Armstrong interview from the comic

iainf72

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/Lan ... 73248.html

It's a reasonable one actually.

Feel free to pick holes in his revisionism

PS - Did any of the questions seem familar?

sicrow

Yeah read the article and it had nothing that I didn't expect him to say, but fair play he's starting off more open than he finished and for me the profile of Livestrong next year will directly benefit his charity and other cancer charities too so i'm looking forward to next year even the TDU !!!

dave_1

Lance A is really cagey on the question of VO2 max...Lemond has definitely turned up the heat a few degrees too high for him on that subject...

Gazzetta67

Why wasnt he asked about his Bully tactics against Simeoni ? maybe the Journo thought he might be blacklisted eh.

Armstrong`s ego cant help itself. is this the guy who fears an attack from the roadside.
so if he`s that paranoid why ride the damn event ? lets face it if he`s going into the Mountains ahead of Contador Bruyneel will tell him to work for Armstrong.. would love another repeat of the Roche-Visentini Giro 87. Heard the new film about armstrong is to be called "The Ego has Landed" starring the UCI - Yes Lance we will Bend the rules just to suit you

dave_1

Gazzetta67 wrote:

Why wasnt he asked about his Bully tactics against Simeoni ? maybe the Journo thought he might be blacklisted eh.

Armstrong`s ego cant help itself. is this the guy who fears an attack from the roadside.
so if he`s that paranoid why ride the damn event ? lets face it if he`s going into the Mountains ahead of Contador Bruyneel will tell him to work for Armstrong.. would love another repeat of the Roche-Visentini Giro 87. Heard the new film about armstrong is to be called "The Ego has Landed" starring the UCI - Yes Lance we will Bend the rules just to suit you

Surely it will be good for cycling as it is great to see conflict like that between Hinault and Lemond , like Visentini-Roche....

Kléber

He says his haematocrit count was 39 for the 2003 Tour. I'd like to see him publish his count from now on, so we can track changes. More importantly, a check done "on the start line" is essential.

He's still in denial. He says "What works is super talent and super hard work. Those are the big factors" which is very true but these factors tend to explain a rider's progress from amateur to elite level, not from professional to GC contender, it would be nice if he'd explain more how to manage to outfox riders with a 60% plus haematocrit.

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

He says his haematocrit count was 39 for the 2003 Tour. I'd like to see him publish his count from now on, so we can track changes. More importantly, a check done "on the start line" is essential.

Surely this can be verified. The results of the vampires checks must have been recorded somewhere?

I enjoy the way he turned the urine sample being "too clean" into something to support his "I'm clean" stance. Because it's normal to have urine like water, eh?

Kléber

Yes, they keep the data, as we saw for Pantani. It would be nice to see it released but I think the data was given under conditions of medical secrecy. But the important thing is not the count itself but the variation, as large variations are not just a sign of fatigue, dehyrdration or blood doping but also plasma manipulation.

iainf72

Kleber, this is the new cuddly open Lance. I'm confident if we asked him he would gladly open the records for us to have a look.

It looks like Dr Ferrari kept pretty good records of his riders levels so perhaps he could be of some assistance?

iainf72

Another curious thing, if he only had his VO2Max tested when he was "16" or something, what's he playing at in the picture here?

http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coyle/armstrong.php

Heck, even Dr Ferrari seems to know what his value is and he didn't really work with Lance. Just had him over for dinner with his wife and Stefano.

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=47

Lance, old pal, it takes a very good memory to be a convincing liar. And you clearly don't have one.

Kléber

He could just be doing a different gaseous analysis, no need for VO2 max.

But given that a max or ramp (aka Conconi) test is the cornerstone of his training, whether it was in the lab or on the slopes of La Madone behind nice or on Els Angels near Girona, he knows full well what his VO2 max is and how it changed. More recently he's opened a training centre and lab with former team mate Kevin Livingstone and he twattered about doing "a power test" which isn't strictly the same but to think he hasn't done once for 20 years :roll:

For the man who would weigh his food portions and more to feign ignorance is silly. He is not helping himself, surely he knows people will read his words and examine them?

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

For the man who would weigh his food portions and more to feign ignorance is silly. He is not helping himself, surely he knows people will read his words and examine them?

He clearly believes his cancer mission gives him some kind of Jedi Mind Power and we will just accept what he says.

Although, I feel it works a lot of the time. I was told a few days ago that the Lemond was only jealous of Lance and was also "a lazy frog".

skavanagh.bikeradar

I thought that the interview was about as tough as you are going to get from an organisation that needs to put Armstrong on the cover and pages 3,5,8,12,34,53 and 76 for the next 8 months.

jimmythecuckoo

Garmin, Columbia, the French teams have been outspoken in the anti-doping fight…
I don't think it's fair to highlight Garmin and Columbia without highighting CSC and Astana.

enjoyed that bit.

aurelio_-_banned

Kléber wrote:

He says his haematocrit count was 39 for the 2003 Tour. I'd like to see him publish his count from now on, so we can track changes.

And yet it was, apparently, `very close` to the 50 percent limit (along with the rest of the USP team) back in 1999. Hardly a natural level of variation! Is this claim, once again, a case of the proof being in the inconsistencies which are so often an inherent part of an attempted cover up?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... hters_1999

As to Armstrong publishing his haemocrit readings from now on, now that his `parameters` are probably already well `optimised` (conveniently, before he has had even a single drop of blood extracted as part of his supposed anti-doping program...) doing so would very probably mean little.

aurelio_-_banned

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

I thought that the interview was about as tough as you are going to get from an organisation that needs to put Armstrong on the cover and pages 3,5,8,12,34,53 and 76 for the next 8 months.

Best of all, this is from a publication that, supposedly, supports drug-free cycling! :roll:
Excuse me if I don`t buy either your rubbish little rag, nor one of your sad little wristbands...

blazing_saddles

1999 and 9 at 49.9......
All we need now, is a scientific link between prolonged EPO use and dementia and it's case closed! 8)

off the back

Good interview and certianly loads of holes in there that will be probbed in more detail - I think the heat is on Lance now. Previously he was not as open and there were no tough questions. Now we see the reverse - he needs to be more open and is facing a much more sceptical media/public. As they say you can fool all of the people some of the time ....etc ( Of course Vanity Fair readers will always believe in Lance!)

I am not sure if we will see proof of doping by Postal/Disco/Lance but I think there is good chance the comeback will unravel before the tour even starts!!

mercsport

I know it's stretching it a bit , but wouldn't it have been wonderful if all the cycling rags had enough cojones and got it together to not mention THE RASCAL at all - other than the briefest of mentions in the results list ?

Yeah , right . Fanciful .

bipedal

Blazing Saddles wrote:

1999 and 9 at 49.9......
All we need now, is a scientific link between prolonged EPO use and dementia and it's case closed! 8)

But we all know that EPO enhances you long-term memory!

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/6/37/abstract

afx237vi

What's a "health book"? I can guess what it is, but who keeps them and what are they used for?

andy_wrx

aurelio wrote:

Excuse me if I don`t buy either your rubbish little rag, nor one of your sad little wristbands...

I bet there's someone, somewhere, wearing a 'I support drug free sport' writsband and alsoa LiveStrong wristband, without any sense of irony...

iainf72

aurelio wrote:

Best of all, this is from a publication that, supposedly, supports drug-free cycling! :roll:
Excuse me if I don`t buy either your rubbish little rag, nor one of your sad little wristbands...

99.9% of your posts are about Armstrong. In your own way, you're just as bad as the magazines you're slating.

But at least they've got commerical pressures.

iainf72

heheheheehehehehe.

Latest Twitter entry

Sitting here shooting the $hi+ w/ Johan and about to go to dinner.

Poor choice of words that man

DaveyL

stagehopper

aurelio wrote:

Kléber wrote:

He says his haematocrit count was 39 for the 2003 Tour. I'd like to see him publish his count from now on, so we can track changes.

And yet it was, apparently, `very close` to the 50 percent limit (along with the rest of the USP team) back in 1999. Hardly a natural level of variation! Is this claim, once again, a case of the proof being in the inconsistencies which are so often an inherent part of an attempted cover up?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... hters_1999

From the next paragraph in your own link:

"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."

In other words the "very close to the 50% limit" comment is utterly meaningless.

Kléber

I doubt that claim. The machines in question are highly accurate and are required to be calibrated prior to use to ensure they give proper results. Read Rendell's book on Pantani for more information on this.

No one just switches it on and pours the blood in, it is used by qualified professional doctors and has to be set up properly. I think Vaughters is just trying to muddy the waters a bit without any proof.

DaveyL

Well, I seem to recall this year when Ashenden analysed some of Millar's samples the ACE values and the UCI ones were slightly out for samples taken the same day and Ashenden commented on calibration issues.

I could be making this up of course, can't remember where i saw it. Maybe it was on bicycling.com?

Kléber

These are sensitive machines. Perhaps a 1-2% change is possible but for stagehopper to say the numbers are "utterly meaningless" because the machines are not properly calibrated is pushing it

blazing_saddles

What's the highest haematocrit you ever registered?
Er…I don't know. Maybe… 45, 46.

Haematocrit is a tricky number. In 2003 I started the Tour at 39. It varies greatly depending on effort the day before, dehydration, altitude.

In the last couple of years I've been 47 48. It doesn't mean I've been out taking illegal drugs. I think starting the Tour at 39, that's a compelling number.

I believe the whole team being at the 50% threshold was highlighted initially from team testing, not the UCI....I may be wrong.

Surely, the above answer tells as all we need to know.
Who think's Catlin's baseline will be at 39%?
Who thinks it will be at 48%?

No wonder they won't get together until LA's good and ready.

Kléber wrote:

These are sensitive machines. Perhaps a 1-2% change is possible but for stagehopper to say the numbers are "utterly meaningless" because the machines are not properly calibrated is pushing it

Ay, I doubt whether a 1999 Marco Pantani would agree with him.

Kléber

In the last couple of years I've been 47 48. It doesn't mean I've been out taking illegal drugs.

No but it means you are taking the time to get your count measured. Perhaps he could publish these test results online so we can verify this, as it could be an attempt to provide cover for a high baseline under the passport scheme.