Originally Posted by cbaronzzi

You don't play professional sports to raise awareness for something.

Originally Posted by Pedaleur

One of these days, one of your crazy, rant-laden, "predictions" will miraculously come true.

Originally Posted by alanbikehouston

So, it is unlikely Armstrong will be permitted to begin the Tour.

Originally Posted by merlinextraligh

As arrogant and misguided as ASO can be, they are not suicidely stupid.

Originally Posted by merlinextraligh

^ Prudohmme has said he's welcome.

https://velonews.com/article/82985/pr...elcome-to-race

Originally Posted by donrhummy

The sad thing is, it's quite clear that Prudhomme would be happier if Lance came back and tested positive during next year's TDF, thus again rocking it with scandal, than if he won and passed all tests.

Originally Posted by merlinextraligh

^ Prudohmme has said he's welcome.

https://velonews.com/article/82985/pr...elcome-to-race

Originally Posted by Pedaleur

One of these days, one of your crazy, rant-laden, "predictions" will miraculously come true.

I bet you can't wait...

Originally Posted by wfrogge

Maybe Johan is jumping ship from Astana???

Originally Posted by SunFlower

when you have a period in your life of bad health you learn that the periods of good health dont last forever. therefore, when you are in a period of good health you take advantage of every minute of it. if lance is healthy and has the ability to ride hard then that is what life is all about. people who have never been sick and uncapable of living life just dont understand. they say stupid things and put stupid meaning on things like "what if people say he doped" or "what if he doesnt win and tarnishes his reputation". when you nearly died of a disease or cancer you learn that reputations dont mean SH*T but that charging hard in life when you are healthy mean EVERYTHING.
my advice for everyone in the world is to appreciate YOUR health and ride hard while you can.

Originally Posted by Chevy

I was diagnosed with cancer in Jan 03. Surgery, chemo, radiation followed. I was a freekin mess. A friend gave me a copy of Sally Jenkins and Lances' first book and it was the only thing that could hold my attention. I barely knew who Lance was at the time and did not own a bike. I could barely walk then and life simply sucked. I'm in remission now, own a mtn and a road bike, and got in 15 slowww miles yesterday. LA may be a dick as a person but he's my lucky charm and inspiration to get my fat ass on those bikes. Sunflower gets it. Millions of cancer victims/survivors/families get that. Do you get it?

Do I think he'll be competitive? Hell yes. Win? I'll be in Paris to find out.

All you other dillweeds out there stop typing AND GO RIDE YOUR FRICKIN BICYCLE!!!!

Originally Posted by Trev Doyle

and George Bush won his secong term legally too.............

add me to the list of Beleivers that he did drugs.

Originally Posted by Chevy

I was diagnosed with cancer in Jan 03. Surgery, chemo, radiation followed. I was a freekin mess. A friend gave me a copy of Sally Jenkins and Lances' first book and it was the only thing that could hold my attention. I barely knew who Lance was at the time and did not own a bike. I could barely walk then and life simply sucked. I'm in remission now, own a mtn and a road bike, and got in 15 slowww miles yesterday. LA may be a dick as a person but he's my lucky charm and inspiration to get my fat ass on those bikes. Sunflower gets it. Millions of cancer victims/survivors/families get that. Do you get it?

Do I think he'll be competitive? Hell yes. Win? I'll be in Paris to find out.

All you other dillweeds out there stop typing AND GO RIDE YOUR FRICKIN BICYCLE!!!!

Originally Posted by silver bullet

Not calling you stupid. Not saying Lance doped. But to counter your argument, how many times did Bjarne Riis test positive? How many times did Erik Zabel test positive? There have been plenty riders who never tested positive, but who admitted to using doping.

Originally Posted by Trev Doyle

this is one of the smartest posts on this thread. I cannot believe how many stupid people there are who actually believe Mr. Pharmstrong did not dope. The evidence is right there people. Oh yeah , he never 'tested' positive. hahahahah....The guy frigging admitted doing drugs to people (Lemond etc,) who had nothing to gain by telling. Really???? What did Greg gain by squeeling on Lance? A big fat headache is what he got.

LEts not forget Lance is also allowed to use Testosterone. Didn't someone get their yellow jersey taken away for using some form of that drug? I love it how everyone is still lying to themselves and hiding in their little cocoons of optimism. GUYS THAT WIN THE TOUR PROBABLY DID DRUGS. Lance has been found out people, what more do you need?

Originally Posted by Pedaleur

Who said raising awareness for cancer fundraising was a stunt? The 'no salary' is the stunt.

Originally Posted by chuckb

TRUST the French lab? Are you kidding me? They convicted Floyd and it was obviously wrong. My biggest fear is not that Lance will/is/did dope, or that he'll lose, but that those idiots will register a false positive on his test(s). That's much, much more likely than him doping, and it would be horrible. Personally, if he is gonna do this, he should spend some of that big income to hire a 3rd party testing service, one with credentials, and, what was that other word? Oh, yah, --competence--.

Originally Posted by donrhummy

Ummm... that's EXACTLY what I said.

Originally Posted by NY Times Article

Scientific Error Reignites Debate About Armstrong


By IAN AUSTEN
Published: September 10, 2008
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 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.”