Lemond says LA's new testing regime is "irrelevant&quot

Eurostar

I wonder if the forum's resident doping experts could give us an opinion on what Lemond had to say to Armstrong and Catlin at a press conference yesterday?

Here's an extract from www.bikeradar.com/news/article/greg-lem ... egas-18728
[Unfortunately it was written by someone wih a poor grasp of English]

'LeMond pressed Armstrong and Catlin... calling into question the proposed testing, arguing that it is not comprehensive enough. LeMond inferred that a spike in power output would better indicate the use of something compared to trying to test for particular substances.

"That is not my area," responded Catlin. [WTF? Aren't you the doping expert? How much are you being paid to cloud the issue?] "He will be subject to testing by everyone under the sun. I think that will be all sorted out." "[Lance] has agreed to a couple of a few very fundamental points. One is his data, like T/E ratio and all that kind of stuff that a doping control is allowed to do will be on the web, so you can see it. 'Ah, your T/E ratio changed today, what happened?' Like to see if he is taking EPO – all the actors to make it a very public campaign.

"The other thing is samples will be kept frozen for a good long time so that if next year, five years a new test comes out and someone says Lance was doing something five years ago, we can pull out the samples and test them. This is longitudinal testing whereas the usual type of testing is taking a stop in time. This is where you connect the dots and is much more powerful kind of program to understand the physiology."

"That is all irrelevant," LeMond responded. "It doesn't matter about T/E ratio but watts and power output..."

"I don't think it is irrelevant," said Catlin...Armstrong stepped in. "It's time for us... to move on. We are not going to go there...next question."

So...does it stink to high heaven or not? Personally I'm tempted to show up at the Tour just to fling a labrador under Lance's wheels.

Jez mon

We are going to keep the samples frozen, just like the French did eh Lance?

micron

Stinks. And my jack russell says he's ready to go for the cause

Ramanujan

Basically, Lemond is right.
The only way to have a good idea that doping is going on is to look at the watts.
Armstrong presenting this Catlin guy like he's some kind of Serpico for cycling stinks to high heaven.
We need to see Armstrongs power data from the tour, not his E/T ratios and blood values.

Jez mon

The only thing that can defo clear him of doping THIS TIME AROUND is a 24hr Lance Cam which follows his every move

method

I think he is basically reiterating what he has said before about Lance, that someone with his V02max can't produce the output that he does.

Edit possbily this::

L.A. Confidential Excerpt Oct 08, 2004 - 10:31 AM

"So you are threatening me? Listen Lance, I know physiology; no
amount of training can transform an athlete with a VO2 max of 82 into
one with a VO2 Max of 95 and you have ridden faster than I did."

Posted here:

http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/ind ... 4530&st=60

leguape

method wrote:

I think he is basically reiterating what he has said before about Lance, that someone with his V02max can't produce the output that he does.

Edit possbily this::

L.A. Confidential Excerpt Oct 08, 2004 - 10:31 AM

"So you are threatening me? Listen Lance, I know physiology; no
amount of training can transform an athlete with a VO2 max of 82 into
one with a VO2 Max of 95 and you have ridden faster than I did."

Posted here:

http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/ind ... 4530&st=60

Aye, but as Robert Millar has said, you can do all the numbers you like in tests but it doesn't teach you to win races. For me it's similar to the malformed logic of the 50% haemocrit level: it focuses on somewhat arbitrary figures at the expense of proper analysis of all the factors.

method

leguape wrote:

method wrote:

I think he is basically reiterating what he has said before about Lance, that someone with his V02max can't produce the output that he does.

Edit possbily this::

L.A. Confidential Excerpt Oct 08, 2004 - 10:31 AM

"So you are threatening me? Listen Lance, I know physiology; no
amount of training can transform an athlete with a VO2 max of 82 into
one with a VO2 Max of 95 and you have ridden faster than I did."

Posted here:

http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/ind ... 4530&st=60

Aye, but as Robert Millar has said, you can do all the numbers you like in tests but it doesn't teach you to win races. For me it's similar to the malformed logic of the 50% haemocrit level: it focuses on somewhat arbitrary figures at the expense of proper analysis of all the factors.

True, but here he isn't so much talking about winning races, but out and out power.

Cougar

Everyone knows that Lemond has an agenda.............and as for those on the bandwagon rearrange into a well know phrase or saying - at clutching straws.

andyp

Cougar wrote:

Everyone knows that Lemond has an agenda.............and as for those on the bandwagon rearrange into a well know phrase or saying - at clutching straws.

This always makes me laugh - we can dismiss anything Lemond says because he has an agenda. Like Armstrong doesn't.

Lemond's agenda seems to me to be to restore some credibility to the sport he clearly loves. Armstrong, on the other hand, has made his views on those who speak out against doping very, very clear.

Cougar

andyp wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Everyone knows that Lemond has an agenda.............and as for those on the bandwagon rearrange into a well know phrase or saying - at clutching straws.

This always makes me laugh - we can dismiss anything Lemond says because he has an agenda. Like Armstrong doesn't.

Lemond's agenda seems to me to be to restore some credibility to the sport he clearly loves. Armstrong, on the other hand, has made his views on those who speak out against doping very, very clear.

Clutching at straws is clutching at straws whatever way you look at it. The message here seems to be; if you can't find anything wrong then you should invent something. Then whip it up for the doping conspiracy theorists and turn it into another stick with which to beat LA.

I don't care I've had a red letter week what with one thing and another. Kicked some serious arse out riding this morning and then watched Nicole wiin the world's.......and LA is back riding the TDF seriouslly upsetting a few deserving people. Life is great isn't it?

donrhummy

Ramanujan wrote:

Basically, Lemond is right.
The only way to have a good idea that doping is going on is to look at the watts.
Armstrong presenting this Catlin guy like he's some kind of Serpico for cycling stinks to high heaven.
We need to see Armstrongs power data from the tour, not his E/T ratios and blood values.

Based on what? Can you cite ONE scientific study done that shows either:

1. The max watts or max watts per kilogram for a non-doped athlete
2. The max increase in an athlete's max-watts per kilogram that can be achieved by a non-doped athlete

If not, then knowing someone's watts and increase in watts tells us: NOTHING.

NJK

Those that want LA to return are those people that like to cling on to a winner, it makes them feel better regardless of his actions during races and to those who road clean who he stamped on. I find it quite strange that people support a bully from Texas as another bully from Texas is the world's most disliked leader. I'm not sure there are any conspiricies just quite a bit of EPO in 6 samples + a dodgy Italian doctor + some calves blood and he climbs at nearly 7 watts per kg after 200km. All of this after getting overtook by Indurain for 3 mins in the 96 tour i think. No conspiricies just a bit of common sense.

I don't care anymore all the dreamers can carry on believing in miracles from the USA. :?

leguape

NJK wrote:

Those that want LA to return are those people that like to cling on to a winner, it makes them feel better regardless of his actions during races and to those who road clean who he stamped on. I find it quite strange that people support a bully from Texas as another bully from Texas is the world's most disliked leader. I'm not sure there are any conspiricies just quite a bit of EPO in 6 samples + a dodgy Italian doctor + some calves blood and he climbs at nearly 7 watts per kg after 200km. All of this after getting overtook by Indurain for 3 mins in the 96 tour i think. No conspiricies just a bit of common sense.

I don't care anymore all the dreamers can carry on believing in miracles from the USA. :?

And there's your problem: how fast was the proceeding 200km, was there a tailwind, what was the air temperature, was the gradient even throughout that or did it tail off significantly outside of certain spikes. Did you judge it from that second or the third white post on the left of the road? On a tough day's riding I can drop about 5 km in 4 hours, so which weight are you judging it on? There's far too many things going on to try and reduce it down to something so arbitrary as "watts per kilo"

Ramanujan

Based on what? Can you cite ONE scientific study done that shows either:

1. The max watts or max watts per kilogram for a non-doped athlete
2. The max increase in an athlete's max-watts per kilogram that can be achieved by a non-doped athlete

If not, then knowing someone's watts and increase in watts tells us: NOTHING.

Obviously you don't know how the system works, my friend.
Let me try and enlighten you:
In order to determine if a cyclist is using foul play, it is very difficult to use drug testing alone since the drug testers are always one step behind the drug makers. In essence, there may be a drug out there for which there is no test. For example CERA was like that for a while, and genetic doping is another for which there are no current test AFAIK.

So, considering this, one needs to develop a passport of a riders quantifiable performance over the year or years i.e watts.

If a riders functional threshold is 350 watts in May and 450 watts in the Tour, you can be pretty sure something is going on. It's not proof, but it points to the fact that there is foul play.
This is akin to what happened in the pro peleton pre and post EPO. Performance levels went up 20% almost overnight when EPO was introduced. New training methods can't do that.

NJK

leguape wrote:

NJK wrote:

Those that want LA to return are those people that like to cling on to a winner, it makes them feel better regardless of his actions during races and to those who road clean who he stamped on. I find it quite strange that people support a bully from Texas as another bully from Texas is the world's most disliked leader. I'm not sure there are any conspiricies just quite a bit of EPO in 6 samples + a dodgy Italian doctor + some calves blood and he climbs at nearly 7 watts per kg after 200km. All of this after getting overtook by Indurain for 3 mins in the 96 tour i think. No conspiricies just a bit of common sense.

I don't care anymore all the dreamers can carry on believing in miracles from the USA. :?

And there's your problem: how fast was the proceeding 200km, was there a tailwind, what was the air temperature, was the gradient even throughout that or did it tail off significantly outside of certain spikes. Did you judge it from that second or the third white post on the left of the road? On a tough day's riding I can drop about 5 km in 4 hours, so which weight are you judging it on? There's far too many things going on to try and reduce it down to something so arbitrary as "watts per kilo"

I don't know i wasn't exactly picking a stage out it was a generalisation of a tour mountain stage. Pick any of 7 years i totally disagree about your "watts per kilo" comment. This is key at the end of stage and then repeating it 3 days on the spin. It is called blood boosting i'm not sure any of you have heard of it.

Jez mon

Sure it's arbitary and highly rule of thumb. In fact, as scientific "proof" of doping it's practically worthless. HOWEVER, Lance repeated his results for 7 years, was there a counter clockwise/clockwise wind following him throughout france for these seven years, or are the high speeds due to advances in equipment...or due to the fact that a high proportion of the field were doping. Lance won tours with hugely high average speeds, lance won tours where the majority of cyclists were using EXTREMELY powerful and hard to detect drugs. Members of Lances team doped (a team that was VITAL to his success).

NONE of that is proof that he doped, but put the pieces of the puzzle together, it does seem rather freaking likely that LA was just as guilty as the rest.

However, this does not mean i want all his victories struck from the record. It would be pointless now, besides, we'll never find who the most naturally talented GC rider was in that era. It does mean that i want him to leave the sport for good though!!

donrhummy

Ramanujan wrote:

Based on what? Can you cite ONE scientific study done that shows either:

1. The max watts or max watts per kilogram for a non-doped athlete
2. The max increase in an athlete's max-watts per kilogram that can be achieved by a non-doped athlete

If not, then knowing someone's watts and increase in watts tells us: NOTHING.

Obviously you don't know how the system works, my friend.
Let me try and enlighten you:
In order to determine if a cyclist is using foul play, it is very difficult to use drug testing alone since the drug testers are always one step behind the drug makers. In essence, there may be a drug out there for which there is no test. For example CERA was like that for a while, and genetic doping is another for which there are no current test AFAIK.

So, considering this, one needs to develop a passport of a riders quantifiable performance over the year or years i.e watts.

If a riders functional threshold is 350 watts in May and 450 watts in the Tour, you can be pretty sure something is going on. It's not proof, but it points to the fact that there is foul play.
This is akin to what happened in the pro peloton pre and post EPO. Performance levels went up 20% almost overnight when EPO was introduced. New training methods can't do that.

Again I ask based on what? How do you know that it is impossible for a non-doped athlete to have those types of watt swings? You NEED a study to show this is either impossible or possible. You're simply guessing, and that's a dangerous way to determine whether someone's suspect or even guilty.

In fact, if you've ever read the Tabata Protocol study, you'll find that the methods used in that study on OLYMPIC athletes (not untrained athletes) gave them HUGE jumps in their thresholds in a very short period of time.

You can't just say, "a huge jump in watts shows something is suspect," without providing evidence of WHY that's suspect. It's simple. Provide ONE study, just one, that looked at jumps in watts over short periods of time being impossible in non-doped athletes.

aurelio_-_banned

donrhummy wrote:

You can't just say, "a huge jump in watts shows something is suspect," without providing evidence of WHY that's suspect. It's simple. Provide ONE study, just one, that looked at jumps in watts over short periods of time being impossible in non-doped athletes.

I would say that it would make much more sense for you to provide details of studies showing that a large increase in watts over a short period of time is possible in someone who has been an elite-level athlete for a number of years. For one that is the way science works, demonstrating what is possible. It is also a logical nonsense to claim that a study can `prove` that something is `impossible` as much as it to say that observing 100,000 swans all of which were white proves that it is impossible for a black swan to exist.

The philosophy of science aside, such a study would run counter to the vast amount of research done over the years relating to the time-course of adaptations in elite level athletes. For example, it is known that one`s VO2 max will be within a few percentage points of it`s maximum possible value within a year of undertaking full-time training. In effect this parameter is determined by one`s genetics. For example, see:

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/timecors.htm

The ability to utilise blood lactate will plateau after only three years or so, and only efficiency can be improved over a long period. However the gains in power output to be had from an improved efficiency is pretty minimal, one reason why the claim that Armstrong improved his power output by 8% or more through increases in efficiency were always questioned, and of course have now been debunked and have even been called a `hoax`. See:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09 ... rrors.html

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09 ... ent-2.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sport ... cling.html

Chris Boardman and Peter Keen did a vast amount of work on the likelihood of increasing ones power output when already racing at the elite level, and they concluded that, if you were really lucky and dedicated, gains of just 5 watts per year might be possible for a few years.

In short your claim that very substantial increases in power are possible in a short time in someone who has already raced at the elite level for a number of years runs counter to all that is known about exercise physiology.

True, all the collated evidence to date does not prove that such changes are impossible, but, given the weight of the existing evidence, such a claim is rather akin to someone claiming that it is possible to overcome the force of gravity and to fly by means of flapping ones arms. It is NOT up to the skeptic to provide a study showing that this is `not possible`, all they have to do is to point to the body of existing scientific evidence. Rather, it is up to the person claiming that the established laws of science are wrong to prove their claims by means of showing that it is possible.

aurelio_-_banned

donrhummy wrote:

In fact, if you've ever read the Tabata Protocol study...

From what I have read all that study really shows is that short, very intense efforts can give similar gains in power to more extensive, lower level efforts. This has been well understood for years.

More importantly, elite-level cyclists already make such high-intensity efforts as a matter of course when training so they will already have benefited from the gains to be made from intense efforts. Perhaps if there were an endurance athlete who did nothing more than long, slow distance work all their careers and then suddenly introduced high level efforts they might well find their performance increased significantly. However, I very much doubt that Armstrong never went harder than club run pace until 1999!

emadden

I just came across this on Graham Watson's website in the "Ask Graham" section:

Question: Hi Graham, I have enjoy your wonderful coverage of cycling immensely over the years and respect your knowledge of the sport. Why does Greg Lemond, who was a cycling hero in his day continue to try and discredit and harass Lance only making a fool of himself?


Answer: Luc, I think it is obvious that Greg resents that another American cyclist has won more Tours de France than he did. Jealousy is a bit of a strong word to use here, but effectively that is what this is. You also have to consider the massive loss of earnings for Greg, once LA surpassed the three Tours total of Greg, back in 2001. Until then, Greg would have been getting a load of money endorsing products or for making personal appearances. That's almost all gone now, while he sees Lance making even more money while out of the sport, as well as enjoying the riches those seven Tour victories bought him. Resentment, jealousy, or a lowered earning capacity - either way, Greg would have made more money and kept his huge following of fans if he had stayed silent, gracefully... GW


I think from his answer it is quite clear what side of the fence GW is on... GW gets a huge amount of work from Lance/Astana

Patrick1.0

aurelio wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

In fact, if you've ever read the Tabata Protocol study...

From what I have read all that study really shows is that short, very intense efforts can give similar gains in power to more extensive, lower level efforts. This has been well understood for years.

More importantly, elite-level cyclists already make such high-intensity efforts as a matter of course when training so they will already have benefited from the gains to be made from intense efforts. Perhaps if there were an endurance athlete who did nothing more than long, slow distance work all their careers and then suddenly introduced high level efforts they might well find their performance increased significantly. However, I very much doubt that Armstrong never went harder than club run pace until 1999!

I quoted this one but I am referring to your post above, too. First of all, have you read some of the comments from people on those articles? Those seeming to have knowledge of the subject appear fairly unconvinced at all by the claims that the error made by Coyle is threatening to the research and it's findings. An example would be the fact that they question what difference it makes whether the zero load work rate is included in the study or not so long as it is consistently included or not. The increase in efficiency is still 8% and no alternative explanation, other than an increase in muscular efficiency is given.


I also think that you are underestimating the value of training in the high mountains, in this post. The advances in muscular development and the lactate threshold must be pretty huge if you're constantly cycling uphill with your heart rate somewhere between 165 and 185. This is not to mention the effects of altitude on the body's production of red blood cells.

To my knowledge, Lance did not train in the mountains prior to his cancer. H ealso did not go as deeply into the more scientific aspects of training and I also believe his workload was less. I believe it is common sense to assume that performance levels went up due to those factors.

Richrd2205

Patrick1.0
That's lovely, really, it is...
We've heard it all already but. You've put this same argument already 10+ times in so many threads. As if the same argument hasn't done the rounds every time before that...
Just stop already, please!
I like your passion, but you're just butting heads now...
I don't mean to be rude, but these same arguments come up every time LA gets mentioned & it gets a bit dull. Maybe you'd appreciate the "search" function. Using that might save us a lot of time & may elucidate you to some degree.
You'll win neither arguments nor friends nor any respect, so maybe now's the time to stop. Unless you're trolling, then you'll carry on regardless...
Love & hugs

aurelio_-_banned

Patrick1.0 wrote:

have you read some of the comments from people on those articles? Those seeming to have knowledge of the subject appear fairly unconvinced at all by the claims that the error made by Coyle is threatening to the research and it's findings. An example would be the fact that they question what difference it makes whether the zero load work rate is included in the study or not so long as it is consistently included or not...

It is true that the error in the calculations do not in themselves wholly account for the differences Coyle reported. However they do show a lack of scientific rigour. Also there are a number of other more significant problems with the study. For example, the efficiency calculations are based on a measure of Watts per kg, but these figures themselves are based on little more than assumptions as to what his weight actually was when riding the Tour! Also, Coyle has refused to release the raw data and without this - and so the possibility of proper peer review - the paper is scientifically worthless.

Patrick1.0 wrote:

I also think that you are underestimating the value of training in the high mountains, in this post...To my knowledge, Lance did not train in the mountains prior to his cancer.

In reality Armstrong moved to Lake Como in the Italian Alps in order to train within months of turning pro for Motorola.

Patrick1.0 wrote:

He also did not go as deeply into the more scientific aspects of training and I also believe his workload was less.

This claim that a higher workload inevitably leads to higher levels of performance is one of the biggest myths in cycling. Upping ones workload from 5 hours a day to 6 hours per day, or doing even more intense intervals is much more likely to lead to fatigue and overtraining than an increase in performance. The optimum training load can be quite modest. (You yourself have pointed to studies showing that even a couple of minutes per day of very intense efforts can bring about noticeable improvements). I think there is a lot to be said for the argument that pros ride at a higher level because they have so much more opportunity to rest and so benefit from the over-compensation effects which come from training. (That and the use of Epo, `800 ml of packed cells` testosterone and so on!).

Patrick1.0

Richrd2205 wrote:

Patrick1.0
That's lovely, really, it is...
We've heard it all already but. You've put this same argument already 10+ times in so many threads. As if the same argument hasn't done the rounds every time before that...
Just stop already, please!
I like your passion, but you're just butting heads now...
I don't mean to be rude, but these same arguments come up every time LA gets mentioned & it gets a bit dull. Maybe you'd appreciate the "search" function. Using that might save us a lot of time & may elucidate you to some degree.
You'll win neither arguments nor friends nor any respect, so maybe now's the time to stop. Unless you're trolling, then you'll carry on regardless...
Love & hugs

I don't recall making the same post multiple times. If I have, I apologise. In this case, I was just commenting on the article and including obvious explanations for an increase in performance level. Why is that trolling? Thank you for your concerns.


Aurelio, I think we can both see that training has to be well balanced with stress and recovery but I also think that training harder and smarter will lead to a higher performance level. All I would point out on that front is that Lance, whether he took steroids or epo or not, clearly got better due in at least part to his training methods being better post cancer as opposed to pre, which is in itself interesting when we analyse the science.

Kléber

"I don't think it is irrelevant," said Catlin...Armstrong stepped in. "It's time for us... to move on. We are not going to go there...next question."

The promised "transparency" is already looking shakey. One awkward question and he can't confront it, "we are not going to go there". Why not simply say, "sure Greg, good point and I'll go out of my way to satisfy your legitimate questions"?

aurelio_-_banned

Patrick1.0 wrote:

I also think that training harder and smarter will lead to a higher performance level.

In other words you are arguing that prior to 1999 Armstrong not only had an unfocused and even lazy attitude to training, even with the aid of his coaches, managers and other advisers he had never learnt what types of training worked for him. I find this very hard to believe given Armstrong`s personality and the years he had spent as a pro.

Patrick1.0 wrote:

Lance, whether he took steroids or epo or not, clearly got better due in at least part to his training methods being better post cancer as opposed to pre.

Is that merely a statement of faith or can you give some details as to how Armstrong changed his training methods?

We also need to bear in mind the huge transformation that saw Armstrong go from a Tour also-ran (who had his ass kicked in the mountains, couldn`t time trial, who packed in his first two Tours and then when he did manage to complete the race finished one and half hours behind the winner) to being an unbeatable 7 times `winner`. A new intervals regime or whatever that could work such wonders would be truly miraculous, especially one that could work its transformational magic in little more than 12 months and when the rider in question had already been racing at the top level for 6 years!

leguape

Kléber wrote:

"I don't think it is irrelevant," said Catlin...Armstrong stepped in. "It's time for us... to move on. We are not going to go there...next question."

The promised "transparency" is already looking shakey. One awkward question and he can't confront it, "we are not going to go there". Why not simply say, "sure Greg, good point and I'll go out of my way to satisfy your legitimate questions"?

Oh come on! Greg was trying to run the Lemond show in someone else's press conference. He has was given first question and in a press conference that's a pretty priveleged position. You know what, as much as it made for great, easy copy for most hacks, I'd be pretty bored of hearing Greg repeat the same things he's told the world and his dog in a hundred and one interviews. I could get that with a google search, I don't need him wheeling it out in person. Armstrong told him that was Caitlin's bag and Greg and Don were apparently seen having a chat afterwards.

Heck he could have at least listened and given interviews afterwards, but no Greg wants to be grandstand it in front of Lance. There's plenty of footage on youtube of that moment when Greg's going off his rocker at his DS over Hinault refusing to ride for him, so don't for one moment pretend he's not a man with an ego and the ability to be every bit as ego-driven as Lance.

micron

He wasn't granted the first question at all - he simply had the balls to stand up before anyone else spoke and asked it. I understand how boring it must be to listen to legitimate criticism Leguape when it interrupts your worldview but, nevertheless, legitimate criticism it is and deserves to be asked and asked and asked again until honest and transparent responses are forthcoming. However, the next time I get questioned about cheating I'll just tell the police or my employers to 'move on' shall I?

Like Kimmage says, you don't pick and choose what you're transparent about - it's an all or nothing thing. Any obfuscation automatically makes you look lihe you have something to hide. Armstrong needs to look at PR gaffes like this very carefully.

micron

Patrick, you may find this interesting:

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/0 ... .has.ended

After all, one of the great benefits of EPO is the way it aids recovery

desco

I see that the bit left out from the quote in the first quotation in this thread tosses the ball back into LeMonds court

"I don't think it is irrelevant," said Catlin. "I dare say you know this business pretty well! Come with your ideas of what we should do!"

This gives LeMond the opportunity not just to seek to grandstand at another's press conference but to interact with Catlin as to best practice for testing. Armstrong has said that he will do whatever Catlin recommends. Let's see what detailed ideas LeMond comes up with.