Armstrong blood values at Tour
Comments
-
Yorkiand wrote: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.
or perhaps he was just lucky?0 -
But you will find a certain % of people survive different forms of cancer. It's not so much extraordinary, more luck and dependent on the care you have access to.
Having a body that sees your haematocrit count stay flat whilst your off score dips substantially is not so much a fluke, it's suspicious. But there could be an honest reason, he might have been stricken with diarrhoea for example.
Occam's razor anyone?0 -
Yorkiand wrote: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???
This is exactly the kind of thing they're talking about. Surviving against slim odds and cycling with fans is very respectable. But neither of these things are relevant to the discussion.
It'd be great if we could just have a non-heated discussion about the possible explanations of this without resorting to emotive but irrelevant facts about him.Scottish and British...and a bit French0 -
dulldave wrote:Yorkiand wrote: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???
This is exactly the kind of thing they're talking about. Surviving against slim odds and cycling with fans is very respectable. But neither of these things are relevant to the discussion.
It'd be great if we could just have a non-heated discussion about the possible explanations of this without resorting to emotive but irrelevant facts about him.[/quote
Ok the indications are he was cheating. is there any other explanatin other than an unfortunate dose of the squits0 -
Look hes a cheat why deny or glory in the fact. its the way it is.
FACT he used EPO in 1999 (at least)
FACT he was not found guilty of using epo in 1999 (or officialy accused)
FACT he survived cancer
FACT he won the tdf 7 times
FACT once cortisone was found in his sample he was allowed to have a post test issued TUE
FACT his tour blood readings show no normal responses to three weeks arduous activity
FACT in the preceding Giro his numbers showed a normal response to three weeks arduous activity
FACT he has been shown extraordinary leaniancy by the UCI in relation to his test obligations. EG waving of rules to allow entry to TDU, alllowed to shower or otherwise avoid immediate sample taking or shaparone prior to sample taking during a training period and at the TDF
FACT Pat McQuaid and the UCI needed Lance to effect rehabilitation of cycling post Festina.
FACT Lance has raised millions of dollars for his cancer foundation
FACT Lance has been paid Millions of Dollars for his working highlighting cancer.
Reasoned review of these facts would reveal an unpleasent smell. Actually i quite like the Alpha dog now0 -
Well looks like he's not got diarroeha. He just said on Twitter he was picking the kids up so....0
-
Given the minutiae of 'Armstrong reportage' during the Tour and the man's own propensity to twitter every last detail of his life, isn't it unusual that this severe case of the trots wasn't reported at the time?
0 -
micron wrote:Given the minutiae of 'Armstrong reportage' during the Tour and the man's own propensity to twitter every last detail of his life, isn't it unusual that this severe case of the trots wasn't reported at the time?
yees is raising question is twit for sh1t same as twa t for shat?0 -
That's more like it. I'd even drop the first 2 for the hope of a sensible debate. Regardless of what he has or hasn't done in the past, someone with apparent expertise is saying that his levels are suspicious.
My opinion is that if he were really the uber-doper that he is accused of being, there is no way he would have let his levels become suspicious. So I think there's more to this. He would be aware of the measures that these people use in order to decide that someone's levels are suspicious.Scottish and British...and a bit French0 -
dulldave wrote:
My opinion is that if he were really the uber-doper that he is accused of being, there is no way he would have let his levels become suspicious. So I think there's more to this. He would be aware of the measures that these people use in order to decide that someone's levels are suspicious.
Look at it a different way - The "doctors" find out what parameters they look at in the passport and work within those parameters. The idea with OFF score and Z score is they are very difficult to fool but, as Ashenden pointed out, you can get a good idea of who is doing transfusions but it's not quite there in terms of proof yet.
What we're seeing here is something different to a positive and a negative. If you're completely mimacking natural behaviour there is going to be a lot less benefit overall.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
dulldave wrote:That's more like it. I'd even drop the first 2 for the hope of a sensible debate. Regardless of what he has or hasn't done in the past, someone with apparent expertise is saying that his levels are suspicious.
My opinion is that if he were really the uber-doper that he is accused of being, there is no way he would have let his levels become suspicious. So I think there's more to this. He would be aware of the measures that these people use in order to decide that someone's levels are suspicious.
but thats the whole point of the blood passport. to have non suspicious results you cant boost your numbers and to maintain your numbers/ values you have to be non human or boost.
Thats why armstrong needs to bluff this out. Either he becomes under suspicion or the UCI capitulates and the whole system fails. I suspect the latter. Also the blood passport system has become a public vierwing gallary because following some publications the implication is either you are comfortable to publish with nothing to hide or your not.
Alternately you can tough it out. this really depends on the ~UCI now. Do they have independant teeth as a governing body should or are they a defact sports marketing body.0 -
Surely the proof or otherwise of the 'Diarrhoea Defence' can be gleaned from the LanceArseCam footage?
Sorry not to take this entirely seriously but I'm afraid it's another storm in a teacup - we know the system is flawed, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence from Kohl et al - but Armstrong has the UCI in his pocket. The status quo will prevail unless Bordry can weigh in with something more damning.0 -
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.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-values-point-to-cleaner-peloton0 -
A bit off topic but has anyone seen this highly interesting article from a French website??
http://translate.google.com/translate?u ... ISO-8859-1
Says 2009 Armstrong was around the level power wise as 2003 and 2005 and that Contador would have beaten the 2004 Armstrong which is the year they claim he had his peak power output.
Edit-
Original link in French http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=52220 -
"It is simply ridiculous. Our entire team has never tested positive," reads the response from the Seven-times Tour winner, who was tested several times during the Tour de France, according to the Austrian newspaper Kleine Zeitung.
SSDD, eh, Lance?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Ah, the old lines are the best. A case of verbal diarrhoea? 0
-
Cleverly worded. I can't think of any entire team that tested positive. Not even Festina.iainf72 wrote:"It is simply ridiculous. Our entire team has never tested positive," reads the response from the Seven-times Tour winner, who was tested several times during the Tour de France, according to the Austrian newspaper Kleine Zeitung."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
LA-MSS in the Vuelta Asturias last year.
BOOM!!!!
No pun intended by the way 0 -
jim one wrote:Original link in French http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5222
Why are all the values in the table compared side by side for the various riders? Surely you can't compare the absolute power values of a 60kg (or less) rider with a 70+kg rider? 78kgs is mentioned in some of the tables, maybe they normalised the figures to 78kg across the board?0 -
By this token, I think Usain Bolt is probably the biggest cheat athletics has ever seen. After all, there is no way somebody could have such an amazing genetic make up coupled with natural ability doing a sport he's dedicated his life to.
To some, Lance will never be innocent, regardless of how many published test results we see. Personally, I think the man is a role model and an inspiration to many, the likes of which we may never see race again for years, and when somebody does come along, no doubt there will be those that simply can't accept somebody could be so talented and immediately assume he's cheating.I want to come back as Niki Gudex's seat0 -
There are reasons for such scepticism you know. For example...Moomin23 wrote:To some, Lance will never be innocent, regardless of how many published test results we see.
"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong
It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.
...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "
http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=171280 -
And the rest of his wins?? Well I've never seen Bolt, Pele, Michael Jordan, Schumacher, Carl Lewis, Steve Redgrave ever publish their results, so I'm going to assume they're all cheats.
Can anyone tell me the benefit of covering up for Armstrong, surely having the most high profile name in the sport proven to be cheating would be disastrous for the UCi, especially if after it gets discovered they are revealed to have been doing this.
It must be the great British tradition of viewing anyone successful with scepticism, I would think Mr Armstrong would prefer to use the time money and effort that goes into covering up this decades worth of underhand behaviour to be out cycling and focusing on racing.
Armstrong is not popular with the authorites (particularly French) so I can't understand why they would want to protect him as so many doubters here seem to think they have.I want to come back as Niki Gudex's seat0 -
Moomin23 wrote:And the rest of his wins?? Well I've never seen Bolt, Pele, Michael Jordan, Schumacher, Carl Lewis, Steve Redgrave ever publish their results, so I'm going to assume they're all cheats.
The point is here is that he's publishing them and an expert on blood doping says they're suspicious.
Try not cloud the issue.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
On the other hand I suppose you cold get another expert to say they're legitimate, hold on, they already have, and he works at the UCi!!
When somebody introduces admissable evidence to show he has been cheating, I'll be the first to hold my hand up and condemn him as a drug cheating tosser, I used to like Kohl, Di Luca and Valverde but they have since let me down (jury partially out on Valverde!)
In the meantime, we should hail real cycling heroes like Tom Simpson who collapsed and died on the mountain with enough Amphetamine in his system to down a Buffalo, but that was a different time eh?? Pantani anyone??I want to come back as Niki Gudex's seat0 -
Moomin23 wrote:On the other hand I suppose you cold get another expert to say they're legitimate, hold on, they already have, and he works at the UCi!!
No, they have. The UCI have never stated his samples were not suspicious. As a matter of fact, during the Tour he was tested a lot despite not being in yellow or winning stages which would indicate targetting.
Guys who do the analysis for the UCI (Ashenden for example) have said they can be suspicious of transfusions from the data but they cannot absolutely prove it.
I'm also not clear what data is being examined. Is it what Lance has released or is it the UCI numbers?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
But there is a rumour that a test is going to be validated soon and that many samples are being taken already so that the labs and governing bodies know who to watch. If - big if - a test does appear then it should able to work retrospectively.0
-
Moomin23 wrote:And the rest of his wins?? Well I've never seen Bolt, Pele, Michael Jordan, Schumacher, Carl Lewis, Steve Redgrave ever publish their results, so I'm going to assume they're all cheats.
You might want to modify your list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Lewis#Stimulant_use0
