im gonna miss the Team TT though.....

I did some number crunching. This is a crude calculation, but it demonstrates how close all of the contenders are.

1) Using the power calculator, and assuming 500 miles are really fought out between the GC's in the TDF the difference is very small. I plugged in an average slope of 2%, cadence of 90rpm's, and used the same height & weight measurements for all 3 wattages.

300 watts time 25 hours, 22 minutes and 50 seconds.
297 watts time 25 hours, 30 minutes and 36 seconds
295 watts time 25 hours, 38 minutes and 27 seconds

3 measley watts gives identical riders almost and 8 minute differece in time.

That is a 1% difference. I think it is certainly possible for someone to be gifted enough to maintain a 1% difference without PED's. I am not saying it was done, but possible.

Has anyone found a study on PED's and the elite riders? I wonder how much difference they make? I suspect it would be less than someone who is untrained.

Richard

But they don't race like that. Most of it is down to following what the other riders do, shadowing, etc...
Just compare the l'Alpe d'Huez times of 2005 and 2001... huge difference simply because the top riders were all shadowing (followed by Armstrong) in 2005 while he blew the race apart in 2001.

im gonna miss the Team TT though.....

With some teams missing 2 or more guys it's probably better they don't have a Team TT.

Yea, the team time trial is so cool, they just have to figure out a way to reward a team adequately without penalizing a GC contender too much for having a poor team ride, I know, tough to do.

Yea, the team time trial is so cool, they just have to figure out a way to reward a team adequately without penalizing a GC contender too much for having a poor team ride, I know, tough to do.

I have the solution. The first two minutes your team loses to the winner counts as full time. Everything over that is halved. So if Credit Agricole loses to Disco by 1:41 they are kept at that time deficit.
If AG2R loses by 5:23 like they did last year they are given a 3:42 deficit - the first 2 minutes at full rate then half of the next 3:23.

... Originally Posted by va_cyclist "I think I'm done paying attention to pro cycling"

One might argue that on the contrary, this might be the best time to start paying attention to pro cycling.

I agree - this is one of the best times to watch Pro cycling and the Tour. Assume the ones like George, Levi, Landis, Rasmussen, Salvodelli, Hushovd, Boonen, McEwen, etc are clean and enjoy the fight everywhere, especially in the mountains.

If you can't make that assumption, then you really can't ever enjoy competitive sports. Starting with everyone above cat3 is on 'something', hey, maybe even that guy who dropped you for dead on that last climb must be on 'something' :)

With some teams missing 2 or more guys it's probably better they don't have a Team TT.

On the other hand, it could be a reasonable penalty. Let Vinokourov ride and still have a GC shot maybe, but Wurth will have to do the TT with just 4 guys!

Speaking of "El Diablo Rojo"..I haven't seen him this year. Is he still around, or does he only do the mountains? And most important, does he use PED's to run alongside and wave his pitchfork?

Speaking of "El Diablo Rojo"..I haven't seen him this year. Is he still around, or does he only do the mountains? And most important, does he use PED's to run alongside and wave his pitchfork?

Yes I will be in the mountains. PED's? Only if you consider human souls to be PED's.

I wonder if this doping scandal stuff will make into the mainstream media similar to the was the Balco story blew up. Most people don't realize that the Balco investigation started from track and field. Not from baseball.

This was on the front page of the L.A. Times today...

http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-armstrong9jul09,0,5275381.story?coll=la-home-headlines

... Originally Posted by va_cyclist "I think I'm done paying attention to pro cycling"



I agree - this is one of the best times to watch Pro cycling and the Tour. Assume the ones like George, Levi, Landis, Rasmussen, Salvodelli, Hushovd, Boonen, McEwen, etc are clean and enjoy the fight everywhere, especially in the mountains.

If you can't make that assumption, then you really can't ever enjoy competitive sports. Starting with everyone above cat3 is on 'something', hey, maybe even that guy who dropped you for dead on that last climb must be on 'something' :)

I agree. And Rasmussen is the man I root for, he did things last year I have only seen in movies. He is my real inspiration to be a better cycleist.

Being Danish myself, I know a few funny things about Rasmussen. His nickname is "Kylling" - chicken for those who do not speak the language. He suffers from a form of manic compulsive disorder - he weighs everything, his bike, his food (in and out). He is apparently a team mechanics worst nightmare when it comes to the setting up of his bike because of this. For such a thin guy, both his parents are overweight...

...Rasmussen. ...he weighs everything, his bike, his food (in and out). ...

That is too much information :)

I have read the LATimes story that talks about the $5 mill payment dispute affecting Lance Armstrong, seems like quite a few publications it wants to keep the facts as vague as possible.

I dont know how many people are aware that Lance Armstrong was involved in a case study describing the physiological chacteristics and development of a cyclist over a 7-year period from the age of 21 to 28.
The person was specifically Lance Armstrong and it covers before and during TDF champion, and obviously while recovering from cancer.
It makes interesting reading and raises the question would he actually dope when you consider the testing was at the Human Performance Laboratory, University of Texas.
(Each person will have their own views on this). My own personal view is that he has pushed the legal bounds at the time as far as possible regarding performance enhancement, meaning that some practices he did in the past were legal then but had to be changed when laws were tightened.

Link to journal mentioned above: http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/98/6/2191#top

I am not going into that much detail of the trial to claim the $5 mill, but this should open some eyes a bit more I hope:
Brief comment before the below testimony.
Betsy Andreu’s testimony in the context of the case: she conferred with and assisted the insurance company, she voluntarily traveled to Dallas on her own to testify against Armstrong at trial (the panel had no power to subpoena her appearance at the trial), she conferred with the Lemonds over 100 times during approximately ten months during 2004 and 2005 in a collective effort to attack Armstrong. Armstrong’s lawyers recovered a note she brought to Dallas which read “why do I hate Lance Armstrong?” She was so obsessive that even the insurance company employee responsible for attempting to gather evidence of drug use by Lance (the employee had gone so far as to steal a piece of used chewing gum Armstrong had placed in a trash can in a Dallas Courtroom and sent it for DNA testing at a Dallas laboratory, the results of which were of course negative) complained of her constant phone calls and suggestions. She placed over 15 calls to the investigator during a one-month period prior to the trial. All this evidence was introduced at trial before the Panel signed its award for 7.5 Million dollars to Armstrong.

Partial testimony of Mrs Andreus (who attended in support of the insurance company but was questioned by LA lawyers pertaining to the Lemond deposition) and also Julian DeVriese.

Andreu’s trial testimony on the Lemonds’ depositions is as follows:

Q. Now, you're aware that both Greg and Kathy LeMond testified that you told them that Mr. Armstrong had called your house in a panic because he was out of EPO, and he wanted some from Frank?

A. No, that's not right.

Q. It was a lie by both LeMonds?

A. That was incorrect.

Q. Well, it was a lie?

A. That was incorrect by the LeMonds. I don't know - how they got that.

Q. Are you aware that both LeMonds testified that you told them that you had witnessed Mr. Armstrong inject himself with performance-enhancing drugs?

A. No. That Lance told Frankie that.

Q. Well, are you aware that both of the LeMonds testified that you told them that?

A. No.

Q. If they did so testify, that would be a lie, wouldn't it?

A. That would be incorrect, yes.

Q. So it's your testimony that you never told either the -- either of the LeMonds the two stories that I just mentioned; right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you didn't tell them that because that never happened?

A. Correct.

Other alleged Lemond conversations were likewise disproved. The Lemonds claimed, under oath, that Julian DeVriese, a Belgian mechanic who worked for Lemond and later for the Postal Service team, had made statements linking Armstrong to illegal conduct. The French papers recently published those claims but neglected to disclose that DeVriese was asked in the trial process to address specifically the accusations the Lemonds attributed to him. In his answers, set out below, DeVriese repudiated entirely the Lemond allegations:

Q. In your service as a mechanic for the USPS, did you ever observe Lance Armstrong engage in any prohibited conduct including, but not limited to, the use of any performance enhancing substance (“PES”)?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever observe any member of the USPS team use PES?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever assist in the procurement, transportation or disposal of any PES for the USPS or any member of the team?

A. No.

Q. Were you ever told by any member, coach, trainer or director of the USPS that any PES had been used by any USPS team member?

A. No.

Q. Did you tell Greg LeMond that you had attended a training camp in the Pyrenees with Kevin Livingston, Tyler Hamilton, Lance Armstrong and Dr. Ferrari where they were using large amounts of drugs which were new, out of the system in 48 hours and could never be detected?

A. No, I did not. While I attended some training camps, I have never met a Dr. Ferrari. In fact, if you put 100 people in front of me I could not recognize him.

Q. Did you tell Kathy LeMond that Lance Armstrong had a positive drug test in 1999 for cortisone?

A. I may have mentioned that, I do not recall. However, that was reported in the newspapers, so it was no secret. I was told that it resulted from a cortisone cream used to treat saddle-sores, which are common among professional cyclists.

Q. Did you tell Kathy LeMond that the team security back-dated prescription for the cortisone?

A. No.

Q. Did you tell Kathy LeMond that the UCI and/or the President of the UCI was paid $500,000 to keep quiet about the 1999 positive?

A. No. I am a bicycle mechanic and I would have no knowledge or information regarding such things, anyway.

Q. Did you tell Greg LeMond in April, 2001 that a French investigation dealing with the 2000 Tour de France was dismissed because you signed a false or fraudulent affidavit?

A. No.

Q. Did Lance Armstrong or Bill Stapleton request you to sign a false affidavit in connection with that investigation?

A. No.

Q. Did you tell Greg LeMond or Kathy LeMond that the USPS team had refrigerators (“frigos”) on the bus for the purpose of keeping prohibited performance enhancing drugs refrigerated?

A. No.

Q. Did you tell Emma O’Reilly that you transported drugs to members of the USPS team via a hollowed-out heel on your clogs?

A. No. Furthermore, I do not wear or own a pair of clogs.

Q. Did you, at a dinner in Perne la Fontaine, in July 2000, with Vera, Stephan, Dean Brewer, Jorge Jasson and the LeMond’s and their children present, tell those at dinner about a three-week training camp where the riders, including Lance, were on IVs doing drugs and experimenting with a drug that’s undetectable and out of the system in 48 hours?

A. No. I recall going to dinner the night after the reunion and that my wife and son were there. However, there was no conversation about PES by USPS or anyone else. I would never discuss any such topic at a dinner with my family or children.

Q. Did you, at the 10-year reunion in July, 2000 tell Greg or Kathy Lemond about any PES use by the USPS team or its members?

A. No.


With all the accusations going round I am not sure we will get to the bottom of it but this sure highlights a lot of confusion about those accusations printed by the press.
One thing we know for sure... Lance really did p&ss some people off and thats giving him headaches.
Also it seems the insurance company recovered a piece of chewing gum to do DNA tests (not sure what they could find from that though) and it came back negative..... 10/10 for effort by them though :)

UNI,

I posted your reply on another thread delaing with the LA Times investigation.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=2765051#post2765051

I hope you don't mind. You'll find out from my posts that I am convinced Lance was not clean, but I am trying to gather as much info as possible, wherever it can come from, if the source is minimally reliable.

Where did you get your information from?

Adamastor

Something I've been wondering about... It was the Spanish police that ran Operation Porta, right? What law were they enforcing? Who will be arrested? What will be the charges?

Not trolling here. Actually, I'm glad to see some action against doping. I just think it's kind of weird that the Spanish police reported their results to the cycling world and team managers instead of just issuing warrants for arrest as would usually be done at the end of a sting or undercover police operation.

Somebody please set me straight if I got some fact wrong here. As I see the facts now, it just doesn't make sense.

Something I've been wondering about... It was the Spanish police that ran Operation Porta, right? What law were they enforcing? Who will be arrested? What will be the charges?

Not trolling here. Actually, I'm glad to see some action against doping. I just think it's kind of weird that the Spanish police reported their results to the cycling world and team managers instead of just issuing warrants for arrest as would usually be done at the end of a sting or undercover police operation.

Somebody please set me straight if I got some fact wrong here. As I see the facts now, it just doesn't make sense.

May: Dr Fuentes arrested, Manolo Saiz caught as well, plenty of paperwork and bags with blood discovered - investigation starts by Guardia Civil
May: leaks by the press about the running investigation - possible names of riders published
July: just before Tour, because of chaos created by the press, Guardia Civil decides to "exceptionnally" deliver a summary odf the investigation to Tour organisers and cycling teams
July: teams unanimously decide to ban riders "involved" (not necessarily guilty !) from Tour de France, hence byebye Ullrich, byebye Basso, etc

This short summary. Do a search on "operation puerto" on BF, you'll find plenty of threads, or on
"Google" same.

May: Dr Fuentes arrested, Manolo Saiz caught as well, plenty of paperwork and bags with blood discovered - investigation starts by Guardia Civil
May: leaks by the press about the running investigation - possible names of riders published
July: just before Tour, because of chaos created by the press, Guardia Civil decides to "exceptionnally" deliver a summary odf the investigation to Tour organisers and cycling teams
July: teams unanimously decide to ban riders "involved" (not necessarily guilty !) from Tour de France, hence byebye Ullrich, byebye Basso, etc

This short summary. Do a search on "operation puerto" on BF, you'll find plenty of threads, or on
"Google" same.

So what did they charge Fuentes with? It has been said that blood doping in sports events isn't illegal in Spain.

Edit: He's a doctor, right? He should be able to prescribe drugs to his patients. The most I can see is maybe losing his license to practice medicine if the governing medical body in Spain decided he wasn't following their code of ethics.

Spain has passed laws (March 06 by google search) against sports doping. Apparently, the Spanish government has decided to go after sports cheating. This investigation started in May hence the law was in force.

Spain has passed laws (March 06 by google search) against sports doping. Apparently, the Spanish government has decided to go after sports cheating. This investigation started in May hence the law was in force.

OK, but I guess they'll have to throw out all the evidence that's more than a few months old since the law wasn't in effect before then.

OK, but I guess they'll have to throw out all the evidence that's more than a few months old since the law wasn't in effect before then.
Alot of the evidence points to this years Giro.
This is European law, not U.S. law so evidence from prior to the law
being enacted may hold ( not sure about that).
got to think globally here, not UScentric.

marty

UNI,

I posted your reply on another thread delaing with the LA Times investigation.

Here's a partial rebuttal of UNI's comments I posted in that other thread:



Betsy Andreu’s testimony in the context of the case: she conferred with and assisted the insurance company, she voluntarily traveled to Dallas on her own to testify against Armstrong at trial (the panel had no power to subpoena her appearance at the trial), she conferred with the Lemonds over 100 times during approximately ten months during 2004 and 2005 in a collective effort to attack Armstrong. Armstrong’s lawyers recovered a note she brought to Dallas which read “why do I hate Lance Armstrong?” She was so obsessive that even the insurance company employee responsible for attempting to gather evidence of drug use by Lance (the employee had gone so far as to steal a piece of used chewing gum Armstrong had placed in a trash can in a Dallas Courtroom and sent it for DNA testing at a Dallas laboratory, the results of which were of course negative) complained of her constant phone calls and suggestions. She placed over 15 calls to the investigator during a one-month period prior to the trial. All this evidence was introduced at trial before the Panel signed its award for 7.5 Million dollars to Armstrong.

Once you step into the arena you have to fight to the death. By testifying against Lance, she also became a target for accusations of perjury, slander, libel, etc. and she had to make sure she had done her research and checked her testimony to be confident it was accurate. She also knew she was in for a time of severe emotional upheaval and she needed the support of her friends.

As for why she had that “Why do I hate Lance” scrap of paper, she probably gets asked that particular question a lot, and wrote it down with the intention of drafting a response clarifying that she doesn’t hate him, she just wants to tell the truth.

Regarding the chewing gum, is it possible the insurer obtained a sample of EPO tainted blood or urine from a source who claimed it was Armstrong's and needed a proven sample of his DNA to check it against?



Q. Now, you're aware that both Greg and Kathy LeMond testified that you told them that Mr. Armstrong had called your house in a panic because he was out of EPO, and he wanted some from Frank?

A. No, that's not right.

Q. It was a lie by both LeMonds?

A. That was incorrect.

Q. Well, it was a lie?

A. That was incorrect by the LeMonds. I don't know - how they got that.

Q. Are you aware that both LeMonds testified that you told them that you had witnessed Mr. Armstrong inject himself with performance-enhancing drugs?

A. No. That Lance told Frankie that.

Q. Well, are you aware that both of the LeMonds testified that you told them that?

A. No.

Q. If they did so testify, that would be a lie, wouldn't it?

A. That would be incorrect, yes.

Q. So it's your testimony that you never told either the -- either of the LeMonds the two stories that I just mentioned; right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you didn't tell them that because that never happened?

A. Correct.

Clever lawyer, asking her trick questions to see if she will change her story. She didn’t.





In his answers, set out below, DeVriese repudiated entirely the Lemond allegations:

….
Q. Did you tell Emma O’Reilly that you transported drugs to members of the USPS team via a hollowed-out heel on your clogs?

A. No. Furthermore, I do not wear or own a pair of clogs.

…
Q. Did you ever assist in the procurement, transportation or disposal of any PES for the USPS or any member of the team?

A. No.
…
Q. Did you tell Kathy LeMond that the UCI and/or the President of the UCI was paid $500,000 to keep quiet about the 1999 positive?

A. No. I am a bicycle mechanic and I would have no knowledge or information regarding such things, anyway.

....
Q. Did you tell Greg LeMond in April, 2001 that a French investigation dealing with the 2000 Tour de France was dismissed because you signed a false or fraudulent affidavit?

A. No.

Q. Did Lance Armstrong or Bill Stapleton request you to sign a false affidavit in connection with that investigation?

A. No.


(That's just part of his testimony). I know nothing of Mr. DeVriese, but those questions clearly would have incriminated him had he answered 'yes', perhaps opened him to criminal investigation, so he certainly was not a neutral observer in this case.

I actually am not taking sides, just pointing out that UNI's post is hardly damning of Lemond or Andreu.

Q. So it's your testimony that you never told either the -- either of the LeMonds the two stories that I just mentioned; right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you didn't tell them that because that never happened?

A. Correct.

just pointing out that UNI's post is hardly damning of Lemond or Andreu.

Sure looks like either the Lemonds are lying about the story that Ms. Andreu allegedly told
them, or Ms. Andreu is lying about the Lemond's testimony.
Somehow 1+1 is not adding up to 2.

Marty

Sure looks like either the Lemonds are lying about the story that Ms. Andreu allegedly told
them, or Ms. Andreu is lying about the Lemond's testimony.
Somehow 1+1 is not adding up to 2.

Marty
If they were conspiring against Lance and met a hundred times to plan it, they would have got their story straight. The fact that they differed on a few details, years or decades after the incidents in question, might mean their story wasn't rock solid enough to deny Lance his $5 million (fair enough), but it doesn't point to deliberate lying.

Also, you haven't considered that Armstrong's lawyer may simply have twisted the facts around in his line of questioning to try to trap Ms. Andreu in a lie.

Also, witnesses on the stand are under tremendous pressure and can make mistakes in their testimony.

If they were conspiring against Lance and met a hundred times to plan it, they would have got their story straight. The fact that they differed on a few details, years or decades after the incidents in question, might mean their story wasn't rock solid enough to deny Lance his $5 million (fair enough), but it doesn't point to deliberate lying.

Also, you haven't considered that Armstrong's lawyer may simply have twisted the facts around in his line of questioning to try to trap Ms. Andreu in a lie.

Also, witnesses on the stand are under tremendous pressure and can make mistakes in their testimony.

True, Mrs Andreu couldnt remember any details (apart from the alleged conversation) about the incident when a doctor asked LA (3 days after brain surgery) whether he took EPO, etc.
Didnt now which doctor, what they were wearing, or even if they were male or female.
May sound strange but the lead doctor/s dispute that they ever asked these types of questions.
BTW Mr. DeVriese was Discovery cycling mechanic who Greg Lemond mentions as saying EPO was couriered to Lance, etc.
Mr. DeVriese denies all this.

Armstrong's lawyer may simply have twisted the facts around in his line of questioning to try to trap Ms. Andreu in a lie.
Twist the facts however you want... If the witness is telling the truth, you are not going to trap them "in a lie"

The first time I heard this story it sounded like crap. IF LA was juicing, and IF his doctor asked him about hit... it defies logic to suggest that he did it in a room full of people AFTER the surgery. (The doctor in question has since said the same thing.)

Now I'm not a physician but I used to watch ER a lot so I know this... doctors don't ask questions like that in a room full of people.

It comes down to this. They all dope and if they all dope than Lance doped; however, he still kicked their ass because he beat them when they were on dope.

Twist the facts however you want... If the witness is telling the truth, you are not going to trap them "in a lie"

The first time I heard this story it sounded like crap. IF LA was juicing, and IF his doctor asked him about hit... it defies logic to suggest that he did it in a room full of people AFTER the surgery. (The doctor in question has since said the same thing.)

Now I'm not a physician but I used to watch ER a lot so I know this... doctors don't ask questions like that in a room full of people.

I am a physician. When you're in a hospital being treated for metastatic cancer there can be several teams of doctors involved in your case, plus their residents and interns, even medical students. Unfortunately, not every one of those personnel is going to ask questions discreetly, and not every one is going to have the chance to catch the patient without an entourage of friends and family around, so it doesn't seem impossible to me that it happened as described.

For me, the weakest part of the case is that Lance was only three days post surgery for brain tumours when this was supposed to have taken place. If so, who knows if he was answering accurately.

The first time I heard this story it sounded like crap. IF LA was juicing, and IF his doctor asked him about hit... it defies logic to suggest that he did it in a room full of people AFTER the surgery. (The doctor in question has since said the same thing.)



"The doctor in question" is not one of the 2 doctors who were present in the room. Actually nobody knows who they were. Betsy Andreu doesn't remember their names (why should she, after 9 years??), but as far as I understood they were never identified.

Question: LA admits he was in that room with his friends (he only denies the conversation !). But has he told who the doctors were?

"The doctor in question" is not one of the 2 doctors who were present in the room. Actually nobody knows who they were. Betsy Andreu doesn't remember their names (why should she, after 9 years??), but as far as I understood they were never identified.

Question: LA admits he was in that room with his friends (he only denies the conversation !). But has he told who the doctors were?

Thats true and the main doctor was asked about this, his response was that if Lance had answered yes then it would had been so important it would be added to his medical records.
There was nothing in the medical records to show that he answered yes to taking EPO, etc.
Remember though Betsy couldnt remember if the doctor was male or female, but strangely remembers the questions very well :)

Still for me one thing that seperates Lance from a lot of other cyclists in doping accusations is his work with Texas Univervisity that studied his physiology from the age of 21 to 28.
The tests were done out of season and while training in preparation for the TDFs.

For me it would be strange to dope when a high level of physiological tests were being done that frequently, they may not identify PEDs but surely they would identify characteristics of doping.
So would he had assisted Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology and Health Education at the university if he was doping?

Some will still say yes, and others no....
Me, until real proof is found I am in the no camp with regards to him doping.

"The doctor in question" is not one of the 2 doctors who were present in the room. Actually nobody knows who they were. Betsy Andreu doesn't remember their names (why should she, after 9 years??), but as far as I understood they were never identified.

Question: LA admits he was in that room with his friends (he only denies the conversation !). But has he told who the doctors were?

Thats true and the main doctor was asked about this, his response was that if Lance had answered yes then it would had been so important it would be added to his medical records.
There was nothing in the medical records to show that he answered yes to taking EPO, etc.
Remember though Betsy couldnt remember if the doctor was male or female, but strangely remembers the questions very well :)

Still for me one thing that seperates Lance from a lot of other cyclists in doping accusations is his work with Texas Univervisity that studied his physiology from the age of 21 to 28.
The tests were done out of season and while training in preparation for the TDFs.

For me it would be strange to dope when a high level of physiological tests were being done that frequently, they may not identify PEDs but surely they would identify characteristics of doping.
So would he had assisted Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology and Health Education at the university if he was doping?

Some will still say yes, and others no....
Me, until real proof is found I am in the no camp with regards to him doping.

If they were conspiring against Lance and met a hundred times to plan it, they would have got their story straight. The fact that they differed on a few details, years or decades after the incidents in question, might mean their story wasn't rock solid enough to deny Lance his $5 million (fair enough), but it doesn't point to deliberate lying.

Also, you haven't considered that Armstrong's lawyer may simply have twisted the facts around in his line of questioning to try to trap Ms. Andreu in a lie.

Also, witnesses on the stand are under tremendous pressure and can make mistakes in their testimony.

The testimony makes clear that Ms. Andreu is willing to say anything to damage Lance, but is also attempting to protect her own husband...she wants to claim that Lance was doping, while her own husband rode totally clean. The "madman" of cycling, Greg Lemond, is also willing to say anything he can to damage Lance, but in so doing, he has put a cloud over Andreu. So, to defend her husband, Ms. Andreu must contradict Lemond.

I do not know who is more pathetic. Sad little losers such as Andreu and Lemond, embittered by their has-been status...saying anything to get just fifteen more minutes of fame. Or those members of this Forum who lick up these tired lies as if they were a kitten licking up spilled milk.

When these lies have been presented in Courts and neutral forums, the results are always the same: big checks are written to Armstrong. I wish the liars on this Forum were held equally responsible for their daily foul spewing of rehashed slander and libel.

Remember though Betsy couldnt remember if the doctor was male or female, but strangely remembers the questions very well :)

Maybe the doctor was Pat and [Betsy] couldn't tell!

Edited for clarity...

I am a physician. When you're in a hospital being treated for metastatic cancer there can be several teams of doctors involved in your case, plus their residents and interns, even medical students. Unfortunately, not every one of those personnel is going to ask questions discreetly, and not every one is going to have the chance to catch the patient without an entourage of friends and family around, so it doesn't seem impossible to me that it happened as described.

For me, the weakest part of the case is that Lance was only three days post surgery for brain tumours when this was supposed to have taken place. If so, who knows if he was answering accurately.Does it seem logical that LA got all the way through the early medical history stuff, then through the pre operative stuff and this question was never raised? Then some intern asks three days after surgery, he suddenly says yes and nobody charts it? (I have a hard time believing grand rounds would go through LA's room with non-immediate family there and that kind of question was raised and answered anyway, but just playing devil's advocate.)

Maybe the doctor was Pat and she [or he]couldn't tell!...

Being a physician, I can't help but think that a careful case history would have been done several times and documented well BEFORE any surgery and treatment and not AFTER he had just undergone surgery. I can see revisiting these questions later in privacy but it would take a real bonehead and a bonehead probably still groggy after surgery to answer a question like that "yes" with so many people in the room. I don't know for sure whether Lance juiced or not but this story sure seems less than believable.

Hambone you type faster than I.

Hambone you type faster than I.
yeah, but I have no idea what a spleen is for...

yeah, but I have no idea what a spleen is for...

In this thread, it's for venting.

But has he told who the doctors were? Crowds of "doctors" come through. Do you know the names of all the members of "House"s team? Multiply that by 5 or 10.

Thats true and the main doctor was asked about this, his response was that if Lance had answered yes then it would had been so important it would be added to his medical records.
There was nothing in the medical records to show that he answered yes to taking EPO, etc.
Remember though Betsy couldnt remember if the doctor was male or female, but strangely remembers the questions very well :) .

Of course she remembers the questions very well. The particular question about PEDs shocked her so much she had a huge argument afterwards with her then fiance Frankie Andreu (according to him !).

I know exactly what I was doing on September 11, but I can't remember what I was wearing that day. I keep on researching on the Armstrong case. Actually what I did was I imagined LA has always been totally clean, never touched EPO. And a lot of things simply don't add up, they don't. I can hear him giving interviews in Europe, they were so bloody different from those he gave in the States, it's unbelievable. And I simply want to understand. But I'm ready to listen to your opinion, UNI, I am...

Oh, and by the way, you never told us that what you produced has been written by LA's lawyers...(then taken over by Knapp Communications, aka Cycling News !)

Have a nice day
Adamastor

Of course she remembers the questions very well. The particular question about PEDs shocked her so much she had a huge argument afterwards with her then fiance Frankie Andreu (according to him !).

I know exactly what I was doing on September 11, but I can't remember what I was wearing that day. I keep on researching on the Armstrong case. Actually what I did was I imagined LA has always been totally clean, never touched EPO. And a lot of things simply don't add up, they don't. I can hear him giving interviews in Europe, they were so bloody different from those he gave in the States, it's unbelievable. And I simply want to understand. But I'm ready to listen to your opinion, UNI, I am...

Oh, and by the way, you never told us that what you produced has been written by LA's lawyers...(then taken over by Knapp Communications, aka Cycling News !)

Have a nice day
Adamastor
I got it from a different source than Cycling News.

Moving away from the accusations that to be honest cant be proved......
Out of interest whats your views about Lance Armstrong being studied at the Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, The University of Texas from the age of 21 to 28.
This was pretty intensive analysis of Lance.
Dont you think Lance would have to be a very brave man to dope and co-operate with such a study?
For those who didnt see the link here it is again:
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/98/6/2191#top

Adamastor,
You've clearly decided that LA was doping. Why, I don't know. He's passed all the tests, and won lotsa money via legal challenges. I'm thinking it's some sort of emotional attachment to the issue. I can understand that, as I am a big Tyler Hamilton fan, and was prepared to swallow almost anything to believe him, but every challenge he's put up has been shot down. Even though I don't want to believe it, the facts say he doped and therefore cheated. I therefore have no choice but to agree that he broke the rules, and deserves the lifetime ban he's facing.
The point I'd like you to consider is that all Tyler's woes started after he left the Posties. Considering LA's fixation with the Tour, and his dominance of that team (as its' Captain) it says to me that LA was in a clean team, and was clean himself.
Also, now that I think of it, that applies to Roberto Heras as well.

It reminds me of something I heard when I was racing, I don't quite remember the quote, but the gist was that it's a comforting thought to think that someone is bending/breaking the rules rather than accepting the fact that some other guy is kicking your @ss drinking the same water as you are. Or doing it with just water and talent; I just don't remember.

Lance Armstrong is the Eddy Merckx (sp?) of our generation. Using that as a rough guideline, in another thirty or so years, some other guy is going to come along and amaze us all. Not unlike Michael Jordan in basketball. Some guys are just better than the rest of us ordinary mortals. It's not fair, it just is.

I wish the liars on this Forum were held equally responsible for their daily foul spewing of rehashed slander and libel.

Every time you post something, you tell other posters who don't share your opinions of liars. Stop that please, and let's have a constructive debate here.

Other than that, I wish you a nice day :)
Adamastor

I got it from a different source than Cycling News.

Moving away from the accusations that to be honest cant be proved......
Out of interest whats your views about Lance Armstrong being studied at the Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, The University of Texas from the age of 21 to 28.
This was pretty intensive analysis of Lance.
Dont you think Lance would have to be a very brave man to dope and co-operate with such a study?
For those who didnt see the link here it is again:
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/98/6/2191#top

You are right. I need to take time to read these reports. What is extremely important, from when to when did they take place. And as well what kind of results do they show. let's say, when you talk EPO, that is only detectable days after usage, so were those tests weekly, monthly or annual tests? Or over one particular period of time?

If they those tests took place AFTER Armstrong's treatment for cancer, they would really be interesting to analyse. Well, do they show regular, weekly or monthly hematocrite levels? etc

"Dont you think Lance would have to be a very brave man to dope and co-operate with such a study?"

Yes definitely, if the content of the study were subject to reveal doping usage.

Thanks for post, UNI. Will definitely come back to it, but don't forget, i'm not asn expert in medical report reading, :)

You are right. I need to take time to read these reports. What is extremely important, from when to when did they take place. And as well what kind of results do they show. let's say, when you talk EPO, that is only detectable days after usage, so were those tests weekly, monthly or annual tests? Or over one particular period of time?

If they those tests took place AFTER Armstrong's treatment for cancer, they would really be interesting to analyse. Well, do they show regular, weekly or monthly hematocrite levels? etc

"Dont you think Lance would have to be a very brave man to dope and co-operate with such a study?"

Yes definitely, if the content of the study were subject to reveal doping usage.

Thanks for post, UNI. Will definitely come back to it, but don't forget, i'm not asn expert in medical report reading, :)

Ah I also didnt mention that the Journal also has other studies of Lance and Indurain in the references section, if you click on some of those they open another report in a summary form. To see the complete study click on an option for the full study.
A good example is Reference 28 - Scientific approach to the 1-h cycling world record: a case study.
This has really interesting information about Indurain and is used to compare Lance to Indurain in terms of physiology.

While a lot of the studies may not be specifically looking for PEDs, if lance did take such drugs they would show anomolies in his training due to the extensive analysis of him out and in training.

While a lot of the studies may not be specifically looking for PEDs, if lance did take such drugs they would show anomolies in his training due to the extensive analysis of him out and in training.


I just reviewed the Coyle 2005 study. I haven't looked at the others yet.

Although I’m an MD I’m not an expert in exercise physiology, so take that into account. Coyle had Lance come into his lab on 5 separate occasions over 7 years, for a day of testing each time. This involved a 25 minute bicycle endurance task at a steady cadence of 85 with progressively increasing resistance, to exhaustion, and measurements of heart rate, power output, oxygen intake, and post exercise lactate. Tests were done in the winter months when Lance was in training but not at his race weight of 72 kg...instead he was 76-80 kg.

Lance’s maximum oxygen usage (VO2-max) remained constant at about 6.l L/min over the 7 years, except for dropping right after his cancer treatment when he wasn’t training as hard. Despite that consistent oxygen usage, his performance on the endurance test increased by 8% over that time, showing that his muscles became more efficient, probably reflecting a change in muscle fibre composition over time.

Lance’s high VO2max is away above what it is believed most people could achieve even with intense training, so it’s partly genetic, but it isn’t as high as reported for Miguel Indurain (6.4 L/min). However if it was the same when Lance was at race weight, then Lance’s weight-adjusted O2 usage would be slightly higher than Indurain’s.

The most striking finding is that Lance can clear lactic acid out of his blood more quickly after exercise than anyone else Coyle has tested, including former team-mates who were training with Lance at the time. So maybe Lance doesn't get the same "burn" on sprints and climbs the rest of us do. (Of course, Coyle has not tested Indurain or Ullrich, etc.)

So these findings help explain Lance’s remarkable performance. However they shed no light on whether performance enhancing drugs played a role in his success. The testing didn’t involve (or at least Coyle doesn’t comment on) measures of hematocrit and since it happened in the off-season it sheds no light on whether Lance might have used EPO or some other PED closer to race dates. Also we don’t know if the improved muscle efficiency over time could be partly caused by PEDs, since Coyle says the mechanism for this phenomenon, which has been seen in other endurance athletes over years of training, is not known.

The article is free according to the journal website so I’ll try to post the full text of it later

And to think the sporting world used to get excited about race horses using performance enhancing drugs...

The frogs of Calavaras County better watch out. I've always suspected some of those frogs of doping...

Very interesting thread, once you sort through the chaff (and there's lots of it).

It's worth pointing out to whoever critiqued Ms. Andreu for not remembering anything about the doctors, but only about the alleged EPO conversation: people are more likely to remember data that they consider relevant. I shouldn't need to state this - everyone should say "duh" when they read the italicized line. But I've apparently got to state it.
This isn't saying that I believe Ms. Andreu's [leaked] testimony, nor does it mean that various other criticisms of her testimony are necessarily stupid. But at least a stupid criticism of her testimony should be disputed.

The article is free according to the journal website so I’ll try to post the full text of it later
Oops, UNI already posted a link to the article: http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/98/6/2191#top