Astana: le merde hits the fan

SpaceJunk

Lets wait and see what pans out before apportioning guilt like most things like this the truth lies somewhere between the two positions.

Why? That would be totally inconsistent with how we normally deal with things on this forum.

shinyhelmut

Tusher wrote:

Merci, Echo.


(Fora, fora, yes, of course it is, must remember, f-o-r-a)

and I want you to write it out 50 times by end of school ;-)

BikingBernie

teagar wrote:

Could be everyone but Levi and Armstrong.

A most unlikely scenario...

TornadoTom

BikingBernie

I'm not a biologist, but reticulocytes are immature blood cells, which are normally around 1% in the bloodstream, but Lance has far lower values in July, and my question is that is indicative of autologous blood doping?

Do the reticulocytes mature while in storage? So lowering the % in the bloodstream once the blood is infused (?) ? Or are the reticulocytes removed before storage?

iainf72

TornadoTom wrote:

BikingBernie

I'm not a biologist, but reticulocytes are immature blood cells, which are normally around 1% in the bloodstream, but Lance has far lower values in July, and my question is that is indicative of autologous blood doping?

Do the reticulocytes mature while in storage? So lowering the % in the bloodstream once the blood is infused (?) ? Or are the reticulocytes removed before storage?

If you get a blood transfusion, your body shuts down production for a while and the reticulocytes drop off. You get the same behaviour with EPO.

It's a possible indication of some kind of manipulation.

ballspondroad

A graph, how scientific. Except what you also need to know is the variation for the person concerned over a long period and the variation expected in the general population. Perhaps all this graph shows is that the TdF knackers your body.

BikingBernie

ballspondroad wrote:

A graph, how scientific. Except what you also need to know is the variation for the person concerned over a long period and the variation expected in the general population. Perhaps all this graph shows is that the TdF knackers your body.

But Armstong's readings show the exact opposite of what might be expected given the demands the Tour makes. For example, we would expect to see a rider's haemocrit level during the Tour falling to lower than usual levels. However, some of Armstrong's 'Tour' haemocrit levels are actually the highest he recorded over a full 12 month period...

iainf72

ballspondroad wrote:

A graph, how scientific. Except what you also need to know is the variation for the person concerned over a long period and the variation expected in the general population. Perhaps all this graph shows is that the TdF knackers your body.

http://www.localcyclist.com/2009/09/a-t ... -cyclists/

Give it a read

ballspondroad

Possibly BikingB, but I merely repeat that what you also need to know is the variation for the person concerned over a long period and the variation expected in the general population. With biological data of this sort extracting selected highlights is a complete no-no.

BikingBernie

ballspondroad wrote:

Possibly BikingB, but I merely repeat that what you also need to know is the variation for the person concerned over a long period and the variation expected in the general population. With biological data of this sort extracting selected highlights is a complete no-no.

So, what you are effectively arguing is that Armstrong's 'Tour' data points might well fall within what is a normal range for him. The (remote) possibility that this is the case can be calculated by comparing the 'Tour data' with all those data points collected over the previous year, using a statistical test such as a t-test, to establish how likely it is that the data points are drawn from one or two separate populations. I can tell you now that the probability that all the data points are drawn from a single population would be very small. This is especially case given that both the haemocrit and reticulocyte readings for his Tour data appear to be drawn from a different population to those measured over the previous year.

Another issue that needs to be considered is what these data points tell us about his haemocrit readings in earlier Tours. This is especially so given that Jonathan Vaughters it is on record as saying that when he was on the team the whole USP team was racing with levels of just under 50%...

---

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/arch ... /25_1.html

News for January 25, 1997

Armstrong's first race back

Lance Armstrong will have his first public appearance after his illness at the goodwill race "Race for Roses" in Austin, Texas, on March 23 (this was formerly to be held on February 16).

Doctors are the sorcerers of the peloton

The cycling doctors are the sorcerers of the peloton. Last year racing saw the team doctor as an important part of the team. The success of Italian cycling is also the success of the Italian doctor Conconi and his former righthand man Ferrari.

Anyway, that is said in the medical world. They are the top specialists of erythropoetine (EPO), the forbidden drug that the peleton is caught in the grip off.

ballspondroad

The only thing I'm saying about this data really is that, as it stands, nobody can say anything meaningful about it. Given their limitations a simple statistical test is unlikely to be useful and anyway would only establish if there was a difference, but not why.

calvjones

ballspondroad wrote:

The only thing I'm saying about this data really is that, as it stands, nobody can say anything meaningful about it. Given their limitations a simple statistical test is unlikely to be useful and anyway would only establish if there was a difference, but not why.

Luckily we can look to the last 20 years of cycling history to provide the 'why'.

PauloBets

Lance was definitely up to something, but he got away with it, he is the winner-fact!...change the record you kimmage fanclub

Monty Dog

PauloBets wrote:

Lance was definitely up to something, but he got away with it, he is the winner-fact!...change the record you kimmage fanclub

Glad I don't share your morals - or should I say lack of them but then again you are in distinctive company. Care to refresh our memories of what precisely he won last year - oh yes, I forgot, a couple of mountain bike races and a local criterium!

moray_gub

Monty Dog wrote:

PauloBets wrote:

Lance was definitely up to something, but he got away with it, he is the winner-fact!...change the record you kimmage fanclub

Glad I don't share your morals - or should I say lack of them !

You really have a high opinion of yourself dont you.

PauloBets

Monty Dog wrote:

PauloBets wrote:

Lance was definitely up to something, but he got away with it, he is the winner-fact!...change the record you kimmage fanclub

Glad I don't share your morals - or should I say lack of them but then again you are in distinctive company. Care to refresh our memories of what precisely he won last year - oh yes, I forgot, a couple of mountain bike races and a local criterium!

he doesn't need to win anything Mr Monty Dog....he's won the best races and what you on about morals for?? He never got caught doping, so the 7 are his ...the morals of you in questions more like... guilty without facts or proof is your way of convicting!

BikingBernie

PauloBets wrote:

He never got caught doping, so the 7 are his ...the morals of you in questions more like... guilty without facts or proof is your way of convicting!

"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

PauloBets

BikingBernie wrote:

PauloBets wrote:

He never got caught doping, so the 7 are his ...the morals of you in questions more like... guilty without facts or proof is your way of convicting!

"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

You a Kimmage fanclub member ? Lance used something secret-whatever it was we don't know...kimmage bumchums just can't face the facts...lance won and you'll never catch him for that...

Monty Dog

http://d21c.com/PRINCESS/TUTES/TROLL.jpg

Bear77

'... bumchums' - Classy :!:

dougzz

@PauloBets
I thought of a considered balanced view of you comments but then decided to go with.......

You are a complete arsehole.

Monty Dog

@paolobetts are you Deadloss, sorry Deadlift over on the CyclingNews forum? Or are you just plagiarising someone else's posts because you haven't got anything original to say yourself?

rockmount

BikingBernie wrote:

PauloBets wrote:

He never got caught doping, so the 7 are his ...the morals of you in questions more like... guilty without facts or proof is your way of convicting!

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) did not take EPO during the '99 Tour."

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

There you go compelling evidence !

The Prodigy

dougzz wrote:

@PauloBets
I thought of a considered balanced view of you comments but then decided to go with.......

You are a complete arsehole.

He's a mildly amusing lad though. Bumchums is a classic amongst 11 year olds.

Langman

I like Armstrong he's a great rider, campaigner and cancer beater - great. But I think he doped without doubt, to think he did not you'd have to be naive at best.

For me the evidence is there when you look at his rides and career with an open mind and consider that all his peers where found to have taken EPO but Armstrong still beat them. EPO is a drug that its claimed can add 20% to a rider, Ullrich was considered the most talented of his generation and Pantani could be considered the best ever climber but both used EPO and Armstrong beat them both pretty easily. So lets get this straight a clean Armstrong beat everybody else that was on EPO by some distance when you add to this statements by Frankie Andreau and others from US Postal that where caught it seems silly to think the Armstrong was the only clean winner of the 90's and 00's. Oh and for good measure he used Dr Ferrari during his years at the top - that is pretty condeming in its self.

If I were a clean cyclist and the most powerful man in the sport I would hate dopers and say get them out and keep them out - after all why should a cheat beat me, I'm clean and training my arse off - but Armstrong has never really expressed a strong view against dopers and he has tried to personally kill off anybody that speaks out against doping.

Garz

Nice pov there langman.

Monty Dog

LA took out an injunction to have "LA Confidential" blocked from being published in English. Large extracts and the same allegations are published in "From Lance to Landis" by the same authors - if the allegations contained in this book are untrue why no lawsuit? - particularly in London where the English libel law is highly biased towards the 'victim'. Why has Armstrong also made a significant number of out of court settlements to some of the individuals who made these accusations - for someone keen to protect his image, he's particularly keen not to have to defend it in open court. I also reckon the ongoing Lemond vs Trek suit will be settled out of court - Trek wouldn't want to have the repututation of their golden goose besmirched in open court either?

paulcuthbert

Langman wrote:

I like Armstrong he's a great rider, campaigner and cancer beater - great. But I think he doped without doubt, to think he did not you'd have to be naive at best.

For me the evidence is there when you look at his rides and career with an open mind and consider that all his peers where found to have taken EPO but Armstrong still beat them.

What everyone forgets when they look at Lance's achievements on the bike in relation to his pre/post-cancer career is that, whether he doped or not, Lance was always an amazing athlete. I mean, this guy was competing in and winning triathlons (tough sport!) at 14 and beating guys twice his age. And we're not talking about short distance- they were well beaten.

I think what happened was that when he started to train specifically for specific goals, rather than being an all-round strong rider- not the best, but strong- is when he excelled.

To be honest, I don't know the science of how doping works- what it does to a rider- but I think the way that Lance and USPS/Discovery looked specifically at being totally precise about every little detail in the bike, the rider, the equipment, the training- that probably made more of a difference to Lance's 7 wins than a 20% increase in a riders stamina due to PED's.

dougzz

What everyone forgets when they look at Lance's achievements on the bike in relation to his pre/post-cancer career is that, whether he doped or not, Lance was always an amazing athlete. I mean, this guy was competing in and winning triathlons (tough sport!) at 14 and beating guys twice his age. And we're not talking about short distance- they were well beaten.

I think what happened was that when he started to train specifically for specific goals, rather than being an all-round strong rider- not the best, but strong- is when he excelled.

To be honest, I don't know the science of how doping works- what it does to a rider- but I think the way that Lance and USPS/Discovery looked specifically at being totally precise about every little detail in the bike, the rider, the equipment, the training- that probably made more of a difference to Lance's 7 wins than a 20% increase in a riders stamina due to PED's.

Man get your head out of the sand. I don't care whether he ever tests positive there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that he has chosen to not dispute in a Court, and Court's are something he loves to use when he feels wronged or short changed. EPO is a much bigger boost than a pair of natty Oakley's or a saving of 8 grammes on the new carbon wheel.

As for the cancer campaign it all seems very vague to me, how much of last year was raisng Lance awareness, and don't get me started on the cross-over between livestrong.com and .org.

And for the fanboyz I know he was a great TDF winner, 7 in a row is absolutely fantastic no matter what you're on. I just can't stand the pretence it was all about the weight loss and the training and the attention to detail.

What's that noise, ohhhh it's incoming abuse

teagar

dougzz wrote:

. I just can't stand the pretence it was all about the weight loss and the training and the attention to detail.

S'what my gut told me about Wiggins. :?