Professional Cycling For the Fans - Guess the Lance effect has its limits

A dying sport?

http://velonews.com/article/90606/a-shrinking-peloton

I was hoping whole bunches of American kids were entering the sport inspired by their hero.

The truth needs to come out that Pharmstrong attained his position by taking more $hit than pro wrestlers and bodybuilders.

Wake up!

I wouldn't want my kid in that environment. Maybe there are alternative values out there.

The truth needs to come out that Pharmstrong attained his position by taking more $hit than pro wrestlers and bodybuilders.

Wake up!

I wouldn't want my kid in that environment. Maybe there are alternative values out there.

Couldn't agree more. I refuse to let my kids play sports. Still I watch bike racing when they're not around.

Couldn't agree more. I refuse to let my kids play sports. Still I watch bike racing when they're not around.

i was too harsh here.

The sports aren't bad. The perspective people put on them, who should know better, is what's bad.

They're just games and we've elevated these guys to icon status.

The truth needs to come out that Pharmstrong attained his position by taking more $hit than pro wrestlers and bodybuilders.



Prove it..... seriously.

Prove it..... seriously.

Wake up; seriously!

Anyone who doesn't understand what happened in Pro cycling during that time needs more help than I can give them.

Jan Ullrich

I'll believe it when I see evidence. Just like Atlantis or Noah's ark. I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, its speculation and myth.

I'll believe it when I see evidence. Just like Atlantis or Noah's ark. I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, its speculation and myth.

I can't help you. You do realize he was positive for corticoids in '99 and contrary to what Pharmstrong says, he did not have a TUE.

This is a fact and if you do your research, you'll find out what the truth is.

You do realize that Kevin Livingston was under investigation by the Italians in connection to Ferrari. His HCT went from 41 to almost 50 in less than 6 months. Pharmstrong introduced Livingston to Ferrari or do you believe it was the other way around.

Idolatry is not good for you. The info is out there, read it. From Lance to Landis would be a good start.

I wonder why he's never truly tested positive. Not idolatry...i could care less, but he keeps getting accused without real proof. Everything you posted is circumstantial. No real hard numbers. Just talk.

I can't help you. You do realize he was positive for corticoids in '99 and contrary to what Pharmstrong says, he did not have a TUE.

This is a fact and if you do your research, you'll find out what the truth is.

.

Out of all the things that point to Armstrong's doping, this one is the weakest.
1. There's a difference between "traces" and "positive test" and it's not just symantics.
2. There was nothing about the test that was inconsistent with plain old saddle sore cream in normal quantities no matter what stories went around and who said what.
3. Neither the UCI nor any other agency involved ever considered it worth merit; it was entirely a press issue.

I'm a fan of facts.

Out of all the things that point to Armstrong's doping, this one is the weakest.
1. There's a difference between "traces" and "positive test" and it's not just symantics.
2. There was nothing about the test that was inconsistent with plain old saddle sore cream in normal quantities no matter what stories went around and who said what.
3. Neither the UCI nor any other agency involved ever considered it worth merit; it was entirely a press issue.

I'm a fan of facts.

Me too. Went to school for science so I need facts.

i was too harsh here.

The sports aren't bad. The perspective people put on them, who should know better, is what's bad.

They're just games and we've elevated these guys to icon status.

My point wasn't really about drugs. More about the apparent slacking popularity of a sport despite the recent worldwide popularity of an athlete (I still remember the Pele effect in grade school -- not that my classmates went on to become pros).

It is not because there is a decline in talent. It's because there is a decline in the amount of pro contracts available.
Numerous teams have folded because of the lack of sponsorship money.
As much as people believe Lance can do anything, he can't turn the economy around.

It is not because there is a decline in talent. It's because there is a decline in the amount of pro contracts available.
Numerous teams have folded because of the lack of sponsorship money.
As much as people believe Lance can do anything, he can't turn the economy around.

A decline in discovered and fostered talent. Sponsors sometimes sponsor despite the economy if the sport is popular. Just ask some of us New Yorkers who are grumbling about the new $1.5 billion Yankee Stadium when there are some other pressing issues.

It is not because there is a decline in talent. It's because there is a decline in the amount of pro contracts available.
Numerous teams have folded because of the lack of sponsorship money.
As much as people believe Lance can do anything, he can't turn the economy around.

Then what use is he? At least one other cyclist has been credited with saving his country! If Lance were really a great cyclist he would make the economy boom. (:D This is all jest, but the cyclist credited with saving his country is true, the credit at least).

Comments...
The positive test, didn't it go away with a backdated prescription after a 500,000 euro donation to WADA? It's possible that I have the order of events wrong, but that's what I remember about it.

But on topic ... I suspect there are several reasons sponsors are leaving.
The perception of Armstrong is one, but the train wreck that is pro cycling - Tyler, Vino, Floyd, Jan, Basso, Heras ... If I was looking to spend advertising dollars no way would I spend a dime on cycling right now.

And like it or not, Armstrong's curious reappearance probably just makes things worse. There is a cloud of suspicion that hangs around him, and no amount of lawyers can make it go away. It will be impossible for the sport to move forward until the "we-thought-were-greats-but-aren't-too-sure-anymores" of the late 80's through mid 90's go away and don't come back.

I bet you could put a money figure on it. Every time Lance sues a journalist, you hear the sound of $500,000 leaving the sport. Every time a new name is linked to Puerto, every time a podium finisher tests positive, every time a big name star asks for a court hearing, pow, another hundred grand.
Floyd with the prank call... there's 10,000,000 from the sport in that one event.*

And the sponsorships go away with the money.

*(numbers approximate, YMMV, do not use while operating heavy equipment or nursing, normal disclaimers apply, some people may experience dizzyness, headaches, and nausea)

Thats because the organizers are stupid as hell. Too much money in advertising and media, not enough on the race.

I saw the winner of the last stage of the Tour of California get a $5000 check. Really? just $5000?

I know they get paid by other means as well but the PUBLIC does not.

Give the winner $10,000,000 instead and you will see the TV deals and media coverage COME TO YOU. You dont have to give them money, you just have to look like you have a lot of it. you will see a soar in popularity especially amoung the lower income sector. All of a sudden being a little *** in spandex isn't so stupid. "I may be a *** but I am rich"

The truth needs to come out that Pharmstrong attained his position by taking more $hit than pro wrestlers and bodybuilders.

Wake up!

I wouldn't want my kid in that environment. Maybe there are alternative values out there.

If you dont love lance, you love cancer.

and we all know cancer is bad, so lance must be good. he beat cancer with nothing but his own willpower....

Oh and sponsors dont give a hoot about steroids. They all say they do but thats for public relations. Thing is if there is interest (profit opportunities), the athletes could be shooting up nuclear waste and the sponsors wouldn't care. Athletes dont matter in business, all that matters is if they can produce. or as they say "put asses in the seats".

Out of all the things that point to Armstrong's doping, this one is the weakest.
1. There's a difference between "traces" and "positive test" and it's not just symantics.
2. There was nothing about the test that was inconsistent with plain old saddle sore cream in normal quantities no matter what stories went around and who said what.
3. Neither the UCI nor any other agency involved ever considered it worth merit; it was entirely a press issue.

I'm a fan of facts.

You can also go to the UCI and see this his tests from in competition.(podiums, jersey wearer, stage winner)

* 1999 : 15 contrôles urinaires conventionnels (1 positif à la triamcinolone acétonide - corticoïdes, 14 négatifs)
* 2000 : 12 contrôles urinaires conventionnels (tous négatifs)
* 2001 : 10 contrôles urinaires conventionnels, dont 5 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs)
* 2002 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 8 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs)
* 2003 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 6 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs)
* 2004 : 8 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 7 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs). 1 contrôle sanguin de détection des hémoglobines de synthèse (négatif)

Check out the 1999 results....so much for "Never Tested Positive" Even the UCI counts that as a positive.


Where did you get your facts from? The Paceline or Pharmstrong's twitter page aren't credible sources you know.

The fact is that Armstrong checked off no when asked if he had any TUE's prior to the '99 tour. He reiterated that to the press. 2 weeks after the positive they came up with the backdated prescription and the completely apocryphal story which you bought hook line and sinker.

You're the one engaging in semantics. He was positive and even the UCI, a completely corrupt organization, lists him as positive.

It may not be cycling that is dying. Sports in general are taking a hit given the economy. Doping is the final straw with fans who've already had enough.

Corticosteroids are not the same as anabolic steroids and are not PED's. They reduce inflammation, not build muscle. LA used a cream for saddle sores, had the prescription, and the test was within the acceptable limits for use anyway. LA may or may not have used PED's, but as far as I can tell there's no hard evidence to prove it.

At any rate, I expect the loss of UCI-registered riders is due to teams pulling out -- perhaps as fallout from the miscellaneous scandals and loss of sponsors. If the numbers include Europeans (which is likely), I doubt there was much of a "Lance effect" in Europe to begin with.

What's butt cream gonna do for you besides make your butt not sore? Seriously...that's so stupid.

ERRRRR. wrong.

That butt cream is a steriod. With the same effects as all the others (i.e. increased muscle mass faster recovery). IIRC it can also mask the use of other steroids.

If only it was innocent ass-cream.

You guys really don't have a clue. Corticosteroids are some of the most abused PED's in the pro peloton. Kenacort is the biggie. Here's a link for you. Chris Carmichael settled out of court with Greg Strock because he was injecting him with corticoids. They are banned substances for a reason and it doesn't matter how much shows up in a doping control.

Greg Strock became very sick with a suppressed immune system because of a parvovirus. This parvovirus may play a role in testicular cancer.

That whole saddle sore cream is a story made up by Pharmstrong and the Hog. Do you guys belong to the Pharmstrong fan boy club?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/03/16/1066656.htm

"In June, 1994, a team doctor gave me a shot of Kenacort and it went on from there," he said.
Kenacort is a corticosteroid, a banned substance which reduces fatigue and swelling.
Gaumont said he was amazed by the quantity of drugs he had to take before time trials.
"An intravenous injection of Fonzylane to dilate the veins and let the blood spread well. Some injectable caffeine. A pill of Theostat so that I could breathe easily and some analgesic to stop pain," he said.

Still weak... :deadhorse2: Still not positive on anything significant.

Still weak... :deadhorse2: Still not positive on anything significant.

Good lord. He'd get thrown out of any competition and any sport except cycling and that's because the UCI is in his pocket.

It's just as significant for Floyd's T positive.

What is your expertise to make such an assessment? You know more than WADA because corticoids are banned by them?

This is absurd......

Good lord. He'd get thrown out of any competition and any sport except cycling and that's because the UCI is in his pocket.

Like baseball?

Have you ever ridden at a level where you were subjected to testing?

Like baseball?

Have you ever ridden at a level where you were subjected to testing?

I was thinking along the lines of Olympic Sports, not jokes like football, or baseball.

Also, it doesn't appear that you've noticed, Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Sosa, Palmeiro, A-Rod, they're all laughingstocks, so while nobody is getting banned, they are getting ridiculed. Not so with cycling and the continual worship of Lance, and the acceptance of people like Basso, another ET.

Don't worry about who I am. You can see my name. We get tested where we are too.

Back to the op, the Lance effect. Who the hell would want their kids to enter a sport where they would have to inject and injest all sorts of crap into their bodies to stay competitive.

Tell me you think he's clean?

Wow, throwing around the phrase "Pharmstrong" over and over really proves your point. :rolleyes:

I don't particularly care for or about Armstrong and am consistently anti-doping. Maybe he doped, maybe he didn't, maybe there's reasonable cause for suspicion, but at the moment there is no definitive proof that he used any PED's during his career. If definitive proof does surface, I would hardly waste my time attacking the labs or the UCI or WADA or the French, as many cycling fans do.

Since he was cleared on the basis of too low a level of the substance, I'm guessing it does matter how much is in your system -- similar to how you can use Salbutamol with a TUE up to a certain amount. Otherwise, obviously he would have been sanctioned, suspended and so forth.



Who the hell would want their kids to enter a sport where they would have to inject and injest all sorts of crap into their bodies to stay competitive.
If that's the case, I guess your kids won't go into any sport -- except maybe curling. Unless they use beta blockers to help keep their hands steady. ;) I think we all know there's doping in almost any sport; you'd have to be rather naive to imagine that any sport on the pro level is 100% clean.



[Armstrong would] get thrown out of any competition and any sport except cycling and that's because the UCI is in his pocket....

Also, it doesn't appear that you've noticed, Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Sosa, Palmeiro, A-Rod, they're all laughingstocks, so while nobody is getting banned, they are getting ridiculed.
So I guess Armstrong would get thrown out of any competition for testing positive for a corticosteroid, with amounts below the level that formally qualifies as a positive. Except baseball. :D

Cycling was definitely lax about testing for a long time, but it seems to me they clamped down a few years before many other sports -- especially soccer, football and baseball.

Wow, throwing around the phrase "Pharmstrong" over and over really proves your point. :rolleyes:.

I guess you still respect Pharmstrong?


I don't particularly care for or about Armstrong and am consistently anti-doping. Maybe he doped, maybe he didn't, maybe there's reasonable cause for suspicion, but at the moment there is no definitive proof that he used any PED's during his career. If definitive proof does surface, I would hardly waste my time attacking the labs or the UCI or WADA or the French, as many cycling fans do.

Maybe you missed it but there is no maybe about it. Pharmstrong was positive for corticosteroids and it is known that he didn't claim any TUE's at the beginning of the Tour in '99. Coming on the heels of Festina cycling was almost dead, and throwing LA out when his positive came back two weeks into the Tour and he had control of the race might have destroyed it. It all comes down to money, and it didn't hurt that Pharmstrong paid of the UCI with half a million for stricter drug testing, LMAO.


Since he was cleared on the basis of too low a level of the substance, I'm guessing it does matter how much is in your system -- similar to how you can use Salbutamol with a TUE up to a certain amount. Otherwise, obviously he would have been sanctioned, suspended and so forth.

He was cleared because the UCI is corrupt. He was positive in a more convincing way than Hamilton was positive in Athens, with an A and B sample.



If that's the case, I guess your kids won't go into any sport -- except maybe curling. Unless they use beta blockers to help keep their hands steady. ;) I think we all know there's doping in almost any sport; you'd have to be rather naive to imagine that any sport on the pro level is 100% clean.

Nice hysterical argument. There's doping and then there's doping and cycling takes the cake. The use of even recreational drugs like pot belge in cycling is many times that of other sports.




So I guess Armstrong would get thrown out of any competition for testing positive for a corticosteroid, with amounts below the level that formally qualifies as a positive. Except baseball. :D

Cycling was definitely lax about testing for a long time, but it seems to me they clamped down a few years before many other sports -- especially soccer, football and baseball.

I like how you people have created this myth about levels. Do you have any idea about how much Kenacort enhances performance? It's one of the staples of any serious PED program. That's why so many cyclists use it.

I guess you still respect Pharmstrong?
...

Well, I certainly do respect Lance Armstrong.

The Lance effect has its limits?
Oh nooooz!!! :eek:

I guess you still respect Pharmstrong?
My neutrality on him is very clear. I have respect for facts, science and evidence, and none for proven cheaters.



He was cleared because the UCI is corrupt. He was positive in a more convincing way than Hamilton was positive in Athens, with an A and B sample.
Ahh, conspiracy theories. Last refuge of the desperate mind. ;)

Unfortunately, if there is no way to distinguish between injected kenacort (banned) and topical applications (not banned, from what I can tell), then it's not a very convincing positive at all. Enough for suspicion, insufficient for certainty.



Nice hysterical argument. There's doping and then there's doping and cycling takes the cake. The use of even recreational drugs like pot belge in cycling is many times that of other sports.
How is it "hysterical" to recognize that doping is present in almost every sport? Or that most other sports don't bother to test nearly as much as cycling? Because cycling has gotten more bad press for it? Did you not notice that you yourself cited several of the top baseball players, all of whom apparently used PED's? And that's just the tip of the iceberg; there are dozens of pro baseball players who tested positive, whose names have not yet been revealed. Heck, there are track & field athletes who are taking EPO, which has little or no benefit for their sport, in part because no one in t&f was testing for it.

If anything, to imagine that cycling is the "worst of the worst" is slightly hysterical in nature. It's quite clear that doping exists in many other sports, particularly body-building, baseball, football, track & field and so forth.



I like how you people have created this myth about levels. Do you have any idea about how much Kenacort enhances performance? It's one of the staples of any serious PED program. That's why so many cyclists use it.
So an awareness of the facts is now a myth? Are you not aware of the rules regarding asthma medications, or what happened to Petacchi? Or that a drug can be legal with one type of application (e.g. topical or spray) and banned in another (e.g. injection)?

Back to the op, the Lance effect. Who the hell would want their kids to enter a sport where they would have to inject and injest all sorts of crap into their bodies to stay competitive.

Tell me you think he's clean?

Reid, you're right cyclists don't seem to be the best role models right now... or ever for that matter (I guess along with Pharmstrong we could say Anquetychnine, Merckxerol, etc., etc.). I've never tried to parse the evidence on Armstrong one way or the other. I kind of stopped paying attention to doping stories years ago. To me they're unfortunate footnotes in an otherwise thrilling sport, and I just stopped reading the footnotes.

I don't idolize or vilify Armstrong. Most people who don't follow the sport seem to idolize him and I wondered if it's meant any bump in kids getting into the sport. I would love for my kids to compete on a junior level. My 9-year old actually shows some talent, but he likes Contador much more than Armstrong.

Anyway, the Amstel Gold race is tomorrow.

Who gives a flying F if he doped? Every single one of his competitors in the GC have tested positive. He was still the strongest no matter what. What the naysayers fail to remember is he was a world class triathlete in his TEENS. He is a friggin genetic freak....

Who gives a flying F if he doped? Every single one of his competitors in the GC have tested positive. He was still the strongest no matter what. What the naysayers fail to remember is he was a world class triathlete in his TEENS. He is a friggin genetic freak....

Somehow your language seems incongruous with your delightfully charming breakfast alcove.

Somehow your language seems incongruous with your delightfully charming breakfast alcove.

lol....that was my parent's house last summer. My breakfast alcove is rough and crude....I'm a grad student...haha

My neutrality on him is very clear. I have respect for facts, science and evidence, and none for proven cheaters.



Ahh, conspiracy theories. Last refuge of the desperate mind. ;)

Unfortunately, if there is no way to distinguish between injected kenacort (banned) and topical applications (not banned, from what I can tell), then it's not a very convincing positive at all. Enough for suspicion, insufficient for certainty.



How is it "hysterical" to recognize that doping is present in almost every sport? Or that most other sports don't bother to test nearly as much as cycling? Because cycling has gotten more bad press for it? Did you not notice that you yourself cited several of the top baseball players, all of whom apparently used PED's? And that's just the tip of the iceberg; there are dozens of pro baseball players who tested positive, whose names have not yet been revealed. Heck, there are track & field athletes who are taking EPO, which has little or no benefit for their sport, in part because no one in t&f was testing for it.

If anything, to imagine that cycling is the "worst of the worst" is slightly hysterical in nature. It's quite clear that doping exists in many other sports, particularly body-building, baseball, football, track & field and so forth.



So an awareness of the facts is now a myth? Are you not aware of the rules regarding asthma medications, or what happened to Petacchi? Or that a drug can be legal with one type of application (e.g. topical or spray) and banned in another (e.g. injection)?

When this crap happens in other sports, those athletes are tainted. Pharmstrong has his apologists who'll just make stuff up out of whole cloth and generate other bs.

I mentioned those ballplayers because they're all laughingstocks. There's a good chance most of them won't get in the Hall of Fame.

The problem with your take on the corticoid positive in '99 is that Pharmstrong never had a TUE and when asked about it on multiple occasions, denied that he used any medications or needed a TUE as you would with asthma medications or saddle sore creams.

The saddle sore story was bs and an invention 2 weeks after the fact. The French lab came up with a urine test for corticoids right before the '99 Tour and on the eve of it, Verbruggen warned the team managers that it would be implemented starting with the prologue. Armstrong gave a press conference just before the positive result leaked and claimed he had never even taken corticoids. But he had told Emma O'Reilly he had taken them during the Route du Sud. She couldn't recall any talk of his saddle sore and at any rate, Pharmstrong told her it wasn't the cream.

You know that corticoids have been banned since 1978.

You guys talk of Pharmstrong in worshipful tones which is what I find absurd.

As to another poster saying Pharmstrong is a gentic freak, that's yet more propaganda, issued by your hero. For most of his career his VO2 max has been measured in the 70's. Good for a Cat 1. Very average if not less, for a world champion cyclist. LeMond's by comparison was about 93. That's freakish. I wonder why LeMond could always climb and TT, but Pharmstrong was mediocre until he met up with Michele Ferrari.......

Who gives a flying F if he doped? Every single one of his competitors in the GC have tested positive. He was still the strongest no matter what. What the naysayers fail to remember is he was a world class triathlete in his TEENS. He is a friggin genetic freak....

Actually he's not a genetic freak. We're did you get that from, Chris Carmichael or Ed Coyle. Actually Coyles research has Pharmstrong's VO2 max in the low 70's and even the high 60's, hardly a genetic freak by anyone's standards. Don't even start with that nonsense about LA not producing the same amount of Lactate. Physiologists have just begun to understand the actual role of lactic acid.

He was a moderately successful pro cyclist before r-EPO and Ferrari doping programmes. He was using corticoids heavily back when he was a junior. His stepped up intake of PED's at the end of '95 and beginning of '96 probably contributed to his developing cancer. That one'll get ya. Flame away.

If that's the case, I guess your kids won't go into any sport -- except maybe curling. Unless they use beta blockers to help keep their hands steady. ;) I think we all know there's doping in almost any sport; you'd have to be rather naive to imagine that any sport on the pro level is 100% clean.

Maybe not 100% clean, but Tyler's doping schedule back in 2003 would make a Mr. Olympia blanch.

His stepped up intake of PED's at the end of '95 and beginning of '96 probably contributed to his developing cancer. That one'll get ya. Flame away.Do you have some evidience to cite for this? What about all those people who develop testicular cancer? Were they taking PEDs also?

What do you honestly hope to accomplish by ragging on Lance? Do you think it matters if you change anyones mind?

Actually he's not a genetic freak. We're did you get that from, Chris Carmichael or Ed Coyle. Actually Coyles research has Pharmstrong's VO2 max in the low 70's and even the high 60's, hardly a genetic freak by anyone's standards. Don't even start with that nonsense about LA not producing the same amount of Lactate. Physiologists have just begun to understand the actual role of lactic acid.

He was a moderately successful pro cyclist before r-EPO and Ferrari doping programmes. He was using corticoids heavily back when he was a junior. His stepped up intake of PED's at the end of '95 and beginning of '96 probably contributed to his developing cancer. That one'll get ya. Flame away.

Right again. (http://www.runningforfitness.org/faq/vo2.php) List at the bottom of the page.

Folks, this person is an internet troll. Don't feed the troll and he'll go away like he did for the last couple of years.

What really makes me laugh hysterically are the list of marathoners that are in the 70's...

BTW...Here's the article that was on Coyle's website before Lance went for #7. (http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coyle/armstrong.php) If one goes to the blue link in the article (scientific paper) and goes to page 3, discussion, you will note a lot of data. However, during his tour wins, VO2 was 85, or as it says "at least 85".

The end.

Thanks for playing.

Man, I can't wait till he permanently retires. Then maybe these tedious, endless debates will go away.

seems to me that Reid Rothchild is one of the only critical thinkers on this thread. Sometimes when trying to determine ones innocence or guilt you have to use your gut and some common sense, as well as the available information. sure Lance seems to pass the drugs tests, but so have 1000's of cylists......thats why they are called cheats, because they cheat. If you want to blindly beleive he never doped thats fine, but if you weigh all the information I say it looks like he's dirty. Just because he's never been cuaght doesn't mean jack, just means he's never been caught.

If feel you can only base your decision on the 'facts' , how about the fact that Frankie and Betsie had little or nothing to gain and everything to lose and they testified that he admitted he did PEDs. THAT seems like a solid fact to me.

On a personal level Lance has always seemed like a dick to me. After the Simeoni event I really wished someone would have taken him out like a pitcher does in baseball. I see LA as being a decietful liar who alleiviates his guilty conscience by doing some good with his charitys and his foundation ,which is great , but he still looks at the camera and says 'I never doped' which I imagine is tough.

Do you have some evidience to cite for this? What about all those people who develop testicular cancer? Were they taking PEDs also?

What do you honestly hope to accomplish by ragging on Lance? Do you think it matters if you change anyones mind?

There is an Omerta in pro cycling and guess who the primary enforcer is?

Pharmstrong is a cancer on the sport and it will be nice when he is excised from the peloton.

Based on super climber Cavendish dropping him like a stone at MSR, and LA getting dropped on Palomar, stepped up OOC's are having their intended effect.

I'm looking forward to the huge entertainment of Pharmstrong riding up the Ventoux in the laughing group if he makes it that far.

Right again. (http://www.runningforfitness.org/faq/vo2.php) List at the bottom of the page.

Folks, this person is an internet troll. Don't feed the troll and he'll go away like he did for the last couple of years.

What really makes me laugh hysterically are the list of marathoners that are in the 70's...

BTW...Here's the article that was on Coyle's website before Lance went for #7. (http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coyle/armstrong.php) If one goes to the blue link in the article (scientific paper) and goes to page 3, discussion, you will note a lot of data. However, during his tour wins, VO2 was 85, or as it says "at least 85".

The end.

Thanks for playing.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/98/6/2191

I'm not done with you! Thanks for playing, LMAO. That 85 was an estimate. Here's the passage from the JAP.

Damn, I didn't know we had Chris Carmichael on here. Chris, how much did you pay Greg Strock for him to keep his mouth shut?

his O2 max to have been at least 85 ml·kg–1·min–1 during the period of his victories in the Tour de France. Therefore, his O2 max per kilogram of body weight during his victories of 1999–2004 appears to be somewhat higher than what was reported for the champion during 1991–1995 and to be among the highest values reported in world class runners and bicyclists (e.g., 80–85 ml·kg–1·min–1) (6, 15, 16, 28, 29)

Just above this Coyle give Indurain a 79ml/kg while it is widely known that Indurain was around 88. I bet you didn't know that Indurain was jacked to the sky.....

VO2 max, maximal heart rate, and the blood LT. O2 max during the preseason months of November through January generally ranged from 5.56 to 5.82 l/min during the period of 1992–1999. O2 max during the competitive season of 1993, soon after winning the World Road Racing Championships (September 1993), was 6.1 l/min and 81.2 ml·kg–1·min–1, results that were corroborated by the United States Olympic Committee (Colorado Springs, CO). Eight months after chemotherapy for cancer and during a period of inconsistent and reduced training (i.e., August 1997), O2 max was 5.29 l/min and 66.6 ml·kg–1·min–1.

However, his highest ever tested was listed above.

also Pharmstrong testified in SCA that he was lucky to reach the low 74kg's in body weight.

In the JAP article Coyle relies on a self reported 72 kg weight that Pharmstrong gave.

Evidence of the Coyle / Armstrong fraud.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-armstrong-research-installment-2.html

The impact of the change

The change is huge - 8%, and therefore, the rest of the data must be evaluated. In response to this revelation, Coyle has admitted that he made an error. However, he has downplayed the importance of this error, saying that it is minor and makes "no practical difference". I might point out that his error is in fact LARGER than the change in efficiency he found in Lance Armstrong! The 8% change was significant when it was Lance's efficiency, apparently it is not when it is the error he made...

The other defence put forward by Coyle is that the error is reduced in signficance because he calculated efficiency at a high VO2, and so the effect of a resting metabolic rate is expected to be minimal. This is in fact completely incorrect. The higher the VO2, the greater the impact of the calculation on the slope. In otherwords, the slope actually changes by MORE (and hence, the efficiency changes) when you have a high VO2, than a low VO2. So Coyle's defence doesn't hold there either.

Summing up: The big picture

The relevance of this error, and the whole process of evaluating this paper, extends into the scientific community, perhaps more than it does the cyclist. So these two posts have been much more technical than we usually write, but hopefully you can appreciate the importance of discussing this kind of scientific misinterpretation and error.

In response to it all, Coyle is quoted in the New York Times as saying: “This is a minor waste on my time. However, I don’t understand how they can afford to spend so much time on this. Don’t they have real jobs?”

Funny stuff indeed.

Here's the link from the NY Times.

BTW, most of Pharmstrong's VO2 max readings were in the low to mid 70's but Coyle stonewalled the Australians when they asked for Coyle's initial research.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sports/othersports/11cycling.html?pagewanted=print

September 11, 2008
Scientific Error Reignites Debate About Armstrong
By IAN AUSTEN
Correction Appended

As Lance Armstrong prepared to announce his return to professional cycling this week, a scientific debate about his past was also rekindled.

In a letter to The Journal of Applied Physiology posted online for subscribers on Monday, Edward F. Coyle, a respected human-performance expert with the University of Texas in Austin, acknowledged making an error in his long-term study of Armstrong’s muscle efficiency. The paper, which appeared in the same journal in 2005, has been repeatedly used by Armstrong and his lawyers to fend off allegations that his cycling success came in part through doping.

Three Australian scientists and one mathematician pointed out the error in a separate letter to the journal. The mistake involves one of the two ways Coyle calculated improvements in Armstrong’s muscle performance. The experts argue that the error effectively makes Coyle’s widely cited study invalid — a charge flatly rejected by Coyle, who called the error a minor miscalculation. But the somewhat arcane exchange has again raised questions about Armstrong and his record seven consecutive Tour de France victories.

Along with fame and celebrity, allegations about doping have surrounded Armstrong’s now familiar story about how he conquered cycling after conquering cancer.

Until his just-suspended retirement, Armstrong had experienced two distinct phases of his career. Before developing advanced cancer at 25, he was one of many talented professional cyclists. Rather than being seen as a contender at the Tour de France, he was better known for quitting the race early. But after returning to racing in 1999, he was virtually without a peer in his sport.

Skeptics have argued that such a dramatic transformation was impossible without doping. Armstrong has repeatedly denied ever doping.

Coyle’s 2005 paper provided a clear response to doubters. From 1993 to his comeback year of 1999, Armstrong was tested on a special stationary bicycle in Coyle’s lab in Austin, Armstrong’s hometown. That data, Coyle said in his paper, showed that Armstrong’s dramatic improvement largely came from a long-term increase in his muscle efficiency combined with weight loss from his bout with cancer.

The paper prompted great interest in the physiological world for reasons beyond the high profile of its test subject. It was the first time that anyone had shown that cycling, at least at a very high level, could improve muscle efficiency.

The Coyle paper appeared in the middle of a legal action against SCA Promotions, a company that had insured Armstrong’s team against paying a $5 million bonus if he won the 2004 Tour. After Armstrong’s victory, SCA refused to honor the team’s claim, arguing that it suspected drug use by Armstrong.

After Armstrong and his team’s holding company sued, SCA ultimately settled out of court.

Coyle was a paid consultant for Armstrong during that dispute. On the other side, SCA hired Michael Ashenden, one of the Australians who has since discovered Coyle’s miscalculations.

Ashenden, a physiologist and the project coordinator for an international research consortium known as Science and Industry Against Blood Doping, led the team that developed the test that uncovered blood doping by Tyler Hamilton, an American cyclist and former Armstrong teammate, at the Vuelta a España in 2004.

In an interview Monday night, Ashenden acknowledged that his interest in Coyle’s paper was prompted by SCA. But he said he continued to explore what he believed to be inconsistencies in Coyle’s research and in his testimony related to the case on his own initiative, a cause in which two other Australian physiologists eventually joined him.

“They were really concerned, on a scientific level, that Coyle had been able to perpetuate this myth that cycling efficiency changes,” he said. “I was more concerned, to be frank, about why all these alibis were suddenly being put under scrutiny and shown to be false.”

After raising a variety of concerns directly with Coyle about his research methods and, according to Ashenden, being rebuffed, the group lodged a formal complaint of scientific misconduct against him with the University of Texas.

Robert Peterson, the vice president for research at the university, investigated the complaint with three scientists. He wrote in an e-mail message Wednesday that their inquiry found that “there do appear to be ‘deficiencies’ in Professor Coyle’s research, and there does appear to be a need to clarify the research record.” He added, “However, there is no hard or firm evidence that the deficiencies rise to the level of scientific misconduct.”

As part of their complaint, the Australians asked to review all of the data collected by Coyle and were given data from the start of the study in January 1993. It was that data that led to this week’s exchange.

The Australians found that Coyle used an incorrect formula when he worked out Armstrong’s net, or delta, efficiency. Because of that, they write in their letter, “there exists no credible evidence to support Coyle’s conclusion that Armstrong’s muscle efficiency improved.”

In his letter, several e-mails and an interview, Coyle acknowledged his mistake. But he said that it did not change his overall findings about Armstrong’s gross muscle efficiency improvements. He called the calculation error “a minor variation” that “doesn’t make a practical difference.”

Coyle charged that the Australians had “more than unbiased science in mind” in their work.

Characterizing their complaints as an “attempt to confuse issues and raise doubt about obscure issues,” Coyle said that the Australians were attempting “to spin clouds of doubt about me, my paper and thus Armstrong.”

He added: “This is a minor waste on my time. However, I don’t understand how they can afford to spend so much time on this. Don’t they have real jobs?”

Armstrong’s manager did not respond to a request to comment for this article.

At least one physiologist who has not been involved in this debate, however, disagrees with Coyle’s contention that the miscalculation does not matter in the bigger picture.

After reviewing the original paper and this week’s letter, Howie Green, a professor emeritus with the Department of Kinesiology at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, agreed that Coyle correctly calculated Armstrong’s gross muscle efficiency. But he said it was also necessary to calculate his net efficiency, which accounts for a number of factors, like changes in Armstrong’s resting metabolic rate. Without that, he said, “the evidence to claim that mechanical efficiency has changed in Armstrong is inconclusive.”

After reviewing Green’s conclusions during an interview, Coyle said Green was mistaken.

Put simply, Coyle’s paper makes the case that more efficient muscles and a lighter body on the bicycle made Armstrong unbeatable. Efficiency is the relationship between how much energy an athlete expends and how much work he or she can do. In cycling, that can translate into a measure of how hard a rider works and how fast he or she goes.

Ashenden, however, said his group’s work had reduced that claim to a myth. Their letter, he said, refutes the efficiency part of the equation while inconsistencies in Armstrong’s reported weight change undermine the other half of the equation.

“There’s nothing left,” he said.

As for Coyle, he has become tired of the debate. He said his only goal was to study the physical changes in an athlete who trains for five hours a day.

“People are drawing their opinions essentially on whether or not they believe Lance cheated or not,” he said. “I don’t know what the truth is about that, but I don’t really care.”

Gina Kolata contributed reporting.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 13, 2008
An article on Thursday about the scientific debate over a past examination of the cyclist Lance Armstrong’s muscle efficiency misidentified the publication that presented both the original research and new information about an error in the study. It is the Journal of Applied Physiology, not the Journal of Physiology.

SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT ANYONE....

Right again. (http://www.runningforfitness.org/faq/vo2.php) List at the bottom of the page.

Folks, this person is an internet troll. Don't feed the troll and he'll go away like he did for the last couple of years. .

Resorting to name calling? Sorry you have nothing left.


What really makes me laugh hysterically are the list of marathoners that are in the 70's....

Why are you laughing hysterically? Pharmstrong's VO2 max is also in the low to mid 70's He was 81 right after the World Championships when he was 22. Do you think your VO2 increases when you're in your late 30's? With Pharmstrong's VO2 max in the low to mid 70's he's running 2:46 marathons. That makes a top local runner Did you see his ragged running form? Efficiency makes a gigantic difference between a Frank Shorter, and a Lance Pharmstrong in marathon.


BTW...Here's the article that was on Coyle's website before Lance went for #7. (http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coyle/armstrong.php) If one goes to the blue link in the article (scientific paper) and goes to page 3, discussion, you will note a lot of data. However, during his tour wins, VO2 was 85, or as it says "at least 85"..

Coyle's website? LOL! That's like going to the Bernie Madoff site! Coyle's claim to fame is his Bromance with Lance. He's rubbing down his muscles right now.


The end..

Not by a longshot.


Thanks for playing.

No, thank you! You notice how your piffle is coming back at you twice as hard?

Pharmstrong