Road Cycling - WOW!! Breaking News On Armstrong

As far as I can tell, this is a breaking story on velonews.com


"Upcoming book alleges Armstrong involved in doping"

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/6257.0.html

I'd be more inclined to call this someone trying to cash in on the popularity of Lance through attempting to produce scandal.

Without reading and giving it due justice, all I can say is: "gee, another one?"

55/Rad

How about the timing of this? Just around the Tour de France. I'm sure the author hopes Lance wins the tour...surely he'll sell more copies that way. So what if Lance was doping...does that mean that someone should profit over the fact? Why doesn't this guy just publish this stuff in a column in the newspaper? Well because he wouldn't make any money doing that! It's about money!!!! He decides to put all this in a book...then releases it around the Tour de France. This is tabloid journalism...and perhaps this author will never again be taken seriously as a 'real' journalist.

Sensationalism. Notice how they bring up his cortisone cream use in 1999 as if he was 'using a cortiosteroid'. They just said that 'he wasnt punished for it', rather than telling the truth that he was cleared to use it in the first place.

When I saw this article, I figured someone would post about it in the wrong forum, so I checked and yeah, found a thread about it

the AFP is so anti-American in the first place, I wouldn't consider anything they report "journalism"

When I saw this article, I figured someone would post about it in the wrong forum, so I checked and yeah, found a thread about it

Me me me me me......that was me, I tells ya :D

Sounds like another attempt to get cash. I'll believe this when OJ catches the "real killer."

for what it's worth, an author has next to no influence on the launch date of a book. that decision is made by his publisher. considering that new books are usually launched in the spring and fall, it does seem that the publisher made the decision to coincide with the tour. having said that, it deos make a lot ofd sense, and it's hardly a cheap shot. books typically sell best in their first two months of release, and you can't blame a publisher for wanting the book to be on the market at a time when interest in cycling and in armstrong is at its highest.

is it crassly commercial? well.. duh. publishing is a business. it's pretty facile for us to dismiss this as "Sounds like another attempt to get cash" when we're talking about a sport in while teams are named after large corporations, the athletes are emblazoned with advertising logos and copy, and the biggest race of the season was founded by a sports newspaper to increase circulation during the slow summer months.

i would like to know who the publisher of the book is. if it's a major publisher, then you can be sure the book was lawyered up the yingyang, and they are confident that they have a safe piece of work.

is it all a lie? remember: that's what the tifosi said when wily voet made his allegations in 1998...

I just have a problem with anyone who considers 'dirtly laundry' a financial asset!..true or not true. This reflects(negatively) more upon the character of the author than the character of the doper..in my opinion.

it is a matter in the public interest. dirty laundry or not.

well...Lance has already promised him a costly..and nasty legal quagmire! So..we'll see what happens next.

Lance is god.

What next? Cheryl expecting a Sterile Crow?

Hey, if he can win the the TDF while high, it just makes it that much more impressive.

[B]Fake. Lance does not take drugs. Mabye for cancer but that's it. The French can not seem to get it through thier thick skulls that he does not dope AND the reason why he is the master is because 2 months before the TdF he is riding the route. That's why. Come on Frenchies, get with the program.

That story belongs in the Enquirer.

It's an attempt by the French to mentally distract Lance prior to the TdF.

It's a lowly attack on a true champion.

Lance is the greatest rider ever. He would never dope.

Or maybe he would. Who knows.

Of course, it's a French conspiracy. Shall we invade them to? Don't think they have much oil, but you sure could steal their cheese recipes :p

Of course, it's a French conspiracy. Shall we invade them to? Don't think they have much oil, but you sure could steal their cheese recipes :p


what's all this "we" business, mister aussie?

the "doping" that people refer to in cycling isn't doping that makes you high, it makes it easier to block out the pain and gives your blood a higher capacity to carry oxygen and a whole bunch of other things that give an unfair advantage.

i'm rooting for...uh....mayo or hamilton.

Lance does not take drugs. Mabye for cancer but that's it. The French can not seem to get it through thier thick skulls that he does not dope AND the reason why he is the master is because 2 months before the TdF he is riding the route. That's why. Come on Frenchies, get with the program.
like i said... i remember reading opinions about richard virenque saying he didn't dope, and the whole thing was a belgian plot to discredit france's star climber. oops... maybe not.

i am curious why it is so hard to believe armstrong dopes, but we're willing to accept that another racer does. what if it turns out that this book has substantive evidence of doping? what if he does, indeed, dope? is it still sensationalistic? a plot? wake up and realize that treating lance armstrong to the same disrespect or respect accorded everyone else is not a conspiracy.

if armstrong does dope, and the authors of this book have evidence that he does, then they are right to report it. it's what italian law calls "sporting fraud." if they do not have evidence to support it, then they are being irresponsible and libellous. none of us have read the book, so none of us are qualified to judge.

attacking the authors and calling them liars without foundation is just as bad as calling armstrong a doper without evidence.

I hate the press. The "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality to make more money causes way to many problems. But they don't care. It's all about the money. I say let the best rider/team win. I'm not going to pay any attention to it until the UCI gets involved. And then only slightly.

Maybe people are just jealous of Lance, maybe it is so true!! We never know... imagine the whole world of fans being devastated, he was an icon of hope and whatever not, I can hardly believe it if he does indeed uses drug. I am not in the realm of professional sports, so I do not know the pressures on athletes, but I for one do not and will not use drugs. If I do do racing, I'll still never take drugs, because I feel it is wrong and harmful to the body.

Let us hope he never did take any of those drugs. If he did, what would happen to his 5 Tour de France titles? Then Ullrich would have won several Tour de France, 3? Cycling would be totally destroyed, I really wonder and I hope the true truth will come to light. We just never know.... nothing is certain. Don't just dismiss it because you are a fan of Lance Armstrong, I am a fan of him, but I do prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

attacking the authors and calling them liars without foundation is just as bad as calling armstrong a doper without evidence.

a gazillion negative doping tests qualifies as a foundation...

what somebody writes down in a book when the facts would suggest otherwise, makes me suspicious of their intent.

Although I don´t want to believe it, very many riders take drugs... Ik hope Armstrong doesn´t take them, but I don´t believe him if hee says he doesn´t.

I hate the press. The "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality to make more money causes way to many problems. But they don't care. It's all about the money...
and it isn't about money for the team sponsors and race organizers? it's all about money.

but let me put this to you: if lance armstrong is, indeed, using performance-enhancing drugs, would you prefer that the media didn't report it?


a gazillion negative doping tests qualifies as a foundation...
you know as well as i do that this is not true. carl lewis, the mr. clean of the 1988 olympics when ben johnson was [rightly] disqualified for doping, tested positive a number of times in 1988, but the results were covered up. if my memory serves me, richard virenque never tested positive for banned substances.

not having a record of positive results does not mean that an athlete has (a) never tested positive, or (b) has not taken prformance-enhancing substances.

i understand that we should not condemn armstrong, or anyone else, until allegations are conclusively proven. the point that i am trying to make is that we have to be open-minded enough to recognize such evidence when it emerges. consequently, it is as naive to accept the vague allegations from this book until you have read them as it is to simply reject them by saying "lance would never dope, and this is a conspiracy."

and... no one has enlightened me as to why it would be impossible for amstrong to be using performance enhancing substances?

EPO wasn't on banned at the time of the alleged initial use in 93,94 Actovegin wasn't on the banned list when Postal got caught with it in 2000. So is that cheating?

There is still no test for Hgh, IGF-1, Repoxygen, and several of the artifical hemoglobins. You can still get an old-school transfusion.

Everyone likes to state that Lance would never dope, but no one on here has ever been a professional athlete have they? I like to use the Olympic shot putters/discus throwers as an example. These guys get caught doping, there is no 20 million a year in endorsements on the horizon, there is no wheaties box contract, there is a gold medal, a write up in the local paper etc, and these guys are willing to risk it all. Why would cyclists be any different? Most of the pro peleton never got farther than highschool. Their marketable skill is to be able to endure hours of extreme discomfort. If you could make it a little easier on yourself, and make more money at it, what would you do?

And Lance wasn't always a 5 time winner of the TdF, he was once a rookie, learning the ropes, and getting beat on by the better pro's whom everyone seems willing to accept as dopers. Living in Europe, indoctrinated into the European system, European Doctors, European Soigneurs

If a domestique like Jesus Manzano is aware and up to date on the latest and greatest doping methods, are we to believe that the Greatest stage race rider in the world is not?

The cycle has been going on for more than 100 years. Why would it be different now, especially since the money is so much better. Bjarne Riis had a nickname of "Mr. 60%"
becuase he allegedly had a hematocrit count of 58% the day after he trounced Indurain and took over the tour. He denied it for years, only now to talk about it. Who was his number one domestique? Jan Ullrich, who being East German should be no stranger to doping. Speaking of Indurain, he was Delgado's number one man, and Delgado was a doper. Are we to believe that only the team leader was taking advantage of modern science, and not the rest of the team? Now Riis is the DS @ CSC.

Fignon on doping "I did what I had to do to win, If I die before I'm 50, Im ok with that"
Don't believe the tests, a few years back everyone was testing clean at the Giro, but when the cops raided the hotel, stuff was flying out the windows like a prison riot.

Chris Carmichael tidbit

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/10/60II/main284958.shtml

more later, I have to work.

i think the whole situation is pretty understandable in a way.

i'm not trying to be an apologist - my point is that i'm sure every rider in the peloton that isn't consciously doing something illegal is still very aware of where that line is and is pushing right up to it to gain every possible advantage. so the ones who are in fact over the line might not be so deserving of ridicule - not only is it seldom cut and dry who's doing what and how much of that is banned currently but the whole culture invites an exploration of the ragged edge of this sort of technology.

If you read Lance's response to previous "doping" allegations he always says that he has never used any banned substance. Read between the lines, if it isn't banned by the UCI then it isn't illegal! Most blood boosting agents are made illegal or banned after they are found to be in use, not before. Lance most likely doesn't take EPO, because he (and a large number of endurance athlete's) spend are large amount of his off the bike training in an altitude tent/chamber/room which will naturally raise the amount of EPO your body will produce , which in turn will raise your hematocrit level.

Buddy B

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/10/60II/main284958.shtml
.

YOWZA!! that deserves a thread of its own

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/10/60II/main284958.shtml

This info was originally published in Velonews when it first hit the press. They had an in depth article about Strock and the health problems he had that forced him to give up cycling.

The article contained a discussion of the correlations between the weakening of the immune system with steroids, subsequent vulnerabilities to specific viral infections, and testicular cancer. Hmmmmm.

If anyone out there has this article please post some of the info in it.

i thought all the athletes doped these days. *confused*

If you read Lance's response to previous "doping" allegations he always says that he has never used any banned substance. Read between the lines, if it isn't banned by the UCI then it isn't illegal! Most blood boosting agents are made illegal or banned after they are found to be in use, not before. Lance most likely doesn't take EPO, because he (and a large number of endurance athlete's) spend are large amount of his off the bike training in an altitude tent/chamber/room which will naturally raise the amount of EPO your body will produce , which in turn will raise your hematocrit level.

Buddy B

i thought that low air volume crap actually decreased performance.

If anyone out there has this article please post some of the info in it.

Strock:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/79.0.html

Former Coach:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/386.0.html

a gazillion negative doping tests qualifies as a foundation...


Actually, it doesn't. The athletes are always one step ahead of the tests, hence the reason for the problem. If you think that a million negative test means he's clean, then I've got an igloo to sell you. Sadly, the reason for this problem is the fact that the tests are not good enough to catch the drug takers.

i understand that we should not condemn armstrong, or anyone else, until allegations are conclusively proven. the point that i am trying to make is that we have to be open-minded enough to recognize such evidence when it emerges. consequently, it is as naive to accept the vague allegations from this book until you have read them as it is to simply reject them by saying "lance would never dope, and this is a conspiracy."

and... no one has enlightened me as to why it would be impossible for amstrong to be using performance enhancing substances?

Well said.

Strock:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/79.0.html

Former Coach:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/386.0.html


I knew I remembered that. :) Thx. A must read.

Let us hope he never did take any of those drugs. If he did, what would happen to his 5 Tour de France titles? Then Ullrich would have won several Tour de France, 3? Cycling would be totally destroyed, I really wonder and I hope the true truth will come to light. We just never know.... nothing is certain. Don't just dismiss it because you are a fan of Lance Armstrong, I am a fan of him, but I do prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If he did or does dope, I would guess that Ullrich did/does as well, along with Merckx, Lemond, Hinault, etc, etc. There are no isolated cases as far as doping in cycling. Still, until it is proven I believe they were all clean. Hope springs eternal.

Willy Voet wrote a book about what he knows about doping among riders and what happened in the Festina/team. I don´t know if there is an English translation, but if there is, you don´t have to read it. I was almost depressed and very dissapointed after I´ve read it and watching cycling on TV now sucks

i thought that low air volume crap actually decreased performance.


They train at sea level and recover/sleep in their tents/rooms/chambers. The low O2 content mimics training at altitude which tells the body to produce EPO, to produce more red blood cells. You hardly ever hear of top Pro's training and spending lots of time at altitude anymore. ( Lots of Euro Pros used to spend time in Colorado training at altitude i.e. Rominger, Indurain, Hampstead ) Instead they live in their altitude tents. I think if you search on the web you will find some articles on these tents. I understand that USPS purchased a couple for Lance and George.

www.hypoxico.com
www.insidetri.com/train/tips/articles/2201.0.html - 22k
www.active.com/story.cfm?story_id=8407 - 47k

Buddy B

Willy Voet wrote a book about what he knows about doping among riders and what happened in the Festina/team. I don´t know if there is an English translation, but if there is, you don´t have to read it. I was almost depressed and very dissapointed after I´ve read it and watching cycling on TV now sucks

I'm pretty sure there is an English version called "Breaking the Chain"

I don't know much about drugs in cycling but I know a bit about them in powerlifting. I know they work and that the best drug assisted powerlifting beats the best drug free lifter. If the drugs in cycling are as effective as steroids are to a lifter then Armstrong is taking them cause you know a lot of riders are taking them and the best drug free guy is not going to beat the best drug assisted guy.

and... no one has enlightened me as to why it would be impossible for amstrong to be using performance enhancing substances?

You can't prove a negative.

Some teams still go to altitude 10 days or so prior to the Tour, I believe Lance did last year too.

Manzano stated that While the Kelme team is up at a remote high altitude training camp, they would take their EPO, get up to 53-55% hematocrit, withdrawl some of the enriched blood, for re inection later, a week or so into the tour.

They then made sure they were under the limit when they came back down for the pre-tour checkup. The remote location is a blessing, because there is little chance of a surprise out of competition test within the 3 days the EPO is detectable, and if the riders are over the UCI limit, they simply blame it on the altitude training and dehydration, if the tests come back negative, as they should after 3 days, they are deemed "unfit to race" and have a 2 week suspension.

I think last year Armstrong was in the Swiss alps for the 2 weeks prior to the Tour start. As were a lot of big names.

Sleeping in an altitude helps, but training at altitude is better, for several reasons, including those above.

Ask the tri doc: altitude training


by Dr. Jeffrey Sankoff
This report filed May 4, 2004


Dr. Sankoff,

There's always lots of talk about the benefits of altitude training, but how does it actually help/affect your fitness and race performances? Many athletes use altitude tents to sleep in, others sleep and train at altitude, while still others live and train at altitude but use supplemental oxygen for certain workouts?

Can you make some sense of it all?

Thanks,
Stefan



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Stefan,

The short answer: Living at altitude definitely causes changes in human physiology. The effects of these changes on athletic performance remain controversial and for the most part unproven.

The long answer: The environmental stresses associated with high altitude include: lower ambient temperatures, lower atmospheric oxygen concentration, decreased humidity and increased exposure to solar radiation. Each of these causes physiological changes in the body, but it is the decrease in oxygen concentration that has the most varied effect and is of greatest interest and importance to the endurance athlete.

With decreased inspired oxygen concentration (i.e., the amount of red blood cell hemoglobin bound to oxygen and blood flow created by the heart) at altitude, blood-oxygen levels fall, so oxygen delivery to the tissues is impaired. As a result, aerobic muscle activity is adversely affected. Thus, the first changes that occur when you move to high altitude (greater than 1000 meters/3300 feet) involve the respiratory and circulatory systems. In response to the relative hypoxia (decreased oxygen levels in the tissues), you begin to breathe more quickly and more deeply. This occurs in an attempt to increase blood-oxygen concentrations to normal levels. Heart rate increases in order to deliver more oxygen-carrying blood to the tissues. These responses occur immediately and will reverse as soon as you descend to lower altitudes where oxygen is more plentiful.

Other adaptations to high altitude occur much more slowly at the cellular level. These changes also last much longer upon return to lower altitudes and are presumed to confer benefits to endurance athletes. The most important of these changes include an increase in hemoglobin concentration and red blood cell production.

The formation of red blood cells is called erythropoiesis and takes place in the bone marrow. The hormone erythropoietin (EPO) is the main stimulus for red blood cell formation. Hypoxia spurs the release of this hormone in larger-than-normal quantities. Consequently, at altitude red blood cell production is ramped up along with the formation of hemoglobin -- the molecule within red blood cells that carries oxygen. The process takes about 30 days to complete.

Upon returning to lower altitudes, red blood cell numbers and hemoglobin concentrations will eventually return to normal. After approximately 60 days the effects will be completely gone.

For years many physiologists have suggested that because the body's capacity to deliver oxygen is greatly increased in individuals who live at altitude, the aerobic function of these individuals should be enhanced when they return to lower elevations. In fact, it is this supposition that has fueled illegal blood-doping strategies by some endurance athletes. By taking exogenous erythropoietin, the theory goes, athletes could confer the benefits of living at altitude without the adverse effects or need to change locale.

The belief that altitude can enhance athletic performance has led to the development of several legal strategies by exercise physiologists and coaches. They can be summed up as follows:

1. Live high, train low. Because the beneficial effects of living altitude can be offset by the negative effects of training at altitude (exercise performance is impaired, overall endurance does not improve as rapidly) one school of thought suggest that athletes should athletes live and sleep at higher altitudes and then train at lower levels. This program has been simulated at sea level through the use of altitude tents and hypoxic apartments. This strategy remains the most common today.

2. Live high, train high. The theory behind this strategy is that if athletes train at a lower intensity they will avoid the pitfalls of training at altitude while gaining further benefit from the constant exposure to hypoxia. Higher-intensity exercise at altitude is often done with the use of supplemental oxygen.

3. Intermittent altitude exposure. The concept here is that athletes who are exposed to periods at altitude in order to gain the beneficial effects will retain those advantages when they return to sea level in order to train hard. Athletes employing this strategy usually alternate between high and low altitudes in three-week intervals. When at high altitude, training intensity is diminished.

The pressing question to paraphrase Stefan is: Does it work? Unfortunately the scientific literature on this topic, though extensive, remains inconclusive. There is no question that athletes who live at altitude do increase their red blood cell numbers and hemoglobin concentrations. Furthermore, oxygen delivery and uptake is improved in these individuals. However, as this relates to performance improvement the proof has been hardly decisive. For every study that shows benefit there is another that shows none. It is important to note that no studies have ever shown a decrease in performance attributable to living and/or training at altitude. So at worst these strategies will do no harm and at best they may increase performance.

Here's what I've never understood. If it's an accepted fact that at least some athletes will always use performance enhancing drugs, and these drugs give them a competitive advantage, why not open up the field so that any athlete can use them. It would probably open up research to try and develop drugs that wouldn't have such dire side effects, it would effectively level the playing field (in so much as athletes at least have the CHOICE to take the drugs) and it would create better athletes ... whether people consider them "real" or not is their own choice. The one problem I really have with that mentality though is the fact that many athletes don't want to take those drugs and might feel compelled to do so simply so they can remain competitive. Perhaps that outweighs all other concerns ...../ramble

I think the public is for drug testing in most sports. As long as you don't test positive that's enough for the average sports fan. Athletes can still have the great performances people like to see and can appear to be drug free.

I find it very suspicious that such information is being released week's before the Tour de France, it will go to the way side as it did with Sammy Sosa's corking the bat incident.

Aren't they trying to change the whole procedure in the US? I thought the relevant organisation is trying to change the system, so that an athlete no longer has to fail a urine or blood test to be found guilty, they can be found guily if caught with documented evidence. Isn't that going on with a runner at the moment?