So what's he on now, lads?

Kléber

RedJohn wrote:

Has Armstrong ever been tested for EPO or anything else performance enhancing?
(Er, yes, maybe once or twice ...)
Has he ever been found to have taken anything he shouldn't?
(err, no ...)

Sorry, you're wrong there. His 1999 samples came back positive for EPO. These samples were tested for research purposes so he can't be sanctioned but read the Ashenden interview linked above for more on this. If you're new to cycling, you'll soon see that the testers are behind the cheaters. A simple example, there simply was no test for EPO in 1999.

RedJohn wrote:

there's a normal distribution curve of ability, a traditional bell curve. So before anyone does anything, there will be a very small number of people who come in at the far right hand end of the curve, who simply have a much greater natural ability than others

This is the point I was making to Dave_1 above. At the extreme end of the bell curve the differences are very small, the difference between the best rider and the second best are tiny. This is what Gaussian distribution is all about and as many studies show, corpological features, whether shoe size or lung capacity, adhere to a Normal distribution. So if you think a clean Armstrong beat Pantani and his 60% haematocrit, it means you have to shelve the Gaussian rule and somehow except a massive outlier, something that's hard to do when Armstrong was coached by Dr Ferrari, a man given a criminal conviction for doping.

Like I say above, read the Ashenden interview in full, invest the time in it, and then come back and we can debate matters.

iainf72

daviesee wrote:

I suspect that his leap in performance was not only to losing upper body mass but I can't prove it. Until I can, I have to give the man the benefit of the doubt.

Can you provide any evidence he lost mass?

No, didn't think so.

TheScouser on an Italian

God forgive that any of you Doubting Thomas merchants ever have to go through the ravages of any form of cancer.The physical and mental disipline that is needed to even get out of bed some days takes some coping with; never mind the effects of the drugs that are the much needed fuel against the cancer, and are an aid to stopping the mind & body from just giving up.The various forms of cancer take their toll in different ways but the one common weapon against them is a mind-set not to let it beat you into lying down and dying before your time because of it.Give the man some credit for his determination and his efforts out there against guys little more than half of his age.
The next thing you will be suggesting is that he could be buying his freedom from more searching finger pointing officials.

iainf72

TheScouser on an Italian wrote:

God forgive that any of you Doubting Thomas merchants ever have to go through the ravages of any form of cancer.

Ahhh, the cloak of cancer! Cancer is terrible. My best friends 8 year old son has had 2 fights with it. I'm perfectly aware of it what it does.

That doesn't change the evidence that makes some of us suspicious.

knedlicky

deejay wrote:

I read somewhere an an interesting idea (assertion, innuendo etc)
The Idea is that the Foundation has developed some more effective Drugs with the $ Millions given to the Charity.

...as I understand his return to Pro Cycle Racing, he is only an unpaid "Guest Rider" to the team

If the Foundation are developing drugs, they are doing it secretly - which at least fits with the 'assertion' that they are first tested on LA. But as far as I know, the Foundation isn't involved in any research work of any type.

How 'unpaid' LA is, depends on your definition. It might be true he isn't paid by Astana, I don't know, but it was reported that he received 250,000 Euro appearance money for turning up in the Giro, paid by the organisers. They also made a 50,000 Euro donation to his Foundation, I suppose so 'hiring' him didn't appear solely a commercial venture. I wouldn't be surprised if Amaury are doing the same.

Kléber

TheScouser on an Italian wrote:

Give the man some credit for his determination and his efforts out there against guys little more than half of his age.

Yes and we should salute Cuesta, Voigt and Goubert who are even older than Armstrong as well.

No one's saying Armstrong didn't need courage to fight his cancer by the way. I'm sure we all know people who've had cancer and who do all they can to cling to life, sometimes with success and luck, and sadly sometimes not. Family, friends and neighbours alike have been through different forms. But this is bikeradar.com, not oncologogyradar.com so let's stick to bike racing instead of chemo here.

don key

iainf72 wrote:

TheScouser on an Italian wrote:

God forgive that any of you Doubting Thomas merchants ever have to go through the ravages of any form of cancer.

Ahhh, the cloak of cancer! Cancer is terrible. My best friends 8 year old son has had 2 fights with it. I'm perfectly aware of it what it does.

That doesn't change the evidence that makes some of us suspicious.

As laziness creeps in I must just plus+ one1, post bath bonk.

Mettan

They should all have a microscopic probe under the skin which monitors blood composition (or whatever) 24/7 throughout the tour (or GTs) - trivial technology - they could then all be monitored remotely and continously by the governing body (or whoever). A tiny price to pay, to race at that level.

There - I've solved the doping problem

jos2thehua

I wouldn't jump the gun on accusations or sarcastic questions. Remember we are only in the early stages of the Tour. There is a lot more road left and to think that Lance is going to take the GC is a very broad speculation right now. I predict like many others that Lance is going to show how out of shape he is once we hit the mountain stages and Alberto rockets to the top.

However, if it's stage 15 and Lance is still in top position or the actual GC leader, then you can go ahead and make your accusations or sarcastic questions.

jackhammer111 - banned

Kléber wrote:

RedJohn wrote:

Has Armstrong ever been tested for EPO or anything else performance enhancing?
(Er, yes, maybe once or twice ...)
Has he ever been found to have taken anything he shouldn't?
(err, no ...)

Sorry, you're wrong there. His 1999 samples came back positive for EPO. These samples were tested for research purposes so he can't be sanctioned but read the Ashenden interview linked above for more on this. If you're new to cycling, you'll soon see that the testers are behind the cheaters. A simple example, there simply was no test for EPO in 1999.


Like I say above, read the Ashenden interview in full, invest the time in it, and then come back and we can debate matters.

Ahhh.. the Ashenden interview. Lance haters treat this like Moses coming down from the mountain.

He is one person with a scientific opinion. That doesn't mean it's Holy and there are no other "scientific opinions" on the matter.

Yes, read it.

Including at the end where he says, " I expect people to challenge my interpretation of the science, and rightly so".

and: "Comparison of pre vs. post cancer performance. Apparently some readers have objected that my comparison lacked scientific credibility. I accept that criticism as justified."

Kléber

Ok, let's debate it then jackhammer. Which interpretations do you differ with?

Also, do you think clients of Ferrari like Bugno, Chiapucci or Vinokourov were just associating with him for "training plans"? Talking of others, were Pantani, Basso, Ullrich and Virenque clean? It's important not to get hung up on one rider, in the past many were doping, you have to pick your way far down the GC to find a known clean rider. Almost everyone was at it, no?

andyp

Why is it that those people who believe Armstrong have to adopt his pathetic "all those who question me are haters" mentality.

I don't hate Lance Armstrong. I admire some of what he does, but I also think he doped to win the Tour and there is, to my mind, compelling evidence of this. Feel free to disagree but stop using childish insults like 'haters' to describe those who don't agree with you.

geoff_ss

iainf72 wrote:

TarmacExpert wrote:

. And gaining 40 seconds over Contador on stage 3 didn't have much to do with physiology at all, he was just in the right place to get into the large breakaway group.

If he hadn't done that, Contador would be in yellow now.

Which is interesting

... and if Wiggins had been in the break on Monday he'd have been in yellow today too. 'If ifs and buts were pots and pans, there'd be no need for tinkers' as my old gran used to say

Geoff

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

TheScouser on an Italian wrote:

God forgive that any of you Doubting Thomas merchants ever have to go through the ravages of any form of cancer.

Ahhh, the cloak of cancer! Cancer is terrible. My best friends 8 year old son has had 2 fights with it. I'm perfectly aware of it what it does.

That doesn't change the evidence that makes some of us suspicious.

I thought you had "proof" not "suspicions". Is this a change?

RichN95.

Kléber wrote:

This is the point I was making to Dave_1 above. At the extreme end of the bell curve the differences are very small, the difference between the best rider and the second best are tiny. This is what Gaussian distribution is all about and as many studies show, corpological features, whether shoe size or lung capacity, adhere to a Normal distribution.

I'm sorry, but you've got that completely the wrong way around. It's at the ends of the bell curve that the differences between consecutive samples are the greatest. It's where the freak factor kicks in.

For example, the World's 10 tallest men ever measured. No 1 is nearly 15 inches taller than No.10

http://villageofjoy.com/10-tallest-men-in-the-world/

The middle ten would be separated by nanometres.


(This doesn't mean I think LA was clean BTW)

rokkala

Right, so if we assume for a minute that LA did dope on the '99 tour. Why from '00-'05, despite being the most targeted and tested individual in cycling, did he not fail tests at the time/samples come under suspicion/any action taken either at the time or retrospectively?

Seems a bit of a stretch to think he was that lucky or good at doping, seeing as all his peers during that time have been caught then or after re-tests. Was he the one man to have access to some holy grail of doping that none of the rest did?

Kléber

Doh, you're right about that, Rich :oops: I used the wrong example since factors like height and shoe size are affected by acromegaly, hence their distribution has significant outliers. But to have an undoped human capable of beating riders known to be on massive EPO programs, well that's a very high sigma. As I say, given that Armstrong was coached by someone handed a criminal conviction for doping, the probability lies with doping rather than physiological freakery. Feel free to disagree.

Rokkala, few of Ferrari's clients got caught. To this day there is no official test for autologous blood doping, anti-doping authorities have had to rely on the police or on on the rider and their doctor making mistakes. For example Rasmussen was only rumbled because an Italian TV presenter spotted him out training, the Dane never tested positive: it's fluke events like that catch up with riders. It's not right to say Armstrong was the only rider not to get caught, many were not caught.

RichN95.

Kléber wrote:

Doh, you're right about that, Rich :oops: I used the wrong example since factors like height and shoe size are affected by acromegaly, hence their distribution has significant outliers. But to have an undoped human capable of beating riders known to be on massive EPO programs, well that's a very high sigma. As I say, given that Armstrong was coached by someone handed a criminal conviction for doping, the probability lies with doping rather than physiological freakery. Feel free to disagree.
.

My arguement was only against your mathematics, not your assessment of Armstrong

afx237vi

Rokkala wrote:

Right, so if we assume for a minute that LA did dope on the '99 tour. Why from '00-'05, despite being the most targeted and tested individual in cycling, did he not fail tests at the time/samples come under suspicion/any action taken either at the time or retrospectively?

For the same reason none of his opponents did. They were all ahead of the game. And not just the top riders either. How many positive tests were there in the Tours of 99-05? I don't know, but a ridiculously small amount. Ignoring Armstrong for a moment, do you think the rest of the peloton was clean in those years?

Seems a bit of a stretch to think he was that lucky or good at doping, seeing as all his peers during that time have been caught then or after re-tests. Was he the one man to have access to some holy grail of doping that none of the rest did?

What makes you think most of his peers were caught? Compared to the number of riders - hundreds of them - who rode during the LA years, only a handful have been caught, and even fewer have failed tests. Many of them are still racing.

mididoctors

I'm a out and out hater and will be even if I discover he did it all on being brave smart and dedicated...

I'm not going to let the notion he didn't cheat stop me disliking him...... the guys a tosser

BUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTT

if i had to bet my LIFE or the LIFE of my loved ones on whether he was a doping cheat...?

my LIFE!!!!

that is too say what i guess/say/state next must be correct for me to stay alive

then I'm going to say he doped... I would even go as far as to say he still is just on the probabilities


if I have to choose yeah or nay then I'm going to say yeah.... its just more likely


BUUTTTTTT then again

he is a great bike rider with TREMENDOUS willpower.. which is something.. TBF he has added more to the race than I first thought... it is an entertaining race and him being in the mix adds some panache to the proceedings...

BUUTTTTTTTT on the other hand

he totally fcuked up the Giro almost single handily... which for a guy on a PR campaign on behalf of his foundation seems odd behaviour

BUUUTTTTTTT etc etc etc

You can't ignore him...fanboy or hater he captures attention, there is all sorts of arguments about the positive and negative aspects of that.

jackhammer111 - banned

Kléber wrote:

Ok, let's debate it then jackhammer. Which interpretations do you differ with?

Also, do you think clients of Ferrari like Bugno, Chiapucci or Vinokourov were just associating with him for "training plans"? Talking of others, were Pantani, Basso, Ullrich and Virenque clean? It's important not to get hung up on one rider, in the past many were doping, you have to pick your way far down the GC to find a known clean rider. Almost everyone was at it, no?

I hope you are not implying you understand the scientific details of his interview. I know I'm only capable of parts of it and my education is not bad.

He admits his conclusions are debatable. He disagrees with the commission on the problems with the actual test results. That does not mean he's right and they're wrong and the problems with the 99 samples go way beyond that. And he hurts his own credibility when he allows himself to get sidetracked into the Coyle study debate where he's forced to admit his arguments where not good scientifically.

If you want to believe he was dirty in 99 I don't have a problem with that. Just don't act like it's not debatable or beyond reasonable doubt.

The 99 debate is a L'Equipe circus sideshow. The question is did Lance win 7 Tours in a row because he out doped the competition? More dope, better dope, secrets nobody else had.

I find the idea absurd.

He's back. He's riding under Passport rules. He's obviously one of the strongest so far. If he ends up being one of the strongest after an injury, more racing than he's ever done coming up to the tour, including the incredibly hard Giro/Tour double, I think it's far to say he could have been that good all along.

you say: "It's important not to get hung up on one rider" and yet that's exactly what Lance haters do.

Kléber

I agree with you Jackhammer, I'm happy to debate this all and if I tend to sit on the "prosection" side that's my choice, debate is what forums are all about. It would be dull if we all agreed.

So I'll just patiently put out some arguments and leave them for others to digest and respond to. We'll see if a couple of others on this thread come back with their views on the Ashenden interview for example.

jackhammer111 wrote:

The question is did Lance win 7 Tours in a row because he out doped the competition? More dope, better dope, secrets nobody else had.

Well that's one question. Dope isn't identical, the riders don't get 50 vials of EPO each at the start of each Grand Tour. So the response to the "preparation" matters, as does the dosage and the risks taken by all this unlicenced, even criminal, activity. Armstrong could well have been doing the same as everyone else, we can only speculate.

But I still suggest that the seven in a row involved doping. Let's be clear, the win was a function of training, diet, tactics, bike handling and luck and Armstrong was excellent at all of these, but probably we can add doping as a criteria too. Especially since in cycling doping makes a massive difference to performance and results.

Fastlad

Why do so many of you so called cyclists dislike Lance? I think the guy is great!! Talented, a master tactician, a personality, total dedication and a love of riding the bike!!! Road race champion at 21. Nobody can take that away from him!! Cancer survivor who recovered and resumed his career, albeit more successfully!!! Lets be honest here...the guy has put in the work and he is extremely talented even still at 38, look at Malcolm Elliot ffs at 49!!! still riding very strongly in competition!!!! As for the black socks? totally fine, you've got to move with the times!! Bravo Lance 8)

mididoctors

Fastlad wrote:

As for the black socks? totally fine,

you kinding yeah?

Fastlad

no i'm not kidding. i have some black socks for mountain biking and......i've been known to wear them out on the road!! woooooooo!! Shocking

jackhammer111 - banned

Kléber wrote:

.

jackhammer111 wrote:

The question is did Lance win 7 Tours in a row because he out doped the competition? More dope, better dope, secrets nobody else had.

Well that's one question.

I think that is the question Lance bashers skirt, as you just did.

If you think he was an illegitimate champion, that's what you have to believe.

Would you have been perfectly happy if Basso and/or Ullrich would have won and never been caught? Don't you see the absurdity of bashing lance for winning in the era where doping was rampant and none of the riders that could have beat him were clean?

What do you think of his current condition? Is he outsmarting Passport? How does this not prove, so far, that his talent beyond other factors is phenomenal. Come back from injury, more racing, Giro/Tour double, and he's been a major factor in the race so far.

liversedge

yellow, orange even argyle ... but not black.

dave_1

andyp wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

he was two or three levels above everyone at 18 from what I read...got more to do with being a fairly good athlete than anything else-though of course we dare not ever admit some of us are just better than others...gotta be doping and cheating related, not just simply the fact of life we all know and had to face at some point in life-that some people are very good at somethings others are not so. Why have people got such a difficulty with this?...the stuff he took, everyone else took, he was the best and by far.

How many times do we have to go through this, if everyone in the field is taking EPO it doesn't equate to a level playing field. Some will respond better than others. LA appears to have been a good responder. Your point about some people being good at things and others not is exactly the same in this case!

The point remains that it was, and still is, against the rules so the 7 Tours he won were done so through cheating.

crit levels get manipulated up to 50% and that determines oxygen delivery, everyone has the same DNA, the genetic freak arguement doesn't add up for me and many others .

Are you definitely sure he wasn't just very good at cycling?, very dedicated? And yes, also did what Ullrich and Basso did.., what everyone was forced into IMO...your stance is LA is rubbish and his TDF wins worthless, ...not many will respect you for that on here-I don't. Why are you even on here when you think every win is down to good response to doping. Go find another sport Andy

Fact is...some people are better than others in various sports and jobs in life. Is it this that troubles you guys most?

TarmacExpert

RichN95 wrote:

Kléber wrote:

It's at the ends of the bell curve that the differences between consecutive samples are the greatest. It's where the freak factor kicks in.

Exactly, people like Michael Schumacher, Tiger Woods, or going back a few years, Sergei Bubka, Gary Kasparov spring to mind. I don't think anyone has ever suggested the dominance of those guys in their sports was down to doping.

iainf72

Rokkala wrote:

Right, so if we assume for a minute that LA did dope on the '99 tour. Why from '00-'05, despite being the most targeted and tested individual in cycling, did he not fail tests at the time/samples come under suspicion/any action taken either at the time or retrospectively?

It's an interesting question. One could say he failed a test retrospectivly in 99 but lets put that aside for a second and address your other point

Jan Ullrich : Puerto
Joseba Beloki : Puerto
Raimondas Rumšas : Lots of drugs found in car, failed test for EPO following year
Alexandre Vinokourov : Failed test for blood transfusion
Ivan Basso : Puerto
Andreas Klöden : Linked to Frieburg / T-Mobile doping ring (no actions taken however)

Those people account for all the podiums in the Tour from 2000 through 2005.

99 had Alex Zulle and Escartin on the podium. Obviously Zulle was Festina scandal which pre dated Lance winning. Escartin rode for Kelme who were managed by one of the key players in Puerto.


How many positives? Very few indeed.