Lance Armstrong and drugs
Comments
-
If I breached my terms of employment in this way and allowed / colluded with your results being released to a Newspaper - would you be happy?
If the labs do not have procedures and adhere to the most basic standards of medical practice then they should not be allowed to participate in testing....<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Now this is interesting....
Cyclingnew.com
Thursday, August 25 2005
Cycling News Special - Armstrong calls Leblanc remarks "preposterous", L'Equipe doping story opens can of worms, "No syringes" during Vaughters time at Postal, Riding under the radar
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... 05/default
Now what did Vaughters say in the instant messenger conversation with Frankie Andreu on 26 July 2005? Ah yes...
Cyclevaughters: once I went to CA and saw that now* all the teams got 25 injections every day
Cyclevaughters: hell, CA was ZERO
FDREU: you mean all the riders
Cyclevaughters: Credit Agricole
FDREU: it's crazy
Cyclevaughters: So, I realized lance was full of shit when he'd say everyone was doing it
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html
* This is a typo and should of course read `not` !
The full interview has some interesting bits too. For example:
"I'd never tested (at a race) above 50 percent, except before the start of the '99 Tour," he said. "I told the team doctor 'don't worry, I've got a certificate, I've got a hall-pass for this'," he recalled. "But the doctor said it wasn't me they were worried about, it was that the whole team was very close (to the 50 percent limit)."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... hters_1999
Hmmmmm.0 -
I might not be happy, but I if I was guilty as charged I could hardly try to claim the moral high ground, could I?Cunobelin wrote:If I breached my terms of employment in this way and allowed / colluded with your results being released to a Newspaper - would you be happy?
Anyhow, I am not convinced that the actions of the LNDD were as improper as you seem to be suggesting. Their research was perfectly legitimate, expanding on work they had done earlier and which was published in that most respected of all journals, Nature. They could hardly breach the confidentiality of any rider given they only had code numbers to work by. Ressiot also got the results of their work through official channels, that is WADA and the FFC. OK, so he knew that they had found more retrospective `positives` before the research was officially published, but any good investigative journalist would surely have taken an interest in what the lab was doing after that paper was published in Nature showing positives in the 1998 Tour.
The key to Ressiot breaking the story was getting the doping control forms needed to identify which riders corresponded to which code numbers. The required doping control forms were provided by the UCI after consultation with Armstrong’s lawyers. It was also natural that Ressiot would have targeted Armstrong, given the widespread skepticism regarding the nature of his comeback and 1999 Tour `win`.
As to why the other riders showing positive for Epo in 1999 Tour were not exposed. Surely in order to this to happen the UCI would have had to release the doping control forms for all the other riders in the race, and this could probably only be done with the the riders approval. I hardly think that this was ever going to happen given the controversy when it was found they had released Armstrong’s forms, albeit with his consent, an action which led the UCI to suspend Mario Zorzoli, their medical director.0 -
aurelio wrote:... I have a feeling the low `positive` score rate shows more than anything just how cautious labs are in interpreting test data. I recently read the comments of one doping test expert who argued that he would interpret many gels held to be `negative` as showing clear evidence of Epo use !
P.s. This was non other than Dr Rasmus Damsgaard...
...according to experts we have spoken to, athletes continued to abuse EPO. As they became more adept at medicating themselves, so the number of positives declined.
Many scientists blame the anti-doping laboratories for a loss of nerve in the face of continuing EPO use.
Dr Rasmus Damsgaard runs the anti-doping programme for the International Ski Federation and for the Astana Cycling team. He is widely admired for his innovation and energy. He says he has clear evidence that positive EPO tests are being declared as negative or suspicious.
Earlier this year, he sent five samples from skiers to a WADA lab for analysis. They all came back negative. But when Dr Damsgaard demanded the gels or electronic printouts on which the determination of guilt or innocence was made, he was astonished to see what he believed was clear evidence of EPO use.
"It was very obvious that the gels were very un-natural or very different from natural distributions. But I also saw that they were declared negative because they didn't fulfil the WADA criteria of a positive test; although they looked suspicious and had no natural bands at all, they were still declared negative."
And Dr Damsgaard believes that there are many more such samples in WADA labs.
"From a little work with a lot of blood profiles, I found maybe five positives. I wonder that maybe hundreds, maybe even thousands of EPO positive samples are lying around in WADA-accredited labs."
He is not alone in that view. Professor Bengt Saltin is a leading anti-doping expert and a former winner of the IOC Olympic Prize, the highest honour in sports science.
He says that the new WADA criteria allow most EPO cheats to get away with it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7516484.stm0 -
aurelio wrote:
The full interview has some interesting bits too. For example:
"I'd never tested (at a race) above 50 percent, except before the start of the '99 Tour," he said. "I told the team doctor 'don't worry, I've got a certificate, I've got a hall-pass for this'," he recalled. "But the doctor said it wasn't me they were worried about, it was that the whole team was very close (to the 50 percent limit)."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... hters_1999
Hmmmmm.
And from the same interview....
"But that year, it is now widely accepted even by the UCI, according to Vaughters, that its testing apparatus was calibrated somewhat high. He said this is not that uncommon, given that the machines are carried from race-to-race, through baggage handling and screening, and while efforts are made to ensure they are accurately calibrated, "there is some slop room" for variations.
But as far as Vaughters could see in the USPS team, "there was no first-hand evidence of anything (doping-related). I didn't see any evidence of EPO or anything like that."
Any particular reason you left that out of your post ? HmmmmmPlanet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
I only posted the bit most relevant to what has been said elsewhere about the doping at Banesto, that is that the fact that a whole team was found to have heamocrit levels close to the UCI `50%` limit could only be explained by managed and systematic doping within the team.colint wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... hters_1999
And from the same interview....
"But that year, it is now widely accepted even by the UCI, according to Vaughters, that its testing apparatus was calibrated somewhat high. He said this is not that uncommon, given that the machines are carried from race-to-race, through baggage handling and screening, and while efforts are made to ensure they are accurately calibrated, "there is some slop room" for variations.
But as far as Vaughters could see in the USPS team, "there was no first-hand evidence of anything (doping-related). I didn't see any evidence of EPO or anything like that."
Any particular reason you left that out of your post ? Hmmmmm
As to the supposed `high calibration` of the UCI`s testing equipment in 1999 I haven`t read of any confirmation of this claim. Even if it was true that wouldn`t explain why the team`s measurements failed to show a natural range of variation.
Also, with regards to Vaughters` claim he saw no doping at USP, I can think of plenty of reasons why he should say this even if it were totally untrue. For example, avoiding possible self-incrimination; a desire to show loyalty to his former boss; not wanting to `spit in the soup` and so on. Perhaps his greatest motivation was to protect himself from a possible legal action by Armstrong and to ensure that he didn`t become yet another victim of Armstrong`s war an anyone who speaks out about his doping, or come to that doping in general, as with Bassons and Simeoni.
On the other hand why should he lie when communicating `in confidence` with a good friend of his, as in that instant messenger conversation which I also only quoted in part?
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html0 -
Or perhaps he just didn't see any evidence of doping, like he said.Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
P.s. In order to avoid a further claim of selective `cut and pasting` perhaps I had better post that instant messenger conversation in full...
An instant message between Frankie Andreu (FDREU) and Jonathan Vaughters (Cyclevaughters) the morning of July 26, 2005.
Cyclevaughters: frankie - hey - thanks for talking the other day
FDREU: no problem, where are you
Cyclevaughters: back in CO
FDREU: nice, I just got home, isnt' it like 5AM
Cyclevaughters: sometimes i think i'm going to go nuts
Cyclevaughters: yeah
Cyclevaughters: it's 5am
FDREU: I agree, I came home and the air conditioning is broken
Cyclevaughters: ouch
FDREU: did your kid grow twice it's size in the two weeks you were gone
Cyclevaughters: yeah, his feet look bigger for some eason
FDREU: funny
Cyclevaughters: anyhow, i never can quite figure out why i don't just play along with the lance crowd - i mean shit it would make my life easier, eh? it's not like i never played with hotsauce, eh?
FDREU: I know, but in the end i don't think it comes back to bite you
FDREU: I play along, my wife does not, and Lance hates us both
FDREU: it's a no win situation, you know how he is. Once you leave the team or do soemthing wrong you forever banned
Cyclevaughters: i suppose - you know he tried to hire me back in 2001... he was nice to me... i just couldn't deal with that whole world
FDREU: I did not know that
FDREU: look at why everyone leaves, it's way to controlling
Cyclevaughters: once I went to CA and saw that now all the teams got 25 injections every day
Cyclevaughters: hell, CA was ZERO
FDREU: you mean all the riders
Cyclevaughters: Credit Agricole
FDREU: it's crazy
Cyclevaughters: So, I realized lance was full of shitwhen he'd say everyone was doing it
FDREU: You may read stuff that i say to radio or press, praising the Tour and lance but it's just playing the game
Cyclevaughters: believe me, as carzy as it sounds - Moreau was on nothing. Hct of 39%
FDREU: when in 2000-2001
Cyclevaughters: so, that's when you start thinking... hell, kevin was telling me that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42%--- yeah moreau in 2000-2001
Cyclevaughters: anyhow - whtever
FDREU: After 1999, you know many things changed. lance did not
FDREU: I believe that's part of whey kevin left, he was tired of the stuff
Cyclevaughters: yeah, i could explain the whole way lance dupes everyone
FDREU: what abut GH climbing the mountains better than azevedo and the entire group
Cyclevaughters: from how floyd described it, i know exactly the methos
FDREU: explain that, classics to climber
FDREU: when did you talk with floyd
Cyclevaughters: i don't know - i want to trust George
Cyclevaughters: but the thing is on that team, you think it's normal
Cyclevaughters: or at least i did
FDREU: i guess. anything with blodd is not normal
Cyclevaughters: yeah, it's very complex how the avoid all the controls now, but it's not any new drug or anything, just the resources and planning to pull of a well devised plan
Cyclevaughters: it's why they all got dropped on stage 9 - no refill yet - then on the rest day - boom 800ml of packed cells
FDREU: they have it mastered. good point
Cyclevaughters: they draw the blood right after the dauphine
FDREU: how do they sneak it in, or keep it until needed
FDREU: i'm sure it's not with the truck in the frig
Cyclevaughters: motorcycle - refridgerated panniers
Cyclevaughters: on the rest day
Cyclevaughters: floyd has a photo of the thing
FDREU: crazy! it' just keep going to new levels
Cyclevaughters: yeah, it's complicated, but with enough money you can do it
FDREU: they have enough money. Floyd was so pissed at them this entire tour
Cyclevaughters: anyhow - i just feel sorry for floyd and some of the other guys
Cyclevaughters: why would lance keep doing the shitwhen he clearly has nothing to prove - it's weird
FDREU: I know. me to. they all get ripped into for no reason
FDREU: he's done now, thank god. but they will prove next year for Johan's sake that they are the greatest
Cyclevaughters: and then lance says " this guy and that guys are pussies"
FDREU: they won't stop
FDREU: I agree
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html0 -
Yeah right! See previous post!!!colint wrote:Or perhaps he just didn't see any evidence of doping, like he said.
Don`t tell me. You also accept Vaughters claim that by `hot sauce` he meant vitamins. :roll:0 -
Iam waiting for the new series. CSI Paris : The Armstrong Conundrum. Over seven years and two continents with a panel of visionary's who are experts in their field, the truth will finally be told. Narrated by Robert Downey Jnr. The truth is out there.
Stunning testimony revelaed by some of the most trusted people in the world of Pro-Cycling. People such as Bjarne Riis, Rolf Aldag, Jan Ullrich, Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, Manuel Beltran, Ivan Basso, Roberto Heras, the President of Marco Pantani's fan club, Roberto Heras, Manolo Saiz, The Cobra, The Killer, The Chronic Ashmatic, Dr Ferrari and George Bush Jnr.
The series is a co-production made by the Spanish Tourist Board, the Government of kazahkstan, the Austin Chamber of Commerce, Johan Bruyneel.com, Telekom and an Italian shipping company that does not want to be named.
Really I no longer care.0 -
The fact is Aurellio, we just don't know the truth. You, me whoever can read into the history whatever we want to based on our own bias.
It's history, move on. With respect you seem one step away from standing on the local high street wearing an anti LA sandwich board.Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
Which is probably exactly the reaction Armstrong has been banking on in order for him to be able to preserve the value of the `Armstrong Brand` and to get away with, to paraphrase Greg Lemond, `the biggest fraud in the history of sports`.movingtarget wrote:Really I no longer care.0 -
I would say that the truth is pretty self-evident if one considers the sum of the evidence available, with `proof` existing way beyond the balance of probability. Even when people have protected Armstrong, the truth somehow tends to leak out, as in the case of Stephanie McIlvain`s talk with Greg Lemond where she admits that she did hear Armstrong using Epo, steroids, and all the rest, despite later claiming that she hadn`t in order to protect the jobs of both her and her husband with Oakley.colint wrote:The fact is Aurellio, we just don't know the truth. You, me whoever can read into the history whatever we want to based on our own bias.
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3
How can it be nothing more than `history` when so many of those determined to defend the `Armstrong Myth` do so by attacking the labs, WADA, riders who speak out on the issue of doping and just about anyone else whose fight against doping in anyway undermines the credibility of `The Armstrong Myth`? By doing this they play into the hands of today’s dopers and help to ensure the problem will continue. Plus many of those implicated in Armstrong’s `alleged` doping are still in the sport, such as Bruyneel, and once again in defending Armstrong these people are also offered a level of protection.colint wrote:It's history, move on...
Similarly, just look at the way Armstrong came to the defence of Landis, reigniting all his old claims about there being a supposed anti-American conspiracy on the part of `The French` and so on.
Doubtless, if that sandwich board carried pro-Armstrong propaganda that would be acceptable...colint wrote:With respect you seem one step away from standing on the local high street wearing an anti LA sandwich board.
Rather than having some sort of vendetta against Armstrong I simply find the whole `Armstrong myth`, from the way it illustrates the power of corporate-backed propaganda through to the psychology of the `faithful` fascinating. That said, I do think it is rather unfair that, due to his power and connections, Armstrong has, so far at least, managed to evade censure whilst so many others have been held to account for their actions.0 -
Jeez, go for abike ride man, you need to relax.Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
colint wrote:Jeez, go for abike ride man, you need to relax.
Anyhow, bye for now. As it happens I am going out on my bike.
0 -
colint wrote:
It's history, move on. With respect you seem one step away from standing on the local high street wearing an anti LA sandwich board.
Yes, how outrageous of him to air his views on the man who dominated the Tour de France over the last decade -- on a cycling forum of all places!0 -
lol, good.Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
Peakraider wrote:colint wrote:
It's history, move on. With respect you seem one step away from standing on the local high street wearing an anti LA sandwich board.
Yes, how outrageous of him to air his views on the man who dominated the Tour de France over the last decade -- on a cycling forum of all places!
Just when I thought the debate couldn't become more pointless....................Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
aurelio wrote:
Which is probably exactly the reaction Armstrong has been banking on in order for him to be able to preserve the value of the `Armstrong Brand` and to get away with, to paraphrase Greg Lemond, `the biggest fraud in the history of sports`.movingtarget wrote:Really I no longer care.
I thought the biggest fraud in the history of sports was the myth of Merckx.0 -
leguape wrote:aurelio wrote:
Which is probably exactly the reaction Armstrong has been banking on in order for him to be able to preserve the value of the `Armstrong Brand` and to get away with, to paraphrase Greg Lemond, `the biggest fraud in the history of sports`.movingtarget wrote:Really I no longer care.
I thought the biggest fraud in the history of sports was the myth of Merckx.
Are you saying he used Shimano ??????????????Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
Few cancer patients lie awake at night in agony clinging to false hopes generated by the Belgian "Cannibal".0
-
We do love to argue dont we ?
You'll never get the pro and anti Lance camps to agree.
Without knowing for sure - I know where I would stake my money - Pro cycling has taught me time and time again over the years that repeated unbelievable rides are just that.
Lance was still a great rider - if everyone was clean - he'd probably win that as well.0 -
Quite so. Especially when produced without the clear signs of suffering and on-the -limit effort which characterised bike racing in the pre Epo era...cougie wrote:Without knowing for sure - I know where I would stake my money - Pro cycling has taught me time and time again over the years that repeated unbelievable rides are just that.
There is no way that can be said with any certainty. Modern-day doping benefits different riders to different degrees, and a doper who is dominant might well be a total also-ran if everyone were clean. That someone performs well on Epo, `800 ml of packed cells` and all the rest tells us little about how they would perform without them. They might simply have a physiology which adapts particularly well to `state of the art` doping techniques, or they may be simply pushing the doping envelope further than other riders.cougie wrote:Lance was still a great rider - if everyone was clean - he'd probably win that as well.
Think of Riis, people were wetting themselves about the way he `won` the Tour with his ride on the Hautecam, but I think few would argue that if the race had been clean he would have been equally dominant. However, in the case of Armstrong for some odd reason people are quite prepared to pretend that doping or not, he would have been exactly the same rider, even though his pre-cancer Tour performances indicate otherwise.
Anyhow, to move on somewhat...
What do you mean by this? Even if Merckx doped, the doping of his day made minimal differences to a riders physiology, so we can be pretty certain that Merckx`s performances were not the creation of a team of doctors. Even if he regularly resorted to stimulants when riding the old day-in and day-out circus of after-Tour criteriums and winter 6-days how would that make his record in the major Tours and Classics a `fraud`? Come to that what on earth is this `Myth of Merckx` you refer to? That he won lots of races?leguape wrote:I thought the biggest fraud in the history of sports was the myth of Merckx.0 -
Exactly right.There is no way that can be said with any certainty. Modern-day doping benefits different riders to different degrees, and a doper who is dominant might well be a total also-ran if everyone were clean. That someone performs well on Epo, `800 ml of packed cells` and all the rest tells us little about how they would perform without them. They might simply have a physiology which adapts particularly well to `state of the art` doping techniques, or they may be simply pushing the doping envelope further than other riders.
It's been shown in lab tests that some riders really benefit from courses of EPO whilts other riders only benefit a small amount, if at all.
Apparently it all depends on ones natural HCT level. If it's natuarally high, then EPO isn't as effective as a rider who's EPO is in the low 50's.
And having a natually high EPO level doesn't necassarily mean that you will be a great rider. There are many other variables involved.0 -
philak wrote:This thread got me looking for more info and i came across the article below. It's something of a revelation to me. I had no idea about most of this stuff whilst i was watching Armstong win the tour, probably because i wasn't an active road cyclist at the time and wasn't looking at forums like this one.
Of particluar interest is his retirement from competitive cycling after his cancer surgery and dropping out of a race through exhaustion, and his reappearance as a tour winner.
http://www.arpuerta.com/040917.html
I have just read the article. it goes on to say that not a single publication in 2004 compared Armstrong to indurain, Hinault or Merkx, the true champions. Yet drugs were wide spread when Hinault and Merkx were racing. Even 'big mig' hasn't been without the wispering campaign. The sad truth is that if you had a cycling hero, then the chances are that they were more likely to be doped than not.0 -
Oh how I love this argument!! I want to believe that LA doped because he is such a disgusting individual. His whole personna fills me with revulsion. Which is as good a reason as any proposed here to say whether he drugged or not. :roll:I say what I like and I like what I say!0
-
Forget times and avg speed - have a look at the power outputs on the final climbs of the big stages pre and post lance. Almost across the board riders went up by approx 10% from 95-06/07 period. This is in line with the boost EPO/Blood doping gives you. Many of these same riders are still in the peleton and no longer have the exta 10% anymore. This would include Contador between 07tour & 08 giro.
Lance was climbing at 440W which against his lab outputs when fresh was little different. So no drop off between being fresh and week 2/3 of the tour on final stage in high mountains.
How did the peleton get so good and then so normal in such short periods ..?!
Finally before someone suggests that if there was no doping lance would have won anyway take a look at Cunego/Valverde/Popovych ...?0 -
I have seen this before and it is heartening to see that not everyone in the US are taken in by the corporate-backed Armstrong propaganda machine. Unfortunately many US cycling-related media sites go out of their way to protect `The Armstrong Myth`. One good example, which I mentioned earlier, relates to the revelations of Jesus Manzano printed in L`Equipe on 5 June 2007. Manzano said that one Walter Viru, who owned a hematology clinic used by the UCI to collect blood samples also worked for Kelme, tipping the team off when a blood test was due. Velonews missed off the final part of the statement from Manzano which readphilak wrote:This thread got me looking for more info and i came across the article below. It's something of a revelation to me.
http://www.arpuerta.com/040917.html
``And he did the same thing with Del Moral, the doctor for the U.S. Postal team and then Discovery, a good friend of his.``
http://velonews.com/article/12375
Anyhow, back to the reason for my coming back to this topic...
The way Armstrong used high-flying lawyers, exploited the UK`s ridiculous libel laws and so on to stay `one step ahead of the law`, as Puerta puts it, was the subject of an article by the New York Daily News a few days ago, concluding:
Like the man in "The Gambler," Armstrong knew when to hold 'em, knew when to fold 'em, and knew when to issue a triumphant press release and walk away.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... e_arm.html
The whole Armstrong - Sunday Times libel case gives a very interesting insight into the workings of UK libel law. (See below for an in-depth article on this and a link to the court decisions). Notably no evidence which became available after The Sunday Times article was first published could be used in defence. This, for example, ruled out any reference been made to Armstrong`s retrospective `positives` for Epo use in the 1999 Tour which did not come to light till 2005.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/e ... ber2/cooke
http://www.5rb.com/casereports/list.asa?area=11
The subject of UK `libel tourism` has even become a matter of concern for the United Nations committee on human rights with, as The Guardian reported yesterday, the committee being concerned that UK libel laws serve:
"to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work, including through the phenomenon known as libel tourism"
and:
...that restrictive libel laws could affect legitimate international discussion, contrary to article 19 of the covenant on civil and political rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech "regardless of borders".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/1 ... tednations
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008 ... ur.idcards
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/0 -
I just take the view that we like to think they're all on drugs for our own comfort; if we're not as good as these guys then it's OK because they're doping and we're not.
I've always believed that Lance was clean.0 -
I agree with everything aurelio said, and it's relevance. Langerdan's description of lance as a "weapons grade cock" is probably the finest summation I have heard. I must admit to breching copyright on occasion.Dan0
