Deafening Silence
Comments
-
aurelio I don't believe I have volunteered my opinion one way or another as to whether it took place or not, so I cannot have changed the position I am arguing.
My point is, you like it to come across as fact, but my point is that I have seen it mentioned or alluded to several times in the media, and there are conflicting accounts. Perhaps you ought to apply your own high standards across the board, even if it does lead to those poor confused fanboys missing your point from time to time...
Coyle does not specifically mention the blood bag incident, just a row between Landis and Bruyneel. He may have known the full story, or maybe just got wind of the row - who knows? But it does tie in with what Whittle had to say about the incident, in terms of when it took place.
As for Walsh's comments , it was a live radio interview - very different from a book which has been worked on, checked, and polished for months. You have to listen to it. Do you think he put the IM conversartion into print *without* talking to Vaughters? (it's clear from his Competitor Radio interview that he has spoken to JV). And if he did talk to Vaughters, do you think he wouldn't have discussed this story with him?
Lastly, doping or not, Landis was a pretty good rider. Losing 30-odd seconds early int he race to the GC favourites is not something which you can draw conclusions from. He could have sat up in the last 500 m, for example, or been told by Bruyneel to ease off.
What's clear from Coyle's account was that Landis was riding on rage and with a point to prove on the stage to le Grand Bornand.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
That quote seems to have been wiped from the internet, so I post my source below. Much of it is very relevant to the discussion so far, including Landis' 'alleged' comments about using refrigerated motorbikes to transport blood.aurelio wrote:Armstrong told Prentice Steffen "I have a lot of money, good lawyers, and if you continue to talk, I'll destroy you"
L'EQUIPE
October 6, 2005, page 12.
English translation of "Ce qui s'est passe sur le Tour 2005".
Photo
Prentice Steffen, USA, 44 years old
-Specialist in both Emergency Medicine, in San Francisco (USA), and Sports Medicine
-Worked successively for the cycling teams Subaru-Montgomery (1993-1995), US Postal (1996), Mercury (1998-2002), Prime Alliance (2003), Health Net (2004), then TIAA-CREF (2005)
Prentice Steffen, the ex-doctor for US Postal let go at the end of 1996 for not wanting to respond to the doping trend, reveals the new practices of the peloton.
"What happened during the 2005 Tour (de France)"
Dr. Prentice Steffen, his diplomas attest to the fact, is a model doctor. Specialist in both Emergency Medicine and Sports Medicine, he worked for four years, from 1993-1996, with the American cyclists of the teams Subaru-Montgomery then US Postal. In 1996, "during the height of the reign of EPO", his riders were totally destroyed during the Tour of Switzerland and two among them, Marty Jemison and Tyler Hamilton, asked him in veiled words to help them dope. He refused and alerted the team directors. At the end of the year, his contract was not renewed and one morning the mailman delivered him a registered letter with the intimidation order to not talk about his experience in the heart of US Postal. "A few months later," he remembers, "the nine riders of the team rode the Champs-Elysees of the finish of the 1997 Tour de France. I realized they'd move on to EPO...". Today, despite threats from Lance Armstrong (1), Dr. Steffen is still in the milieu (of cycling). He takes care of a team of young American professionals (TIAA-CREF) which disputed the latest edition of the Tour de l'Avenir.
L'EQUIPE:
With all that you know about doping and the practices of a part of the peleton, why are you involved with young cyclists"
STEFFEN:
The pressure to dope for riders under the age of 25 is not so strong. Big teams don't want to see young guys arrive in their ranks with an already bad reputation. There's also the fact of being able to race in France. It's easier. If we come to race in France, with our team of young riders, it's not because our sponsor loves Avignon and Provence, but rather because we know we have a better chance to do well, even win. Thanks to the fear of the police, thanks to the journalists, and thanks to the fight against doping in place in your country. French riders, maybe due to these forces, have tried to change. We only race in your country and in the United States.
L'EQUIPE:
Your young riders are knowledgeable about doping?
STEFFEN:
They have a very clear understanding about things and about the environment they're in. To be among the best, one has to dope. For them, it's certain. I don't think they doubt it for an instant. But there are people fighting to change this situation. Jonathon Vaughters, the director of our team, is working to make it so that there is another path. But if things don't change, riders who are 20 years old today, in five years will have to make a choice: stop racing or dope.
L'EQUIPE:
Is it possible today to recognize those who'll take that step?
STEFFEN:
Even if we had a team psychologist who knew each rider intimately, who fully understood the problem of doping, I'm not sure he could know. If someone had asked me this question about Tyler Hamilton 10 or 11 years ago, I would've said: "He'll never do it. He's too honest, too well raised, too hard working... ". But that's not how it works. Unpleasant people like Lance Armstrong dope and nice people like Tyler Hamilton also dope. There's a moment when they waver. As if they don't have a choice. The only other solution would be to stop cycling. But they see themselves with a future, without a job. I think a rider with a college degree or from a family with money will be less likely to get involved in doping. But that's just a theory; Tyler Hamilton has a degree... he probably had other options. That proves that at a certain point there's something stronger that anything else that pushes a rider in (to doping). Maybe glory, maybe money.
L'EQUIPE:
Why, after all the difficulties you've endured, do you continue to work in this milieu (cycling)?
STEFFEN:
I love cycling. I've been in cycling for 26 years, since I was in college. But I promised myself something, and my wife can serve as witness: if Hamilton is declared innocent and nothing happens to Lance, I'll quit, I'll quit cycling once and for all. I'll believe there's no longer any hope. For now though, I'm optimistic. I'm a believer in using everything in the judicial arsenal to combat doping: increase the number of out-of-competition tests and better target the times they're done, freeze specimens and authorize their analysis and retrospective sanctions. And callon, when it's necessary, the police and the border controls. Above all, the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) should be completely out of this fight against doping because their is corruption there. That's my opinion, I don't have any proof, just doubts and a few rumors...
L'EQUIPE:
Aren't you a bit radical?
STEFFEN:
It's this way and only this way that we will really be able to combat doping. I'll explain something I've been told relating to certain teams in the 2005 Tour and you'll understand where this sport has gone...
L'EQUIPE:
Who told you?
STEFFEN:
Someone in the heart of a team that I can't name. Before going to the start of the Tour, the riders of certain teams, during their training camps, took EPO (which disappears from the urine within three days, even 12 hours when small doses are used) and took their hematocrits up to around 60. Then a doctor withdraws their blood, saving it in special containers, to lower their blood parameters into the accepted range (50) so that they pass without difficulty the medical controls before the Tour. Then, as the teams well know, during the race the vampires (2) can arrive any day but always between 7 and 8 in the morning. After that time, there is no more testing and the riders were able to reinject their own blood. They were racing the stage with an enormous advantage- their hemotrocrit in the 55 to 58 range during the race- then in the evening at the hotel, someone again withdraws their blood so that they sleep without risk (3) and, especially, they escape the possible tests the next morning.
L'EQUIPE:
This practice was used every evening during the three weeks of the Tour?
STEFFEN:
No, just for important stages in the mountains or maybe for a time trial. It's so simple to do and there's no risk of being caught unless the police intervene. The blood was shuttled by motorcycle in a refrigerated compartment...
L'EQUIPE:
Autotransfusions (where one injects his own blood) are indetectable. Can nothing be done to stop it?
STEFFEN:
Yes. The vampires should come take the blood samples just before the start near the start line. It's the only solution. Or otherwise, once again we must call on the police...
DOMINIQUE and JEAN ISSARTEL
(1) After the publication of his testimony about Jemison and Hamilton in an article in the Sunday Times of London in 2001 when he expressed his certainty that US Postal had begun doping, Dr. Steffen received a phone call from Armstrong in which he threatened him in the following terms (the same that he used against Greg LeMond and Mike Anderson, his former personal assistant): "I have a lot of money, good lawyers, and if you continue to talk, I'll destroy you."
(2) The UCI antidoping control officers are thus nicknamed in cycling.
(3) When certain blood parameters (hemoglobin, hematocrit) are too high, there is a real risk of blood clots due to thickening of the blood.
(4) UCI antidoping rules sayin article 135 that "a test can be carried out in competion or out-of-competition at any time and at any place without warning". In this particular case, no rider can be declared positive because autotransfusions are indetectable. But if the blood parameters are abnormal, the authorities can forbid the rider to continue the race and can impose a rest period of 15 days.0 -
I hadn't seen that interview. So that's two sources suggesting that the US Postal team used a motorbike with special panniers to transport the packed cells to the race.0
-
But it is quite possible to identify which accounts are 'misquotations' by referring to the wording of the original transcript. That such 'misquotations' exist does not undermine the credibility or otherwise of that original source.DaveyL wrote:my point is that I have seen it mentioned or alluded to several times in the media, and there are conflicting accounts.
Thing is, nowhere in his book which was 'worked on, checked and polished for months' does he say that the 'alleged' incident took place on the second rest day either...DaveyL wrote:As for Walsh's comments , it was a live radio interview - very different from a book which has been worked on, checked, and polished for months...
Perhaps he did talk to Vaughters, but in all likelihood Vaughters was unwilling to give any additional details, especially given that by this point he had already been forced to sign a 'retraction' statement by Armstrong's legal Rottweilers and was doubtlessly under some sort of 'gagging order'.0 -
the thing with the JV instant messaging is , was it direct from landis to JV, or 3rd party gossip JV picked up?. JV dismissed it did he not...or the judge would not accept it as evidence...why, i can't remember...0
-
As I have said before, it often amazes me how so much materiel relating to the activities of Armstrong seems to have been wiped from the net, including the original sources. It's positively Orwellian!Kléber wrote:I hadn't seen that interview. So that's two sources suggesting that the US Postal team used a motorbike with special panniers to transport the packed cells to the race.0 -
aurelio wrote:
But it is quite possible to identify which accounts are 'misquotations' by referring to the wording of the original transcript. That such 'misquotations' exist does not undermine the credibility or otherwise of that original source.DaveyL wrote:my point is that I have seen it mentioned or alluded to several times in the media, and there are conflicting accounts.
Thing is, nowhere in his book which was 'worked on, checked and polished for months' does he say that the 'alleged' incident took place on the second rest day either...DaveyL wrote:As for Walsh's comments , it was a live radio interview - very different from a book which has been worked on, checked, and polished for months...
Perhaps he did talk to Vaughters, but in all likelihood Vaughters was unwilling to give any additional details, especially given that by this point he had already been forced to sign a 'retraction' statement by Armstrong's legal Rottweilers and was doubtlessly under some sort of 'gagging order'.
It is not a misquotation if it comes from a different source.
There are many reasons Walsh could have witheld more detail - getting hold of the IM conversation from Betsy Andreu does not show that Vaughters was complicit in coming out against Armstrong, but getting more detail on that particular story would have implicated Vaughters, which, as you point out, he did not want to do at the time. Or he maybe felt it was too much irrelevant detail. Who knows? Bu the way Walsh talks about it in the interview, suggests he knows more detail than was disclosed in the book. Why do you think Walsh would speculate like this?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
True enough as a statement of general principle, but you have yet to provide such a 'second source'...DaveyL wrote:It is not a misquotation if it comes from a different source.
I think that the earlier part of your post may well answer the question you pose further on.DaveyL wrote:getting more detail on that particular story would have implicated Vaughters... Why do you think Walsh would speculate like this?
One thing is for sure, a popular tactic of Armstrong's legal team is to serve legal 'gagging orders' on those who might give further details on or corroborate what people like Walsh have uncovered. (As with the recent moves to stop Kristin Armstrong from being called in the Lemond /Trek case, as witness to Armstrong’s declaration that he was going to get Trek to 'go after' Lemond).0 -
So if Armstrong doped and Kohl is correct that all the top riders dope then is there even a sport left? What is there to be celebrated?0
-
That is a very good question.Crown Jewel wrote:So if Armstrong doped and Kohl is correct that all the top riders dope then is there even a sport left? What is there to be celebrated?
By the way, some on here like to pretend that doping has no real effect on the outcome of events.
I recently come across some figures on the effectiveness of Epo use and blood doping from an article published in October 2005 in the Swiss paper La Liberté. Their journalist talked to one Professor Michel Audran, a specialist in blood doping at the University of Montpellier. He talked about how micro-dosing can give all the benefits of Epo use whilst leaving no detectable traces in the rider’s blood after only a few hours. In regards to blood doping he said that the effectiveness was 'formidable', noting that a Swedish researcher called Björn Ekblom had found that an injection of 750 millilitres of concentrated red blood cells increased VO2max by 12.8%, with these benefits being apparent immediately.
Audran also said that the only effective way to control Epo use and blood doping (58% is apparently the optimum haemocrit level for racing) is the use on on-the-line blood testing. The UCI must surely know this and their failure to implement such a scheme shows the truth worth of their so-called 'fight' against doping.0 -
Yes, it can hardly be called a surprise test if you show up at the same time every day...0
-
Main point is that all the tests and profiling in the world are a waste of time if the riders than just retire to the team bus before the start to 'top up' their blood to 58% or so and then draw the blood out again later. (And post stage haemocrit testing is also pointless as the riders would just cry 'dehydration'....).Crown Jewel wrote:Yes, it can hardly be called a surprise test if you show up at the same time every day...
And to think, I used to love this ‘sport’ so much…0 -
aurelio wrote:True enough as a statement of general principle, but you have yet to provide such a 'second source'...
Why don't you ask Whittle who his source was? Or more to the point, ask Vaughters who his source was - unless you think Vaughters was present at the time. See where I'm going with this?aurelio wrote:I think that the earlier part of your post may well answer the question you pose further on.
One thing is for sure, a popular tactic of Armstrong's legal team is to serve legal 'gagging orders' on those who might give further details on or corroborate what people like Walsh have uncovered. (As with the recent moves to stop Kristin Armstrong from being called in the Lemond /Trek case, as witness to Armstrong’s declaration that he was going to get Trek to 'go after' Lemond).
Walsh is able to be a lot less circumspect than Vaughters, for obvious reasons. Again I pose the question, why do you think the additional detail is pure speculation on Walsh's part, with no insight from someone in the know? Why would he bother, in the context of the radio interview? He could simply have just regurgitated what was in the book.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
aurelio wrote:
Main point is that all the tests and profiling in the world are a waste of time if the riders than just retire to the team bus before the start to 'top up' their blood to 58% or so and then draw the blood out again later. (And post stage haemocrit testing is also pointless as the riders would just cry 'dehydration'....).Crown Jewel wrote:Yes, it can hardly be called a surprise test if you show up at the same time every day...
And to think, I used to love this ‘sport’ so much…
Yes, if only we could go back to the pure, good old 80s. Er.... 70s. Er..... 60s. Er.... 50s. etc.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
FFS, because he says 'I IMAGINE it was the second rest day, NOT 'It was the second rest day'. :roll:DaveyL wrote:why do you think the additional detail is pure speculation on Walsh's part...
To make his extemporised narrative flow better, probably.DaveyL wrote:Why would he bother, in the context of the radio interview?
In effect he did as in the book he doesn't say on what day the 'alleged' incident occurred either.DaveyL wrote:He could simply have just regurgitated what was in the book.0 -
Don't know what you mean by that. There has always been doping in cycling so in that sense there never was any 'pure good old days'. That said at least 'old school' doping didn’t have the power to turn also-rans into multiple Tour 'winners' as modern doping can, so turning the racing into nothing more than meaningless 'sports entertainment'.DaveyL wrote:if only we could go back to the pure, good old 80s. Er.... 70s. Er..... 60s. Er.... 50s. etc.0 -
Mottet could still get near the TdF podium in the 80s and put together a string of very decent palmares whilst riding clean (cf Will Voet) - would he have been able to achieve that in today's peloton?0
-
aurelio wrote:
FFS, because he says 'I IMAGINE it was the second rest day, NOT 'It was the second rest day'. :roll:DaveyL wrote:why do you think the additional detail is pure speculation on Walsh's part...
To make his extemporised narrative flow better, probably.DaveyL wrote:Why would he bother, in the context of the radio interview?
In effect he did as in the book he doesn't say on what day the 'alleged' incident occurred either.DaveyL wrote:He could simply have just regurgitated what was in the book.
To make his narrative flow better. Gotta love it.
I give in Howard. You're right. You're always right. Walshy and I should know better.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
aurelio wrote:Crown Jewel wrote:
And to think, I used to love this ‘sport’ so much…
Mmmm you give the impression that your raison d'être is the whole issues surrounding the taking of PEDs, i doubt youve ever loved the sport.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Had Vandevelde collected the palmares Mottet did then that might be a viable comparison - setting aside the fact that Vandevelde's choice of teams (US Postal/Liberty Seguros/CSC) reads like a 'who's who' of (allegedly) great doping teams of the Noughties).0
-
No, but it does answer the part about a rider getting near the podium. Not sure he would have managed it 5 or 10 years ago though, on the Garmin philosophy.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
it is interesting to see that Rooks is admitting he couldn't get his hands on EPO until 1990...tried it after his best years...it merely underlines the non availibility of the product in the late 80s and forces us yet again to accept that guys like Indurain riding well in 1988,89 were like cleanish-not epo enhanced, that Riis' climbing work for Fignon at 89 TDF likewise was cleanish...IMO had no EPO come along Indurain would still have won many TDFs and Rominger no GTs, and Bugno, no Giro...0
-
We'll never know, Dave. Which is why it's pointless to speculate about it.
However, there is plenty of evidence from those riders who spanned the two eras to strongly suggest that riders who couldn't climb before suddenly had wings.
For every Bjarne Riis there was an Andy Hampsten.0 -
Maybe, but it also forces the conclusion that there is every reason to believe that his vastly better performances between 91 and 95, including all 5 of his Tour ‘wins’ were fuelled by Epo...Dave_1 wrote:it is interesting to see that Rooks is admitting he couldn't get his hands on EPO until 1990...it merely underlines the non availibility of the product in the late 80s and forces us yet again to accept that guys like Indurain riding well in 1988,89 were like cleanish-not epo enhanced .0 -
andyp wrote:We'll never know, Dave. Which is why it's pointless to speculate about it.
However, there is plenty of evidence from those riders who spanned the two eras to strongly suggest that riders who couldn't climb before suddenly had wings.
For every Bjarne Riis there was an Andy Hampsten.
true...am to some extent playing devils advocate...just a little frustrating, was Rolf Jarman any good, Giorgio Furlan, Colombo any good? i trust Mottet, Lemond, fignon's careers were down to ability more than doping... Romginger was someone nobody heard anything from as a GT GC rider, or climber or TT rider at GT level even in the late 1980s ..but Rominger's official line was he suffered from hayfever every summer and got it cured in 1992..erh... just about the time EPO use started funnily enough, likewise Indurain claimed weight loss miracle just about when EPO started, and Gianni Bugno...that form spike in spring 1990 ending 1992-GT winning ability strongly suggest EPO use but we respect him still..he won a stage 88 TDF though but a flat one..no climber.....anyway...you're right, i am in pointless speculation actually..we'll never know
is a Bugno really a bit of a nobody we shouldn't give the time of day to or a great? I think he's more of a nobody , indurain someone we can still respect... 0 -
aurelio wrote:
Maybe, but it also forces the conclusion that there is every reason to believe that his vastly better performances between 91 and 95, including all 5 of his Tour ‘wins’ were fuelled by Epo...Dave_1 wrote:it is interesting to see that Rooks is admitting he couldn't get his hands on EPO until 1990...it merely underlines the non availibility of the product in the late 80s and forces us yet again to accept that guys like Indurain riding well in 1988,89 were like cleanish-not epo enhanced .
deafening silence from you Aurelio you finally been taken out by the mods or LA's eye drfited from cyclingnews.com to the bikeradar logo?....would not surprise me ?? 0 -
Fignon,recently revealing he has cancer,has informed his doctors of the doping practices he undertook when racing.Dave_1 wrote:[
true...am to some extent playing devils advocate...just a little frustrating, was Rolf Jarman any good, Giorgio Furlan, Colombo any good? i trust Mottet, Lemond, fignon's careers were down to ability more than doping... ...
Admittedly,it wasn't EPO,but took whatever was available at the time & he reccons he took what everyone else was taking at the time.If he deprived a clean rider of a result,then Fignon didn't rely on ability,did he?so many cols,so little time!0 -
nick hanson wrote:
Fignon,recently revealing he has cancer,has informed his doctors of the doping practices he undertook when racing.Dave_1 wrote:[
true...am to some extent playing devils advocate...just a little frustrating, was Rolf Jarman any good, Giorgio Furlan, Colombo any good? i trust Mottet, Lemond, fignon's careers were down to ability more than doping... ...
Admittedly,it wasn't EPO,but took whatever was available at the time & he reccons he took what everyone else was taking at the time.If he deprived a clean rider of a result,then Fignon didn't rely on ability,did he?
well, it was an open secret and IMO everyone dabbled, pea shooters in those days, not ballistic missiles like EPO...and I didn't know if Laurent Fignon admitted to anything serious beyond amphets...but actualy..what would YOU know about pro cycling to convince me or anyone that you've got the vaguest clue what the sport was like in 1980s? ID yourself and then we'll decide if you have any cred.. ? :roll:0 -
Dave_1 wrote:nick hanson wrote:
Fignon,recently revealing he has cancer,has informed his doctors of the doping practices he undertook when racing.Dave_1 wrote:[
true...am to some extent playing devils advocate...just a little frustrating, was Rolf Jarman any good, Giorgio Furlan, Colombo any good? i trust Mottet, Lemond, fignon's careers were down to ability more than doping... ...
Admittedly,it wasn't EPO,but took whatever was available at the time & he reccons he took what everyone else was taking at the time.If he deprived a clean rider of a result,then Fignon didn't rely on ability,did he?
well, it was an open secret and IMO everyone dabbled, pea shooters in those days, not ballistic missiles like EPO...and I didn't know if Laurent Fignon admitted to anything serious beyond amphets...but actualy..what would YOU know about pro cycling to convince me or anyone that you've got the vaguest clue what the sport was like in 1980s? ID yourself and then we'll decide if you have any cred.. ? :roll:
Agree with Dave here... The cheating of the 60's, 70's and early- mid 80's was at a whole different level to what came later. Possibly not pea shooters, but it was as likely to make you wobble around in a comedy manner or go a bit squiffy as it was to turn you into a thoroughbred winnign machine. Kimmage's book, for example reads like a quaint little memoir knowing about refridgerated motorbikes, madrid blood banks, quick hops over the border to get a top up etc."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0
