accident? How many people are still smoking or drinking despite their deadly illness? ...

4. Money and better doctor

5. Have we hear him about cancer awareness or complaining about his leader?
 
Jul 16, 2009
201
0
0
naive

Do even a little research
and open your eyes, your ears and try and open your little mind to process the 2 FACTS.

1, LA beat convicted or evidence accused EPO dopers for ALL his 7 wins. ALL of them.
2, EPO provides an estimated (-/+5%)20% increase in aerobic performance.

Is Lance that much better?
NO He is human. He has a 6 litre lung capacity not 8 .
DOPER, careful but a fraud.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
How many of these blessed threads do we need?

There's also this little button up above labeled "Search". Check it out. It works quite well.

Actually this was posted in the Pro Racing Forum - methinks to flame or push a particular point of view.
I hit the 'report post' button and the mods transferred it here where I think the original poster might be a little more reluctant to argue their point.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
RhodriM said:
How does doping cause cancer?

Nothing is proven, but in reading about HGH for another thread some scientists have stated that it "may" cause cancer. In theory, any growth factor (human growth hormone [HGH] and insulin-like growth factor [IGF] are the most commonly associated with doping) can promote cancer growth, but the cancer has to be existing for this to happen.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
AAMilne said:
No the dog did not eat my homework. Here is my thoughts, you probably saw it before:
1.he had been tested more than anybody in any sports, and everyone is after him – still no positives
2.Can it be that the ‘99 epo test results were somehow affected by medication he still was under for his cancer (and were approved)?
3.He may have (I guess he surely did) doped before his cancer. It is unfathomable to think that he continued after his cancer with what many believed was the cause of his cancer. You don’t barely survive just to commit suicide
4.If he doped before (almost certain) and after (as most people believe), what accounts to his amazing improvement? It is still weight loss mainly. He was always much stronger than any cyclist in the peloton, but now the power/weight is coming into play, as well as a better cardiovascular efficiency.
5.Coming back from 3+ years of no bicycle competition, claiming he is trying to raise awareness for his charity, what can he gain by doping? He can only lose if getting caught – his charity will be dusted, his reputation completely tarnished. On the other hand, losing now makes almost no difference as long as his charity (and his new cycling team) gets bigger and more famous, paving the way to possible political career, as many mentioned. In short, coming back and doping again makes no sense – he can only lose
6. Phil Anderson smile is not convincing

Am I naïve? Most probably, so what?

AAMilne, you're new to the forum and I hate the search button as well. There is a lot written about Lance in this forum, so it may be hard to find the answers to your questions. So here are the answers to your questions:

1. Only Armstrong has said he is the most tested athlete on earth. And he said this in his 1999-2005 TdF days, not recently. As far as I know, no one is keeping track of the number of tests to make a comparison. However, as Poupou has stated, track and field athletes are tested frequently.

2. No - medically, EPO is used to stimulate the bone marrow to produce red blood cells in anemic patients. In Lance's case, the chemotherapy (and perhaps surgery but this is less likely) would have caused bone marrow suppression and anemia. He would have then been given EPO to increase his hematocrit and oxygen-carrying ability. But this was in 1996, and there would be no medical reason for using EPO in 1999 when he was perfectly healthy.

3. There have been plenty of other discussions about why Lance would or would not jeopardize their health or legacy. Bottom line, you are thinking as a rational non-professional cyclist, not a success-driven, winning-at-any-costs professional athlete. The motivations which drive athletes to success can be as damaging as any addiction.

4. Weight loss is another myth perpetuated by Lance and his PR machine. Coyle wrote a scientific paper on Lance Armstrong which detailed his actual and lean body weights in November 1992, February 1993 and November 1999. This is the only objective evidence that I know of that details Lance's body weights. His body weight in November 1999 is slightly heavier than 1992 and 1993.

5. See 3.

6. Phil Anderson knows more than any of us non-professional cyclists about the motivations and doping practices of professional cyclists. I wouldn't be dismissing his knowing smile so quickly.
 
Jul 24, 2009
351
0
0
What I'm interested in is, with Lance's doping in mind, how to we go about determining his natural ability from the synthetic advantages he had because of doping? How great was he? 7 TDF wins is a great feat, even if he was injecting horse hormones into himself before every race. And a lot of others would have been doped as well.....was he just a better rider than all the other dopers or did he just have the best Dr's?
 
Jul 22, 2009
107
0
0
elapid said:
4. Weight loss is another myth perpetuated by Lance and his PR machine. Coyle wrote a scientific paper on Lance Armstrong which detailed his actual and lean body weights in November 1992, February 1993 and November 1999. This is the only objective evidence that I know of that details Lance's body weights. His body weight in November 1999 is slightly heavier than 1992 and 1993.
You forgot about the (fish out of water) excuse, due to an improperly adjusted seat on Verbier!

Although, that does seem odd considering he usually does most of his high end climbing while standing.

Nevertheless, I figure the seat correction probably gave him about 50 more watts! :)

sars1981 said:
What I'm interested in is, with Lance's doping in mind, how to we go about determining his natural ability from the synthetic advantages he had because of doping? How great was he? 7 TDF wins is a great feat, even if he was injecting horse hormones into himself before every race. And a lot of others would have been doped as well.....was he just a better rider than all the other dopers or did he just have the best Dr's?
Not many know for sure, but my guess is better doctors!
 
sars1981 said:
What I'm interested in is, with Lance's doping in mind, how to we go about determining his natural ability from the synthetic advantages he had because of doping? How great was he? 7 TDF wins is a great feat, even if he was injecting horse hormones into himself before every race. And a lot of others would have been doped as well.....was he just a better rider than all the other dopers or did he just have the best Dr's?
Some people speculate that he uses the best Dr. in the business with Dr. Ferrari.

In my opinion is a combination of three factors:

- Good Doctor for him
- Good medical system for the whole team. Having the best team helped him a lot to shred some of his contenders.
- Very Good responder. Some athletes are better responders than others.

Note that I did not put hard work, discipline and all the other crap that he make us believe that was the key for his success because most of the top contenders are on the same or similar condition in this department.
 
IIRC in LA Confidential by yes that man 'David Walsh' (there is actually an english version out there, can't remember the link tho), there was a part on how Lance's pre cancer drug tests were clean, infact as Walsh says "too clean". He said this because at this stage in time '1996' - he would have already had cancer and this would have showed up in his drug tests as abnormalities but nothing showed at all everything was squeaky clean hence the term "too Clean". Again IIRC they believe he was using a very good masking agent that covered up the PED's he was taking but at the same time delayed his cancer diagnosis.

So it is thaought that there is a very good possibility that he did use drugs pre cancer. Another part of the book (i have to admit not even i can believe all the crap that that man produces) David Walsh attributes his cancer to the PEDs that he took.

I have to say i do admire Walsh for his unwavering focus on proving that PEDs are imbedded in the cycling culture but he could atleast broaden his horizons further than just one man.
 
Objective answers:

1. whether or not he was tested more than anyone else, he's been tested a lot and there have been no postives resulting in a suspension. Armstrong wins that one.

2. No, if EPO were prescribed to treat his cancer years earlier, it would not be reason for a EPO positives in 1999. There is alot of debate about the lab and protocols used to perform these analysis. It's a push. (I believe the pro peleton was heavily dependent upon EPO at this time, LA included)

3. Performance enhancing drugs cannot be assigned responsibility for testicular cancer. As elapid suggests, anabolics would likely exasperate the cancer tho. In this way it is no motivation for LA to ride clean. Armstrong loss.

4. There was some weight loss. This may have been exagerated, i'm not sure. Coyle's research focused on mechanical efficiency and not on body compostion. There's are some sizeable time gaps between Coyles measurements. I've only glossed over Coyle's work but IMO data collection was sloppy in this regard. Another push.

Link to full article if you're really interested:
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coyle/content/armstrong article JAP.pdf

5. It defies logic to return and risk a PR meltdown. None of the critics can explain this away very easily. Saying its likely because he is an over-competitive, over-confident megalomaniac is a weak stance. Even weaker is that there is UCI/ASO collusion. Armstrong win.

6. Phil Anderson's smile? this is the flavor of the week, i haven't seen the video but a smile could mean a million different things, i think the critics are reaching a little on this one.

you are not naive to think that LA rides clean right now, many intelligent people do. You are only naive if you aren't suspicious.

my guess is that doping in it's various forms is widespread in the ProTour but less egregious because of improving doping controls. riders are cheating but not as recklessly or blatantly. i also think that "clean" riders are likely to exist as a small minority. not the top GC riders and probably not LA.

you can bet that Armstrong is a huge cycling talent. it's not entirely dope.
 
Jul 24, 2009
351
0
0
I don't have an inside track on what drugs cause cancer and what don't (neither do leading pharmacologists), but it is very rare for a man in his twenties to get testicular cancer. It is also generally known that synthetic chemicals are dangerous and can cause gene damage, i.e. cancer. These things prove absolutely nothing in themselves but do add to the endless suspect things surrounding Armstrong.
 
Jul 24, 2009
351
0
0
Escarabajo said:
Some people speculate that he uses the best Dr. in the business with Dr. Ferrari.

In my opinion is a combination of three factors:

- Good Doctor for him
- Good medical system for the whole team. Having the best team helped him a lot to shred some of his contenders.
- Very Good responder. Some athletes are better responders than others.

Note that I did not put hard work, discipline and all the other crap that he make us believe that was the key for his success because most of the top contenders are on the same or similar condition in this department.

You also left out genetics. Not that I necessarily disagree with you,, but the idea that Lance is not especially gifted in in relation to the other riders is intriguing.
 
Jul 24, 2009
351
0
0
Escarabajo said:
Some people speculate that he uses the best Dr. in the business with Dr. Ferrari.

In my opinion is a combination of three factors:

- Good Doctor for him
- Good medical system for the whole team. Having the best team helped him a lot to shred some of his contenders.
- Very Good responder. Some athletes are better responders than others.

This, more or less, fits my observations as well.
 
El Imbatido said:
IIRC in LA Confidential by yes that man 'David Walsh' (there is actually an english version out there, can't remember the link tho)....
From Lance to Landis. An expansion on LA Confidential. My main complain about L2L is the title. It easily could have been focused more on doping in cycling. Actually, much of the book was, but the title was there also to sell books. None the less, very good research by Walsh, he connects the dots very well. But he does make some suppositions.

According to Lance in It's Not About the Bike, his testicular cancer had been with him for some years. One of his testicles had been larger than the other for about as long as he could remember. So unless he was doping as a junior, it's unlikely PED's gave him the cancer. It could have exasperated it, yes.

Good analysis by Lean, Green. I will say however that #2 isn't really a wash. You read the Ahenden interview, and look over everything he points out, and there was unequivocally EPO in his system in 1999. As to number 5, with no test possible for analogous blood doping being used, and no way to really detect plasma expanders, as Cobblestones and others have pointed out, I do think it's quite possible that Lance has used this method. However, as you say in your first point, no positive tests, no real red flags even. You did however leave out the times testers were waiting, which I suppose would be a wash as well.

Good post and thinking by Escarabajo too.

Carry on.
 

Bagster

BANNED
Jun 23, 2009
290
0
0
sars1981 said:
I don't have an inside track on what drugs cause cancer and what don't (neither do leading pharmacologists), but it is very rare for a man in his twenties to get testicular cancer. It is also generally known that synthetic chemicals are dangerous and can cause gene damage, i.e. cancer. These things prove absolutely nothing in themselves but do add to the endless suspect things surrounding Armstrong.

Not so. Though testicular cancer itself is rare, it is not rare for a man in his twenties to get it. In fact Cancer.com states:

Some risk factors for testicular cancer are as follows: Age - Young men have a higher risk of testicular cancer. In men, testicular cancer is the most common cancer between the ages of 20 to 34,

So it would be dangerous to link drug use to the onset of tesicular cancer and also not to check your facts before adding to the "endless suspect things". Thats how rumors start!;)
 
Jul 24, 2009
351
0
0
Bagster said:
Not so. Though testicular cancer itself is rare, it is not rare for a man in his twenties to get it. In fact Cancer.com states:

Some risk factors for testicular cancer are as follows: Age - Young men have a higher risk of testicular cancer. In men, testicular cancer is the most common cancer between the ages of 20 to 34,

So it would be dangerous to link drug use to the onset of tesicular cancer and also not to check your facts before adding to the "endless suspect things". Thats how rumors start!;)

Right. Testicular cancer might be 'most common cancer between the ages of 20 to 34', however have you done any research on what the statistical chances are of getting ANY sort of cancer in that age bracket vrs not getting cancer? I'm no oncologist, but I suggest it's low. Also the research into links between abusing growth hormones and this sort of cancer not well researched (small sample groups) but it is there. So I still maintain that 25 yo Lance Armstrong contracting cancer of the testicles is suspect; but, only in light of everything else that's suspect about him.

I did some reading about the average age of diagnosis. It seems you are right in that it's average onset age is a lot lower than other sorts of cancers, so I apologize for that - inference retracted.

But would you still admit that him contracting testicular cancer might be considered slightly suspicious given small but proven relationships between PED abuse and TC, him being a probable PED abuser, and the unlikeliness of getting TC, at any age? Or not?
 
El Imbatido said:
So it is thaought that there is a very good possibility that he did use drugs pre cancer. Another part of the book (i have to admit not even i can believe all the crap that that man produces) David Walsh attributes his cancer to the PEDs that he took.

I have to say i do admire Walsh for his unwavering focus on proving that PEDs are imbedded in the cycling culture but he could atleast broaden his horizons further than just one man.

Check your facts on both points.

Firstly, some people, not just Walsh believe there to be a possibility of there being a link. Some agree, some don't...a point which Walsh concedes readily.

Secondly, the names Walsh has focused on, in no particular order: Stephen Roche, Michelle Smith, Sean Kelly, Alberto Contador, Michael Rasmussen, Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, David Millar, Dwain Chambers, Ato Bolden, the whole BALCO case....Not one of these people has he been wrong on.
 
Jul 22, 2009
107
0
0
El Imbatido said:
IIRC in LA Confidential by yes that man 'David Walsh' (there is actually an english version out there, can't remember the link tho), there was a part on how Lance's pre cancer drug tests were clean, infact as Walsh says "too clean".
If anyone knows a link to the English version of 'David Walsh's' book, I'd love to read it, if you don't mind posting the link.
 
Here's Lance to Landis, available in English in the US. Any large bookstore usually covers it.

Here's a link to buy it on the other side of the pond. Amazon UK.

And if you come from the land down under, here it is at the Nile bookseller.

Digger said:
Secondly, the names Walsh has focused on, in no particular order: Stephen Roche, Michelle Smith, Sean Kelly, Alberto Contador, Michael Rasmussen, Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, David Millar, Dwain Chambers, Ato Bolden, the whole BALCO case....Not one of these people has he been wrong on.

You are correct Digger. But I just believe the book would have been more accurately titled, and maybe more effective, if it had been named different, and had a different photo on the cover.

The peculiar thing is that Walsh has known Sean Kelly for years, and wrote a book on him. But he's still able to be objectively critical within the scope of the sport.
 
Mar 10, 2009
221
0
0
AAMilne said:
No the dog did not eat my homework. Here is my thoughts, you probably saw it before:
1.he had been tested more than anybody in any sports, and everyone is after him – still no positives
2.Can it be that the ‘99 epo test results were somehow affected by medication he still was under for his cancer (and were approved)?
3.He may have (I guess he surely did) doped before his cancer. It is unfathomable to think that he continued after his cancer with what many believed was the cause of his cancer. You don’t barely survive just to commit suicide
4.If he doped before (almost certain) and after (as most people believe), what accounts to his amazing improvement? It is still weight loss mainly. He was always much stronger than any cyclist in the peloton, but now the power/weight is coming into play, as well as a better cardiovascular efficiency.
5.Coming back from 3+ years of no bicycle competition, claiming he is trying to raise awareness for his charity, what can he gain by doping? He can only lose if getting caught – his charity will be dusted, his reputation completely tarnished. On the other hand, losing now makes almost no difference as long as his charity (and his new cycling team) gets bigger and more famous, paving the way to possible political career, as many mentioned. In short, coming back and doping again makes no sense – he can only lose
6. Phil Anderson smile is not convincing

Am I naïve? Most probably, so what?

This cud has been chewed enough already.