Armstrong blood values at Tour

1235

Comments

  • Bakunin
    Bakunin Posts: 868
    I think in the interview with NY velocity -- the guy is pretty measured in what he is saying. It will be interesting to see whether the UCI does anything (lol).

    Of course, PhD -- pile it higher and deeper.

    And I have one -- although I'm not sure where it is.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    ride_whenever wrote:
    Depends a lot on the area, but equally you should be an expert in your area by the time you finish your PhD. I'm currently a research PhD with an industrial sponsor, I spend time working closely with my sponsor but I don't learn much that is actually relevant to the science I'm interested in. I learn about industrial stuff, i get access to cool machines to play with, but in terms of science I learn very little.

    I agree, I have no idea on whether anti-doping works this way, or not.

    I suppose really something like this is purely subjective, depending on your definition of expert.

    The reason why I said what I did is because for me to consider someone an expert in the academic field, I would say that they should have their work confirmed by further study, get peer-reviewed works published (note the plural), or contribute in some way to understanding in the particular field - in the case of anti-doping, maybe by developing a new test or carrying out work that shows the risks to health of EPO abuse.

    Take the field of biology for example, somebody might get their PhD in evolution, but then spend the next years publishing highly debatable papers on the superiority of the intelligent design theory, all of which get discredited by other specialists in the field. I would argue that such a person could not really be called an expert, clever and hard-working though they may be.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    I'm getting the ROFL-coptor warmed up really to fly if anyone is interested

    http://community2.livestrong.com/ver1.0 ... 0.Full.jpg

    Lance appears to have removed all the data that's causing people to raise their eyebrows.

    At least modifying existing values is slightly subtle...
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • jim one
    jim one Posts: 183
    iainf72 wrote:
    I'm getting the ROFL-coptor warmed up really to fly if anyone is interested

    http://community2.livestrong.com/ver1.0 ... 0.Full.jpg

    Lance appears to have removed all the data that's causing people to raise their eyebrows.

    At least modifying existing values is slightly subtle...

    O dear I suppose this "transparency" has gone the same way as Mr Catlin and his "toughest anti doping system ever placed on an athlete" :(
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    There's been talk of a run in politics but he wouldn't last five minutes. You need to rebut tough questions and confront your doubters, not cover-up the numbers and duck tough questions.
  • shinyhelmut
    shinyhelmut Posts: 1,364
    Kléber wrote:
    You need to rebut tough questions and confront your doubters, not cover-up the numbers and duck tough questions.

    On the contrary he seems perfect for a role in government :lol:
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    'A picture paints a thousand words'.

    lancearmstrongblood2009.png
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    Or in your case, a cut n paste picture saves a thousand cut n paste words.
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    BikingBernie wrote:
    'A picture paints a thousand words'.

    Pardon my ignorance, but is it possible for such variation to be natural?

    I genuinely have no idea what is within the realms of possibility when it comes to blood values, whether they are mine or Lance Armstrong's.

    So in my case, I'm afraid this picture only paints one word: eh?
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    From my limited knowledge of statistics and my zero knowledge of Haemotology, it looks like the Retic. counts form two seperate populations and the Htc counts are a large, widely spread single population.

    If i get bored this afternoon i'll crack minitab on it's ass and see if it's true.
    "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'"

    @gietvangent
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,711
    johnfinch wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    'A picture paints a thousand words'.

    Pardon my ignorance, but is it possible for such variation to be natural?

    I genuinely have no idea what is within the realms of possibility when it comes to blood values, whether they are mine or Lance Armstrong's.

    So in my case, I'm afraid this picture only paints one word: eh?

    Extremely "unlikely", although, the defenders of the faith, would define that as extremely "speculative".

    All this accumulative circumstantial evidence, when dismissed individually, just doesn't amount to a hill of beans, for his disciples.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    All this accumulative circumstantial evidence, when dismissed individually, just doesn't amount to a hill of beans, for his disciples.
    Following the same 'logic', as no single grain of sand in itself constitutes a sand dune, the following picture does not actually show a sand dune, despite appearances to the contrary!

    dune-large.jpg
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    BikingBernie wrote:
    'A picture paints a thousand words'.

    lancearmstrongblood2009.png

    Let's see. There was Superman and Bizzaro Superman.
    This is starting to resemble the Bizzaro Lance Fan Club.
    C'mon BB. What's all this REALLY about?
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    lancearmstrongblood2009.png
    dennisn wrote:
    Let's see. There was Superman and Bizzaro Superman.
    This is starting to resemble the Bizzaro Lance Fan Club.
    C'mon BB. What's all this REALLY about?
    I still believe in the primacy of evidence and rationality over blind faith and the "my 'truth' is as good as yours" nonsense promoted by the cultural relativists. I do know that in the land of God, guns and pornography, such old-fashioned Enlightenment thinking is rather less popular. I have a feeling that you are probably a bit of a climate change denier as well. :wink:


    To return to that graph for a moment, some of the green outliers do seem rather high. I wonder if these relate to the periods immediately after he had his blood extracted ready for later use, and his body was busy making up the shortfall?
  • feltkuota
    feltkuota Posts: 333
    A question or two:

    The speculation is never ending about whether he did drugs, swapped blood or whatever to enhance his position. I'll say now that I'm a believer. I believe he hasn't. If that turns out not to be the case then I and millions of others would be devastated. His achievements on and off the bike are remarkable. Don't know the guy personnally and I'd guess that not a lot of folks on here do either but who wouldn't be impressed by his achievements on the bike and, probably greater achievements, through his cancer work?

    So my questions: If, assuming you were the rider in question, you were constantly bombarded with insinuation, conspiracy theory, insult and question after question to reply to all the related stories, wouldn't you just be a little pissed off with the whole thing. Wouldn't you just rather let all the anti-doping folks take their tests, in and out of competition, and be happy with the negative results ie you've done nothing to be worried about?. Why would you constantly waste your time with people that, let's be honest, will never believe you?

    Call me stupid or blinkered but I do not understand why, with all of the great things that Livestrong has done, would he put that and the millions of folks he helps at risk.

    One last thing, with all the papers and basic witch hunting that is going on do you not think it reasonable that, if there were something going on, that someone that had definitive proof would have been found?

    Anyway, I'll stand back now.. Let the furore continue.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    feltkuota wrote:
    I believe he hasn't. If that turns out not to be the case then I and millions of others would be devastated.

    Little bit of advice for you: don't ever get too disappointed if a professional sportsman cheats. It happens in every sport, especially where money is involved.

    Just a question: why exactly would you be disappointed? Let's imagine that Lance Armstrong admitted tomorrow that he doped for all of his TdF wins. He wouldn't be the first rider to dope, the practice has been going on for over a century. He would have just been doing what is necessary to beat the likes of Ullrich, Basso, Vino and the rest.

    I hate doping, and I hope that if any rider (including Lance) is doping now, then they'll get caught and suspended immediately. But really, there is nothing you can do to change the past, it was a world in which the authorities, teams, sponsors, riders and national governments turned a blind eye to the problem, leaving the ridersfacing the choice of doing what everyone else was doing in order to compete, or not doping and risk being beaten by somebody who was. Individual riders should not be forced to shoulder the blame for what was a collective problem.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    feltkuota wrote:
    I'll say now that I'm a believer. I believe he hasn't.
    "Faith is believing what you know isn't true."

    "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=17128
    feltkuota wrote:
    do you not think it reasonable that, if there were something going on, that someone that had definitive proof would have been found?
    Autologous blood doping was undetectable right through the Armstrong era. Two separate sources have said that that Armstrong's team had a motorcycle with refrigerate panniers that they used to shuttle their "800 ml of packed cells" refills around the Tour.

    Also, 'definitive proof' means nothing when you have the UCI in your pocket and they are determined to protect you, as they did when they accepted a pre-dated TUE from Armstrong when he tested positive for steroids, and when they commissioned that notorious 'hatchet job' on the LNDD when his positives for Epo came to light. Of course all this has nothing to do with the half a million dollars Armstrong gave to the UCI, and no one seems to know what happened to that money.

    RULES BENT FOR TEXAN CYCLING CYCLING

    Towards the end of his career, Armstrong made a donation to the UCI coffers, believed to be in the region of dollars 500,000, claiming that it was to "combat doping". But former UCI committee member Sylvia Schenk said that it was "not clear what it was used for. It seemed to be a secret". A UCI spokesperson was yesterday unavailable for comment.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... n30900387/
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    johnfinch wrote:
    I hope that if any rider (including Lance) is doping now, then they'll get caught and suspended immediately. But really, there is nothing you can do to change the past
    There is still no approved test for the detection of autologous blood doping, just the 'indicative' measurement of blood parameters, as in the chart above.
  • calvjones
    calvjones Posts: 3,850
    feltkuota wrote:
    A question or two:

    So my questions: If, assuming you were the rider in question... Wouldn't you just rather let all the anti-doping folks take their tests, in and out of competition, and be happy with the negative results ie you've done nothing to be worried about?.

    Call me stupid or blinkered but I do not understand why, with all of the great things that Livestrong has done, would he put that and the millions of folks he helps at risk.

    One last thing, with all the papers and basic witch hunting that is going on do you not think it reasonable that, if there were something going on, that someone that had definitive proof would have been found?

    Anyway, I'll stand back now.. Let the furore continue.

    I guess the point here might be that if he was happy with his negative results, why pull them from his website when people start questioning them? Brad hasn't.

    Also if (and it is of course a big if) you were doping since way before your cancer works, then they've been imperiled from the get-go, so why change?
    ___________________

    Strava is not Zen.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    edited September 2009
    feltkuota wrote:
    If, assuming you were the rider in question...Wouldn't you just rather let all the anti-doping folks take their tests, in and out of competition, and be happy with the negative results ie you've done nothing to be worried about?.
    Good question. On the other hand if you had something to hide, and found that an anti-doping expert - who you had agreed would test you on a regular basis - could not be bought off, what would you do? Scrap the whole idea, probably... just as Armstrong did with Don Catlin.

    Nearly five months after Lance Armstrong announced with great fanfare that he was returning to cycling and would subject himself to a strict and transparent individual antidoping program, that program has been abandoned without ever beginning.

    Don Catlin, the prominent antidoping scientist who was supposed to run Armstrong’s program, said Wednesday that they had decided earlier in the day to part ways, without Catlin’s analyzing a single blood or urine sample from Armstrong.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/sport ... cling.html
    feltkuota wrote:
    Call me stupid or blinkered but I do not understand why, with all of the great things that Livestrong has done, would he put that and the millions of folks he helps at risk.
    As far as I can see his whole 'Patron saint of cancer' thing is a cynical PR exercise designed to deflect criticism and make people think as you do.
  • feltkuota
    feltkuota Posts: 333
    Don't get me wrong. I hate cheats... I also know my tour history, also know how much went on and who and why a blind eye was turned.


    I'm not saying the guy is my hero but what I am saying is that, if someone can do so much good and it proves to be built on sand then that's what would be the worst part.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    feltkuota wrote:
    what I am saying is that, if someone can do so much good and it proves to be built on sand then that's what would be the worst part.
    It has already been scientifically proven that Armstrong has doped. Thing is, plenty of people are willing to ignore this inconvenient fact (along with all the rest of the evidence) and it seems likely that no matter how much proof is forthcoming in the future, plenty of people will still 'believe' in him. Given this I can't see further revelations actually hurting Armstrong that much, never mind the cancer sufferers he is supposed to have helped.

    How about all the harm Armstrong has done? He has turned himself into the most divisive figure in the history of cycling. Also, just look at the way he has fed and exploited narrow-minded and politically motivated anti-French xenophobia in the USA, as well as much of the rest of the English-speaking world. Plenty of commentators have made it clear that they believe the return to the doping excesses of the Indurain and Riis era are a direct result of Armstrong ‘raising the bar’ in terms of doping ‘professionalism’, ‘dragging’ others behind him as they attempted to keep up with his doping-enhanced performances. (Performances that were as much a product of the talents of Dr. Ferrari as his natural ability as a rider.) There is also good reason to believe that the ASO's sacking of Patrice Clerc, the only man around who seemed to be willing to tackle doping in a robust manner, and their subsequent palling up with the UCI and adoption of a blatant 'See no evil' approach to doping, was a direct consequence of Armstrong's return to the Tour.

    Also, I would say that the amount of 'good' he has done has been vastly over-stated. Most of the support given by the Lance Armstrong Foundation is done by volunteers. Armstrong allows the LAF to use his name, does the odd PR exercise and that's about it. The LAF itself appears to be bloated and inefficient spending a large part of it's income on running costs, lawyers fees and so on. Of course Armstrong's 'cancer campaign' does help to rake in the dollars for Armstrong himself, even more so now that there is the 'Livestrong.com' commercial site.

    Armstrong to receive $1 million appearance fee?

    The office of South Australian Premier Mike Rann would neither confirm nor deny reports that Lance Armstrong will be paid US$1 million for his appearance at next week’s Tour Down Under.

    Instead Lachlan Parker, from the Premier’s media department, said any monies paid to the seven-time Tour de France winner would go to the Livestrong charity.

    http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/a ... -fee-19941

    Armstrong also dismissed reports that the appearance fee he has been paid to contest Tour Down Under will go to the charity. Earlier in the week South Australian Premier Mike Rann's media department told Cyclingnews that any monies which may have been paid to Armstrong will go to the Livestrong charity.

    "That's not true," he said. "In the past few years I've spent most of my time speaking all over the world just like President Clinton, or Al Gore. I'm not getting paid to race, is there a fee for other things? Yes. But that's not any different to what I've done in the last three or four years."

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2009/ja ... conf_jan09
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    You guys need to move on. Find some fresh meat to attack. Hey, AC has won the TDF
    twice. How about him? Surely he can't be all on the up and up? Let's have some blood values, weird personality traits, so called dubious charities, and while you're at it bring his family into it. Just like you would do for Lance. Or you could use all this energy you have to "prove" Lance innocent. If anyone really must be "proven" innocent?? All this Lance is evil, Lance is bad, Lance is guilty, is getting real old. Try something, or someone, new for a change. Even I'm getting bored and I'm a voracious reader of just about anything.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    feltkuota wrote:
    Don't get me wrong. I hate cheats... I also know my tour history, also know how much went on and who and why a blind eye was turned.

    I'm not saying the guy is my hero but what I am saying is that, if someone can do so much good and it proves to be built on sand then that's what would be the worst part.

    I assume that you are referring to my post... sorry, I assumed you must have been a newcomer to the sport if you would find a positive dope test in cycling devastating. Sad, really.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    BikingBernie wrote:
    johnfinch wrote:
    I hope that if any rider (including Lance) is doping now, then they'll get caught and suspended immediately. But really, there is nothing you can do to change the past
    There is still no approved test for the detection of autologous blood doping, just the 'indicative' measurement of blood parameters, as in the chart above.

    I know, but wouldn't it be nice if they could "do a CERA" and develop a new test to unleash on the riders without telling them first?
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    johnfinch wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    johnfinch wrote:
    I hope that if any rider (including Lance) is doping now, then they'll get caught and suspended immediately. But really, there is nothing you can do to change the past
    There is still no approved test for the detection of autologous blood doping, just the 'indicative' measurement of blood parameters, as in the chart above.

    I know, but wouldn't it be nice if they could "do a CERA" and develop a new test to unleash on the riders without telling them first?

    If/when they DO come up with such a test - I'd bet they would not tell everyone first.


    However - with the liklihood that a significant portion of the Pro peleton would be nabbed by such a surprise, maybe they WOULD warn them just to protect their butts.
  • feltkuota
    feltkuota Posts: 333
    John and Bernie..


    Sorry I can't figure out how to use the quote thing.. But I think we agree on this: there should be no place for cheats in any sport.

    As for LA, some will say he's a doper and some will defend. My point is that doesn't matter how many folks say it is so it doesn't make it that way. Bernie says that it has been scientifically proven. If that is the case, and I'm not saying it isn't, why is he still riding and not been banned? Conspiracy theories abound but I would have thought that there were enough folks out there with an axe to grind against him that someone would have made it stick. One other question for you. Given that Herreras, Landis and Hamilton were busted along with a few others what about GH. He rode all of the same tours but his name is never in the same sentence as doping ( and I applaud that). Why then if GH can do all clean is LA continually sniped at? Envy or Evidence? Until I see that he has been banned then I will continue to applaud his livestrong efforts together with his cycling efforts.
    [/quote]
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    feltkuota wrote:
    John and Bernie..

    Sorry I can't figure out how to use the quote thing

    Just click on the quote button. All of the text will appear between a set of brackets with the word "quote" written in them at the beginning and end.

    Then just delete any text which isn't relevant to you, and write below what has appeared.

    If you want to break up what the other person has written and answer their points one after the other, simply cut and paste the
    ..... wrote:
    from the top of the page and the quote brackets that come at the bottom. Paste them before and after every sentence/paragraph that you want to quote, and then you can respond to individual points.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    edited September 2009
    feltkuota wrote:
    why is he still riding and not been banned? Conspiracy theories abound but I would have thought that there were enough folks out there with an axe to grind against him that someone would have made it stick.
    The only people with the power to sanction Armstrong are the UCI, and it is very obvious from their past actions that they are more interested in protecting him than seeing him busted for doping. Reasons for this include the fact that his 'miraculous' comeback came right after the Festina scandal, when the UCI were desperate to see the sport regain some credibility. (Which is one reason why they accepted that pre-dated TUE from him when he tested positive for corticoids in the 1999 Tour).

    Verbruggen and McQuaid have also made it very clear that they want to see cycling becoming a 'world' sport, rather than a Euro-centric one. There are a number of reasons for this*. Whatever, Armstrong was regarded by the UCI as being the perfect icon for their 'world' cycling concept, providing them with another very good reason to protect him.

    The half a million dollars that Armstrong gave to the UCI might also have encouraged the UCI to be supportive of him. 'Coincidentally' this bung was given to the UCI around the same time as they published the ‘Vrijman report’. The Vrijman report was essentially a UCI-commissioned hatchet job on the LNDD, giving the UCI an excuse not to investigate further the reason why so many of Armstrong’s 1999 Tour samples contained Epo. This report was described by WADA as being ‘so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical’.

    *One is a desire to break the power of the cycling federations of the 'mafia European nations', as McQuaid has called them, such as France, Italy and Belgium. Just look at the attempts of the organisers of the grand Tours to break away from the corrupt and self-serving UCI to see how this works. The UCI wanted to make a 'grab' of the income from the TV rights to the Grand Tours and Classics, arguing that as these were part of the 'Pro Tour' calendar, they were effectively 'owned' by the UCI rather than the organisers. The organisers understandably enough resisted, supported by their respective national federations. The 'democracy' of the UCI was then brought to bear, with the federations of countries that are cycling non-entities (but who stand to benefit from the money the UCI would make out of 'Pro Tour' TV rights) voting in support of the UCI in order to bring the 'rebel' federations into line.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    edited September 2009
    P.s another reason who no one has so far made anything 'stick' against Armstrong is that he ruthlessly uses his power to intimidate and silence those who do speak out. For example, Prentice Steffen (the former doctor at USP who left when it became clear that he was expected to organise a doping 'program' for the team) was told by Armstrong "I have a lot of money, good lawyers, and if you continue to talk, I'll destroy you."

    Anyhow, with luck the upcoming Lemond /Trek court case will see a lot more damning evidence regarding to Armstrong’s doping enter the public area. Apparently Lemond has a collection of some very 'interesting' telephone conversations with members of Armstrong’s inner circle. On a similar theme take a listen to the following. It is a taped phone conversation between Greg Lemond and Stephanie McIlvain, Armstrong's personal representative with Oakley. In it she says that she heard Armstrong admitting to using a range of doping products, including Epo, even though she later denied this after she was threatened with being sacked from Oakley (along with her husband) if she failed to back Armstrong at the SCA hearings.

    http://www.filefactory.com/file/af44003/n/gregstef_mp3

    Also of interest, the hard to find English Translation of L.A. Confidentiel

    http://www.filefactory.com/file/81ba27/ ... s_1_50_pdf

    http://www.filefactory.com/file/a0ae26g ... 51_100_pdf

    http://www.filefactory.com/file/aaa0f2/ ... 01_150_pdf

    http://www.filefactory.com/file/81b9c5/n/BigTex_4_pdf

Categories