Armstrong blood values at Tour

iainf72

At the risk of starting WW3

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/ ... suspicious

northernneil

seem fairly normal levels to me a few points here or there but nothing that makes me suspicious. we are not talking pantani like changes such as feb95 - mar95 42.8 to 57.1 !!!

BikingBernie

Doubtless his protectors at the UCI are at this very moment putting together something in his defence, justifying why they will not be looking at this more closely...

BikingBernie

northernneil wrote:

seem fairly normal levels to me a few points here or there but nothing that makes me suspicious. we are not talking pantani like changes such as feb95 - mar95 42.8 to 57.1 !!!

Riding a three week Tour without a significant fall in haemocrit is normal?!

His values also raise questions about some of his previous Tours when his haemocrit was reported as being almost 50, just under the UCI's 'Dope if you want, but don't go mad lads' limit.

donrhummy

I'm waiting for some non-anonymous experts to weigh in but somehow if they were suspicious, I highly doubt Lance would have released them.

BikingBernie

donrhummy wrote:

if they were suspicious, I highly doubt Lance would have released them.

Armstrong and his disciples couldn't care less about anything that is merely 'suspicious'...

richard wants a baum

Wait a minute.... right got the popcorn go

iainf72

donrhummy wrote:

I'm waiting for some non-anonymous experts to weigh in but somehow if they were suspicious, I highly doubt Lance would have released them.

Erm did you read the article?

The man raising the concerns (Jakob Mørkebjerg) is an expert on blood doping.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

markwalker

Big deal, Armstrong looks suspiciously like a cheat, how else did he produce that performance ? Oh yes he trains lots and is blessed with superhuman hitherto unseen levels of recovery and power.

To be fair, few people in the world can really interpret that stuff and on its own its not enough information to be certain one way or the other. On the other hand a quick surf of blooddoping techniques . com would probably give anyone all the information they need to become an expert.

iainf72

phips wrote:

I'm sure lots of people are getting 'excited' at the demise of Lance, but somehow I think you're going to be disappointed.

I'm sure the good doctor understands OFF scores better than any of us ever will.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

markwalker

iainf72 wrote:

phips wrote:

I'm sure lots of people are getting 'excited' at the demise of Lance, but somehow I think you're going to be disappointed.

I'm sure the good doctor understands OFF scores better than any of us ever will.

Be interesting to see the effect of 3 weeks extreme activity on Test levels both absoloute and comparitive no ones releasing those. do they not test?

iainf72

phips wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I'm sure the good doctor understands OFF scores better than any of us ever will.

Without a doubt. And it will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Have a look at Brad's OFF scores and look at Lance's. One moves a bit, the other doesn't.

And Lance's numbers did jump around in the Giro so it's a bit wierd.

markwalker

iainf72 wrote:

phips wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I'm sure the good doctor understands OFF scores better than any of us ever will.

Without a doubt. And it will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Have a look at Brad's OFF scores and look at Lance's. One moves a bit, the other doesn't.

And Lance's numbers did jump around in the Giro so it's a bit wierd.

Not too weird, there is an explanation.......

bikerZA

Call me naive, and in no way am I fan of the man's, but I find it really hard to believe that he may have doped in the Tour. He has way too much to lose, and absolutely nothing to prove, it would be an absolutely mad thing to do, and I just don't think he's that stupid.

iainf72

bikerZA wrote:

Call me naive, and in no way am I fan of the man's, but I find it really hard to believe that he may have doped in the Tour. He has way too much to lose, and absolutely nothing to prove, it would be an absolutely mad thing to do, and I just don't think he's that stupid.

You're judging by what you'd do - It's difficult to tell what others would do. If you'd doped for years, and never got caught, why would you suddenly stop? Look at Di Luca - To people on the outside it doesn't make sense however....

blazing_saddles

Like the way they trot out the diahrrhea excuse too.
Didn't another rider use that one, a while back?

Of course it's suspicious, but not too suspicious.
Pat's master plan at work.

xraymtb

Is it not possible though that he is in fact 'extraordinary' and an exception to the rule?

These values and the rules/guidelines surrounding them are based on normal (if you can call them that) riders - human biology and the basis of evolution will always give rise to an occasional individual that is different to the rest.

BTW - I'm not launching a 'Support Lance' campaign - just putting it out there

flattythehurdler

The "42% is the new 49%" seems the most apt comment perhaps. Has anyone any idea how much Wiggins HCT dropped by during the tour? It may be that improved nutrition etc., and a relatively benign tour may have helped maintain them.
Now for the bad news. I have it from the best authority that the HCTY test can be manipulated by using a tilt table for 20 mins prior to blood being taken. There are concerns that the delaying tactics on the part of some teams may be precisely for this reason. I can't see it being 100% reliable, but it doesn't need to be.
Oh well. Another year of suspicion clouding the cycling.
IIRC Daamsgard reckoned on a 12% drop in HCT through a grand tour being a reasonable expectation.

markwalker

xraymtb wrote:

Is it not possible though that he is in fact 'extraordinary' and an exception to the rule?

These values and the rules/guidelines surrounding them are based on normal (if you can call them that) riders - human biology and the basis of evolution will always give rise to an occasional individual that is different to the rest.

BTW - I'm not launching a 'Support Lance' campaign - just putting it out there

Only if you accept that he does in fact not suffer from fatigue or exhaustion at the levels of physical and mental stress of a 3 week tour dealing with the race, the press, team dynamics etc. but its possible of course that that is the case. and it is fatigue that is generaly indicated by the levels slowly tailing off that we see in other riders cases.

You are right though about the expected results being based on normal responses and its when abnormal responses are detected that flags are raised and targetted testing takes place. It is my understanding though that any amount of testing targetted or otherwise can be dealt with.

It also appears that the normal rules do not apply in the same way to armstrong and team unless they have sacrificial lambs as a policy in the near future. no wonder then that leipheimer believes hes going to win the tour.

Kléber

There's not really much to say here. The Lance-skeptics will see this as evidence of his old ways and Lance-alots will see it as victimisation.

Until we get more detail on this, all people can do is speculate...

...or laugh, as one comment on the nyvelocity site jokes "Either doping or pooping his pants!"

mididoctors

flattythehurdler wrote:

The "42% is the new 49%" seems the most apt comment perhaps. Has anyone any idea how much Wiggins HCT dropped by during the tour? It may be that improved nutrition etc., and a relatively benign tour may have helped maintain them.
Now for the bad news. I have it from the best authority that the HCTY test can be manipulated by using a tilt table for 20 mins prior to blood being taken. There are concerns that the delaying tactics on the part of some teams may be precisely for this reason. I can't see it being 100% reliable, but it doesn't need to be.
Oh well. Another year of suspicion clouding the cycling.
IIRC Daamsgard reckoned on a 12% drop in HCT through a grand tour being a reasonable expectation.

why 12%?

I mean has he a sample of blood values from a clean tour as a baseline?

I don't really understand what I am looking at with this detail HCT stuff..we need a thorough primer

source anyone?

iainf72

mididoctors wrote:

I don't really understand what I am looking at with this detail HCT stuff..we need a thorough primer

source anyone?

HCT is too much of a blunt instrument to be of much use. OFF Scores are where it's at.

iainf72

There is more information now. I stole this from Daily Peloton forums.

--
Brief summary of Mørkebjergs comments:
He points out that off season, the values lie around 1%, which quite normal. But come Tour time, the reticulocyte values have fallen to half that - 0,5%. Firstly, Mørkebjerg notes that this is borderline for a normal, healthy person. Secondly, he observes that this indicates that Armstrong's body has halved its own production of red blood cells, which is a significant drop off.

This usually only happens at times when the body has an excess of red blood cells and is often seen with EPO usage or blood transfusions, though he of course points out that this is not proof that this has occured in this instance.

He notes that Armstrong's values are more or less as one would expect that they should be during the Giro. His Hct and Hgb values fall as they would be expected to, and his Reticulocyte vary from 1,3% over 0,7% to 0,9%.

It is the TdF results which he finds unusual, both in their own rights, as well as in comparison to the Giro numbers:
1. No decrease in Hgb/Hct by the end of the race (the earlier reports also noted the variations coinciding with the rest days).
2. Extremely low reticulocyte results. They were down to 0,5 by the start of the race, rose to 0,7% after the first week of the race and then went down to 0,5% again after the first rest day. At the end of the race, they had once again risen to 0,7%.

donrhummy

Kléber wrote:

There's not really much to say here. The Lance-skeptics will see this as evidence of his old ways and Lance-alots will see it as victimisation.

Why does everything have to be black or white, all or nothing? Just because someone in ONE instance says something negative about Lance (or something positive) does not mean they're a Lance hater or Lance lover. Why can't we simply be having a discussion about a particular issue and give our thoughts? I think this need to constantly put people on sides of a fence is part of what makes these discussions so contentious and drawn out.

Kléber

I fully agree donrhummy, my point was that any forum discussion would split according to most posters' prior prejudices, it was a prediction.

I'd like to weigh the evidence in a calm way but this will be hard given the passion on both sides, as like it or not, He is always a divisive figure.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

blazing_saddles

Lance fence sitters sign up here?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Yorkiand

xraymtb wrote:

Is it not possible though that he is in fact 'extraordinary' and an exception to the rule?

Considering the realistic chance of him survivng the cancer in his brain was about 3% (they told him 40% so he had some hope), and taking into account his achievements since, regardless of what he may or may not have taken, I would consider that he is extraordinary.

I like the guy and believe in him. Could you imagine Ronaldo playing football in the park with the guy from the factory? Or Tiger Woods having a round of golf with you or I?

Armstrong does these things and yet so many are almost willing him to fall flat on his face. Jealousy???