this comes from TBV here (http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/06/lance-goes-open-in-response-to-walsh.html)


so click thru to read it......

there are links to documents from the SCA case

according to TVB, particularly interesting are docs that
docs porport to say that

"Tygart and Catlin saying none of the 12 USADA tests done on Armstrong were positive for anything, including r-EPO which features heavily in Walsh's book."

I haven't had time to read them all yet, just tossing this out to you all to see...

have fun with it
b0nk

If you don't want to give Walsh the money go down to the bookstore and check it out..Tons of circumstancial evidence against LA. I was taken aback by a lot of it...This defense of the "axe grinders" is really wearing thin IMHO.

Not exactly breaking news.

What TBV calls the 'wiki' defense, I call the misdirection defense. No one thinks a USADA test for EPO showed up positive. Plenty of people think '99 tour samples did...this is not disputed as far as I can tell.

Not exactly breaking news.

What TBV calls the 'wiki' defense, I call the misdirection defense. No one thinks a USADA test for EPO showed up positive. Plenty of people think '99 tour samples did...this is not disputed as far as I can tell.


UCI hired Virminjin [sp?] to investigate those '99 results...he openly disputed the positives...

re: not exactly breaking news....correct, BUT
..this is the first report I've seen with links to view the affidavits from that case...

If you don't want to give Walsh the money go down to the bookstore and check it out..Tons of circumstancial evidence against LA. I was taken aback by a lot of it...This defense of the "axe grinders" is really wearing thin IMHO.

...never said I won't read the book, just won't buy it...I'll wait for the library to get it and check it out [which is what you mean?]...

same thing with Floyds book

All of Lance's testimony from the SCA trial is leaked and can be found on the web if you care to search for it. Not so flattering but ultimately just a boring read. Basically most questions the answer of which might implicate him in doping just get a big fat, "I don't recall" or "I can't remember". He can't say why he was paying Ferrari so much money.

If Lance really wanted to convince skeptics that he didn't dope he should just let the UCI release all his hematocrit values.

There are some interesting documents there. The email from Dr. Prentice Steffens to David Walsh discussing a qui tam suit against LA makes Steffens sound like a lunatic. Walsh's apparent eagerness to join in and lack of skepticism are indicative of a lack of objectivity, but I don't suppose that's news.

UCI hired Virminjin [sp?] to investigate those '99 results...he openly disputed the positives...

re: not exactly breaking news....correct, BUT
..this is the first report I've seen with links to view the affidavits from that case...

that should read "UCI hired Virminjin [sp?] to openly dispute the positives...

that should read "UCI hired Virminjin [sp?] to openly dispute the positives...

And you can read his report as it is available.

Really an unsatisfying document. I'd say about 80% is basically pointing out that the lab didn't follow the protocol to declare an "adverse analytical finding" which we knew already as the samples were tested for research purposes, therefore you can't say Lance had EPO in his '99 tour samples. From the perspective of whether he doped or not this makes little difference.

Maybe 20% pertains to the technical aspects of whether or not the lab detected EPO in all those samples. Hard to say, the report raised issues and made it look like the lab was stonewalling, but afterwards the lab said they were never asked for some of the documents in question or had sent them. Alot of it was this could be legit or not, but we don't know because the lab didn't send x,y or z.

If Lance really wanted to convince skeptics that he didn't dope he should just let the UCI release all his hematocrit values.

Would that really settle it? I bet if those showed up normal, you would still have skeptics saying he was doing something else. On the contrary, you would have LA followers defending him.

I think LA has done a good enough job developing his legacy, and fending off disputes, that he will always be remembered by many people as a doper, and by his followers as a clean rider no matter what evidence comes up in the future.

With the exception of video footage, that would probably do him in. Man, can you imagine the media frenzy if old video footage of LA doping turns up??!! :eek:

UCI hired Virminjin [sp?] to investigate those '99 results...he openly disputed the positives...

re: not exactly breaking news....correct, BUT
..this is the first report I've seen with links to view the affidavits from that case...
Sorry, I was unclear, the '99 samples are not disputed in this set of documents that were just released.

Well skeptics would probably remain unconvinced but it would certainly be better evidence on his behalf than the "I never failed a doping test" BS.

I think there is some very small chance he was clean (I feel like a naive fool just typing that). However, if his hematocrit values were highly suspicious well that would pretty much be the nail in the coffin in my mind. If he was running around with a HCT in the high 30s, low 40s most of the year and then near 50% at Tour time (and did not drop during the Tour or even increased!) well then I think you'd have to be blind to think he was clean at that point.

Well skeptics would probably remain unconvinced but it would certainly be better evidence on his behalf than the "I never failed a doping test" BS.

I think there is some very small chance he was clean (I feel like a naive fool just typing that). However, if his hematocrit values were highly suspicious well that would pretty much be the nail in the coffin in my mind. If he was running around with a HCT in the high 30s, low 40s most of the year and then near 50% at Tour time (and did not drop during the Tour or even increased!) well then I think you'd have to be blind to think he was clean at that point.


would they actually be suspicious? if he was, as he claims, sleeping in a hyperbaric tent in the off season I'd guess he was probably also poking himself with whatever ferarri thought he should. he claims he "trained" pretty much year round and EPO's not just for race day.

And you can read his report as it is available.

yes, I read it, it's on my hard drive, want a copy...???

Really an unsatisfying document.

that's your perspective, personally I was and still am satisfied that LNDD is the suck, they need to go...

I'd say about 80% is basically pointing out that the lab didn't follow the protocol to declare an "adverse analytical finding" which we knew already as the samples were tested for research purposes, therefore you can't say Lance had EPO in his '99 tour samples.

so if you dont follow the protocols that are set up to ensure accuracy, how the hell can you say that he doped...????

From the perspective of whether he doped or not this makes little difference.

Maybe 20% pertains to the technical aspects of whether or not the lab detected EPO in all those samples.

oh yeah, he just touched on little minor issues like contamination and spiking samples and lack of calibration, etc, etc, etc...

Hard to say, the report raised issues and made it look like the lab was stonewalling,

no wai, just ask Floyd...:rolleyes:

but afterwards the lab said they were never asked for some of the documents in question or had sent them. Alot of it was this could be legit or not, but we don't know because the lab didn't send x,y or z.

what the V. report did do is forewarn the scientific anti doping community that they had a problem on their hands w/ LNDD....and after watching the fiasco with LNDDs handling of the Floyd samples I conclude that the V-Report was correct...

Very well put Bonk.

That lab seems to be the place where protocols go to die....

After reading most (but not all, I have a life too) of the documents, I wonder if these documents are proof of his not doping or just proof of good lawyering?

After reading most (but not all, I have a life too) of the documents, I wonder if these documents are proof of his not doping or just proof of good lawyering?


HUH...????

LA doesn't have to prove he didn't dope....it's up to USADA / CAS to prove he did....until that happens, he's not a doper...technically :rolleyes:

in the SCA case, you have the head of the USADA's affidavit stating that LA never failed a test....and there is no evidence presented in the SCA case that LA doped...just a bunch of questionable [and often irrelevant] testimony...suggestive of guilt in the court of public opinion?, yes for some people....proof in a court of law? obviously not....

...............

sad thing about all this is that we wouldn't even be typing in this thread if Walsh hadn't just released his rehashed book here at the end of teh Floyd Frenzy & on the Eve of the TdF....:rolleyes:

Let me clarify the point I was trying to make. When you read the documents the "truth" seems to be more muddled by good(?) lawyer tactics. For example when you read the transcript of Frankie A's wife you can almost picture her squirm as the lawyer peels back the layers of her testimony showing her selective and fuzzy memory. He earned his pay that day, but what really was the truth? We will never know.

Everyone's memory is selective and fuzzy so the fact that a witness has errors in recollection if anything is indicative that they are trying to present what is really inside their head. Testimony that doesn't have those flaws is at the minimum rehearsed.

HUH...????

LA doesn't have to prove he didn't dope....it's up to USADA / CAS to prove he did....until that happens, he's not a doper...technically :rolleyes:

in the SCA case, you have the head of the USADA's affidavit stating that LA never failed a test....and there is no evidence presented in the SCA case that LA doped...just a bunch of questionable [and often irrelevant] testimony...suggestive of guilt in the court of public opinion?, yes for some people....proof in a court of law? obviously not....

...............

sad thing about all this is that we wouldn't even be typing in this thread if Walsh hadn't just released his rehashed book here at the end of teh Floyd Frenzy & on the Eve of the TdF....:rolleyes:

Yeah, Lance never doped, however all of his competitors in virtually every race apparently did and Lance crushed the competition in the Tour. Lets see who is on the list who has been implicated and assumed by many to be a doper:

Ullrich
Pantani
Virenque
Zulle
Heras
Basso
Museeuw
Botero
Bartoli
Vandenbroucke
Hamilton
Landis
Riis
Rominger
Berzin
Valverde
Beloki
Moreau

Only Lance stands alone at the pinnacle of the sport, due to his one of a kind training methods, which no one else is capable of replicating.

Yes the guy was a fine, fine cyclist, but he was doing the same things his competition was doing (maybe more). Forget the drug tests which never showed positive, but the circumstantial stuff is so much more compelling anyway. How much more do we need to hear from GL, Emma O'Reilly, Betsy Andreu, David Walsh and others to know that the reality is that apparently no one is above the level of fraud in the sport. The Christophe Bassons were run out of cycling. Omerta ruled the sport. Lance ruled by imtimidation (see the Simeoni run-down in the Tour and the zipped lips symbolism in Lance's subsequent peloton conversation with Jan as he returned to the group with his quarry), legal wrangling and outright threats (read any stories from Lemond concerning the telephone conversation which Lance initiated where he threatened GL). To assume all of these people just hate Lance and are willing to lie to bring down a clean cyclist is just so naive. Sorry but those of us who live in reality, while we hate to burst your bubble, know that even though he never tested positive, he did what he did. Many of us refuse to live with our heads firmly planted in the ground in order to worship at the shrine of St. Lance.

Yeah, Lance never doped, however all of his competitors in virtually every race apparently did and Lance crushed the competition in the Tour.

Like Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron doped too. That is the only way he could have ever hit so many home runs.

I know because I have proof. :rolleyes:

Like Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron doped too. That is the only way he could have ever hit so many home runs.

I know because I have proof. :rolleyes:

Its easier to continue to believe in fairytales, than to pull your head out of your arse.

Oh and no one, no one ever accused, implicated or considered implicating Henry Aaron of doping. Check out his record. Never even hit over 47 homers in a single year and that was in homer happy Fulton County Stadium.

Think what you want about Lance, it will be easier for you to continue to live in your fairytale world. Oh and remember only Europeans dope, the red, white and blue acts as a prophylactic measure against potential doping by Americans.

Like Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron doped too. That is the only way he could have ever hit so many home runs.

I know because I have proof. :rolleyes:

Bad analogy. Bonds and Aaron didn't play at the same time and I'm not aware of several different types of circumstantial lines of evidence that Aaron doped.

Oh and no one, no one ever accused, implicated or considered implicating Henry Aaron of doping.

I did, just now. You must have missed it.

Think what you want about Lance, it will be easier for you to continue to live in your fairytale world.

I think LA doped- no question about it. But some of the pathetic, absolutely pathetic, rationale that people use to try to prove thier point is amusing to me. I think you are right with other parts of your post, but the sentence [paraphrased] "Lance could have never been clean and beat dopers" is just a ridiculous statement, and reminds me of arguments I had with friends in middle school. I was highlighting this immature argument with the Aaron allusion.

To prove that I am an equal BS caller- a similarly idiotic statement was made on the Landis discussion this morning.... He was saying that Landis was innocent, with the iron clad proof he had. I called him out on this too...

I don't follow bicycle racing at all. Other than Armstrong and Landis I couldn't name another pro racer, BUT I'm pretty sure this guy was robbed.....

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1106440#post1106440

the sentence [paraphrased] "Lance could have never been clean and beat dopers" is just a ridiculous statement, and reminds me of arguments I had with friends in middle school. .

you've never heard of "the 2 speed tour"? I don't think it's at all ridiculous to suggest that it's very unlikely anyone not doping would <i>dominate</i> a doped field year after year.

I did, just now. You must have missed it.



I think LA doped- no question about it. But some of the pathetic, absolutely pathetic, rationale that people use to try to prove thier point is amusing to me. I think you are right with other parts of your post, but the sentence [paraphrased] "Lance could have never been clean and beat dopers" is just a ridiculous statement, and reminds me of arguments I had with friends in middle school. I was highlighting this immature argument with the Aaron allusion.

While I do not agree with what you consider paraphrasing my post, lets consider the following. If you think LA doped, I would assume you agree that he doped for a reason or reasons. Might one of them have been that he considered that winning the biggest events (World Cups and Classics and Grand Tours) were not possible without dope, or do you think he did it because of some other less important reason. I think it was the latter, and if Lance thought he needed to dope to win, I would be in agreement with him, because he was the one racing the other competitors not me. Fair enough, or do you think he just succumbed to irrational fears? Did you ever see his interview with Paul Sherwen from the 1994 Tour where Indurain smoked him on 3 minutes in the ITT and Lance was blown away? Lance ever the one to say what he thought was dejected and said something to the effect of he passed me going like 55ks and I was standing still. He just shook his head in disbelief. Looked like a guy who had seen the future to me. Its on the 1994 Tour tape you can get from WCP. Check it out. The guy was World Champ and got smoked by the reigning Tour Patron. If he took dope, he did it because he and others (say Ferrari and Bruyneel thought it would help him acheive what he could not without help) thought it would be beneficial to winning the important stuff, and from the time he came back until he retired he only rode in the important events. Nuff said in my book.

you've never heard of "the 2 speed tour"? I don't think it's at all ridiculous to suggest that it's very unlikely anyone not doping would <i>dominate</i> a doped field year after year.

Now here we go down the slippery slope... please, let us not change the argument to "very unlikely". I think that it is "very unlikely" as well. But that is not what Mike wrote. He wrote as a statement of fact that "[Lance} was doing the same things his competition was doing (maybe more)."

That was my qualm. Yes, it is very unlikely- that is what sports are all about. Again, I do beleive that other parts of Mike's post would hold substance such as all the credible people who stand against him. But listing dopers that he beat as proof that Lance must have been a doper himself doesn't hold water IMO...

but the sentence [paraphrased] "Lance could have never been clean and beat dopers" is just a ridiculous statement,

It does appear that pretty much every rider, etc. that comes clean thinks it's impossible to even be competitive without the stuff. I guess it would all depend on how effective it is. Jaksche is just the latest to say this. Of course it doesn't help the arguement when the event, grand tours, Armstrong dominated would seem to be the least likely where a clean rider could out compete doped riders.

Now here we go down the slippery slope... please, let us not change the argument to "very unlikely". I think that it is "very unlikely" as well. But that is not what Mike wrote. He wrote as a statement of fact that "[Lance} was doing the same things his competition was doing (maybe more)."

That was my qualm. Yes, it is very unlikely- that is what sports are all about. Again, I do beleive that other parts of Mike's post would hold substance such as all the credible people who stand against him. But listing dopers that he beat as proof that Lance must have been a doper himself doesn't hold water IMO...

feel free to substitue "very unlikely" in my post with "utterly impossible" if it makes things easier. it didn't happen.

It does appear that pretty much every rider, etc. that comes clean thinks it's impossible to even be competitive without the stuff. I guess it would all depend on how effective it is. Jaksche is just the latest to say this. Of course it doesn't help the arguement when the event, grand tours, Armstrong dominated would seem to be the least likely where a clean rider could out compete doped riders.

Precisely!

While I do not agree with what you consider paraphrasing my post, lets consider the following. If you think LA doped, I would assume you agree that he doped for a reason or reasons.....

What? I have no idea what went through his head when doping... nor do I really care to guess. It is fine that you have your thoughts on why he doped, and they sound reasonable, but they have nothing to do with my point: Listing other riders who doped, then stating he must have doped too or he couldn't beat them, doesn't hold water... again IMO...

feel free to substitue "very unlikely" in my post with "utterly impossible" if it makes things easier. it didn't happen.

I can't understand why it isn't possible. I agree that LA is a doper. I would say that it is almost impossible to beat dopers- the odds would be almsot out of this world. I would so agree with this statement, that I think only one in 6 Billion people could do it.

But I think that is my point- to say no one could ever do it clean... saying it just cannot happen...takes away the ethos from sports.

Yeah, Lance never doped, however all of his competitors in virtually every race apparently did and Lance crushed the competition in the Tour. Lets see who is on the list who has been implicated and assumed by many to be a doper:

Ullrich
Pantani
Virenque
Zulle
Heras
Basso
Museeuw
Botero
Bartoli
Vandenbroucke
Hamilton
Landis
Riis
Rominger
Berzin
Valverde
Beloki
Moreau

Only Lance stands alone at the pinnacle of the sport, due to his one of a kind training methods, which no one else is capable of replicating.

Yes the guy was a fine, fine cyclist, but he was doing the same things his competition was doing (maybe more). Forget the drug tests which never showed positive, but the circumstantial stuff is so much more compelling anyway. How much more do we need to hear from GL, Emma O'Reilly, Betsy Andreu, David Walsh and others to know that the reality is that apparently no one is above the level of fraud in the sport. The Christophe Bassons were run out of cycling. Omerta ruled the sport. Lance ruled by imtimidation (see the Simeoni run-down in the Tour and the zipped lips symbolism in Lance's subsequent peloton conversation with Jan as he returned to the group with his quarry), legal wrangling and outright threats (read any stories from Lemond concerning the telephone conversation which Lance initiated where he threatened GL). To assume all of these people just hate Lance and are willing to lie to bring down a clean cyclist is just so naive. Sorry but those of us who live in reality, while we hate to burst your bubble, know that even though he never tested positive, he did what he did. Many of us refuse to live with our heads firmly planted in the ground in order to worship at the shrine of St. Lance.


Dude,
I can I assure you that I reside in the state of reality, not in a bubble, and that my head is firmly planted squarely on my shoulders. It's solidly attached, and works rather well. But thanks for the personal attacks...:thumbsup:

Furthermore I can assure you that I am not a Fanboi.......and I have no illusions about his
"methods"....

Had you read my comments, instead of reading into them, and then jumping to improper conclusions you might have seen that I made a simple statement of fact in response to a prior comment. For your convenience it's posted below:

[I]"LA doesn't have to prove he didn't dope....it's up to USADA / CAS to prove he did....until that happens, he's not a doper...technically :rolleyes:"


Let me draw your attention to the last word....and the little roll-eyes emoticon that indicates sarcastic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcastic) remarks. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I'll assume you were having trouble with your right frontal lobe and missed that...


http://www.funmunch.com/graphics/have_a_nice_day/graphics/have_a_nice_day_1.gif

What? I have no idea what went through his head when doping... nor do I really care to guess. It is fine that you have your thoughts on why he doped, and they sound reasonable, but they have nothing to do with my point: Listing other riders who doped, then stating he must have doped too or he couldn't beat them, doesn't hold water... again IMO...

What is known is that at some point in his career, Lance copped to using a hypoxic tent device to aid in his training. It is obvious that he considered this necessary to augment his training program. Why? Seems an artificial method to me and probably others too. Oh I know the argument, its not dope. Well how do we define dope? Where does the legal and ethical training regimen end and where does the doping begin? Why are supplements which are legal ok, but rEPO not? Not trolling just wondering where the slippery slope begins. The boys on Postal were said to be frantic to figure out how to keep up. I guess Tyler figured it out, and he had plenty of fanboys coming to defend his position for quite a long time. Seems he got tired of getting whipped by the doped up peloton, the normal training methods just were not up to the task. And Tyler was the guy everyone wanted to love. Not a controlling, power wielding team leader like LA. This is not a court of law, so I do not have to see direct evidence of Lance to disbelieve the fairytale. I liked those stories when I was a kid too. However, having grown up and seen the reality of corporate and cultural iconic frauds, I have steeled myself by putting aside those fairytales that sound too good to be true.

I love arguments where both sides essentially agree but get all worked up over some tangential issue. I was of the opinion, about 75% sure, Lance didn't dope. After skimming through Walsh's book I feel he most likely did. Just too much circumstancial evidence that can't be explained away by "personal grudges."

BTW, please don't bring up Hank Aarron, even in jest.. I saw that someone took that obvious joke at face value and tried to rebut it. Hank Aaron..talk about a guy who's a bona fide legend that really didn't get the credit he deserved.

I love arguments where both sides essentially agree but get all worked up over some tangential issue. I was of the opinion, about 75% sure, Lance didn't dope. After skimming through Walsh's book I feel he most likely did. Just too much circumstancial evidence that can't be explained away by "personal grudges."

BTW, please don't bring up Hank Aarron, even in jest.. I saw that someone took that obvious joke at face value and tried to rebut it. Hank Aaron..talk about a guy who's a bona fide legend that really didn't get the credit he deserved.

No, I did not take it seriously, only pointing out what appears to be what the highest level was at the time of the golden era of baseball, when 6 foot 180 pounds of Hank Aaron in a fairly home run friendly ballpark could only hit 47 home runs. Switch forward and see Brady Anderson (with some help, me thinks) hit 51 homeruns in 1996. Check the speeds at the Tour and I think you will find a similar increase speed of the whole pack. Again very suspicious.

This graph shows decreasing world record marathon times. Please note the massive doping going on in the early 1900's and again in the late 40's early 50's.
http://www.marathonguide.com/images/records_graph.gif


Home run kings: The details of this graph are described below.
http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2005/04/09/1113064353_9088.jpg

"This graph, from ''Baseball's All-Time Best Sluggers,'' depicts the variation in home-run totals among American major-league baseball players since the late 1800s. The higher the line, the greater the spread between the leading home-run hitter and the average hitter. (The lower the line, the more similar players' home-run totals.) Schell says you would expect the variation to have increased in recent years if steroids gave some players an unfair advantage. But it hasn't: Players' home-run totals are more alike than ever."

This graph shows decreasing world record marathon times. Please note the massive doping going on in the early 1900's and again in the late 40's early 50's.
http://www.marathonguide.com/images/records_graph.gif


Home run kings: The details of this graph are described below.
http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2005/04/09/1113064353_9088.jpg

"This graph, from ''Baseball's All-Time Best Sluggers,'' depicts the variation in home-run totals among American major-league baseball players since the late 1800s. The higher the line, the greater the spread between the leading home-run hitter and the average hitter. (The lower the line, the more similar players' home-run totals.) Schell says you would expect the variation to have increased in recent years if steroids gave some players an unfair advantage. But it hasn't: Players' home-run totals are more alike than ever."

There you have it. You probably subscribe to the let the "marketplace decide" theorists.

Let me tell you a story. I have a brother who lived in the Bay Area from the mid 70s through the early 90s. Back in 1988, while he was in med school we were discussing baseball and he told me that Canseco was doing steroids. How did he know, I asked? He said simple observations. One Ozzie, Jose's identical twin (in Cards system) weighed 50lbs less than Jose. Second, Jose puts on the beef and gets faster at the same time. Third, crazy aggressive behavior by Jose and all of the crazy issues with the wife. No actual evidence just things he knew symptoms of steroid use from his medical training. Funny, just 18 years later Jose comes out with a book (derided by sportswriters, more because they don't like him than whether he was telling the truth) and he tells all. All the while Mark McGwire, who is another likely suspect says he does not want to rehash history. Nah, steriods have nothing to do with Bonds success. Wait I have to go put my head back firmly in that hole cause some guys math theory does not support reality.

My favorite section of the docs they posted from the SCA presentation is the powerpoint presentation by the VP of CTS where he claims that Armstrong's body is unaffected by altitude (same watts at 6000ft as at sea level) and that with just 36 hours of training he was able to increase his threshold by 75 watts (which would be @ 10%+ increase based on openly discussed #s). These two points are supposed to explain the physiological wonder of LA. To me, they do the opposite. I have a hard time conceiving of how either one of these claims are evidence of anything but doping, unless LA's physiological gifts include such things as alien metabolics.

My favorite section of the docs they posted from the SCA presentation is the powerpoint presentation by the VP of CTS where he claims that Armstrong's body is unaffected by altitude (same watts at 6000ft as at sea level) and that with just 36 hours of training he was able to increase his threshold by 75 watts (which would be @ 10%+ increase based on openly discussed #s). These two points are supposed to explain the physiological wonder of LA. To me, they do the opposite. I have a hard time conceiving of how either one of these claims are evidence of anything but doping, unless LA's physiological gifts include such things as alien metabolics.That's freaking hilarious. Even Ferrari's site has several articles with numbers on how performance is decreased with altitude, and no mention of LA being an exception. 75 watts is more like a 19% increase since he was reported to have done the Alpe at around 475 watts (so the increase would = 75/400). That CTS stuff must be really good to produce and increase of 0.5% per hour in an elite athlete!!

I just read "It's not about the bike". I haven't read any other books written by others that are talking about doping.
Is there mention by these other authors about Lance Armstrong having failed any of the drug tests that were ever administered during the course of competing and winning all of his Tour victories?
I'm not trying to get into any debate or anything. But having just read his book, and reading all of the references to Doping, I'm curious.
I'm not trying to stir anything up, but has he failed any drug tests?
Thanks, I figure if he has failed any, it would have been reported or written about in one of these other books.
Thanks
again.
Mitch

He produced a TUE post facto like Pereiro did recently. Some reports indicate it was also forged but that's still in question.

I just read "It's not about the bike". I haven't read any other books written by others that are talking about doping.
Is there mention by these other authors about Lance Armstrong having failed any of the drug tests that were ever administered during the course of competing and winning all of his Tour victories?
I'm not trying to get into any debate or anything. But having just read his book, and reading all of the references to Doping, I'm curious.
I'm not trying to stir anything up, but has he failed any drug tests?
Thanks, I figure if he has failed any, it would have been reported or written about in one of these other books.
Thanks
again.
Mitch

@Msingler-

I think the in part the silence following your query (save terzo rene) probably has to do with a certain weariness with the "I never tested positive"/"I'm the most tested athlete in the world" Armstrong media strategy-- and that's what that is, a media strategy. In the 1999 Tour, Armstrong did test positive for cortisone- but this positive was later dismissed when he produced a prescription for a topical cortisone cream supposedly used for saddle sores. On his medical forms for that Tour, however, he listed/claimed no medications or therapuetic use exceptions (TUE) for any illicit substances. According to Walsh and his sources, the prescription was written by a team doctor after the test-- a retroactive cleansing of the adverse finding, which was also in the interest of the Tour powers-that-be in the wake of 1998.

Additionally, when B urine samples were retested from the 1999 Tour a few years ago with the EPO test, EPO was found in Armstrong's urine. In the absence of a confirmatory tests, these positives were not actionable.

Those two instances from 1999 aside, however, the issue of testing is a red herring. The past few years have repeatedly demonstrated through police and judicial investigations that large doping rings exist amongst a large number of cyclist who NEVER tested positive, but have been definitely shown to be doping. The only people who get popped by the testing regime are the unlucky and the sloppy. In fact, much evidence has arisen that suggests that numerous team doctors get warned by informants within the anti-doping establishment that surprise out-of-competition tests are coming. It is all that cynical and dirty.

So....

And Manzano has indicated that the Discovery team doctor was getting tip offs from the UCI about testing...and the 2000 tests from then Actovegin inquiry came back completely clean for EPO - which would give Armstrong the physiology of a newborn baby...

It's often said that 'doping levels the playing field' - but only in one direction - in favour of the heavier guys who are suddenly able not only to TT and roll on the flat but climb pretty decently too. For the lightweight climbers the effect is not great enough to overcome the increased advantage the TT specialists now have.

Here's a radical idea - why not stop doping altogether and see how riders compete on the new 'dope free playing field' - gosh, we might even see the most talented rider win, not just the biggest pedalling pharmacy

Thanks for your thoughts on the subject. I was curious, and haven't read up on all of the threads surrounding doping. I am curious about the various tests, their flaws and how teams avoid detection. Good reading, I'm sure.
Thanks again for your opinion.

Regards,
Mitch

@Msingler-

I think the in part the silence following your query (save terzo rene) probably has to do with a certain weariness with the "I never tested positive"/"I'm the most tested athlete in the world" Armstrong media strategy-- and that's what that is, a media strategy. In the 1999 Tour, Armstrong did test positive for cortisone- but this positive was later dismissed when he produced a prescription for a topical cortisone cream supposedly used for saddle sores. On his medical forms for that Tour, however, he listed/claimed no medications or therapuetic use exceptions (TUE) for any illicit substances. According to Walsh and his sources, the prescription was written by a team doctor after the test-- a retroactive cleansing of the adverse finding, which was also in the interest of the Tour powers-that-be in the wake of 1998.

Additionally, when B urine samples were retested from the 1999 Tour a few years ago with the EPO test, EPO was found in Armstrong's urine. In the absence of a confirmatory tests, these positives were not actionable.

Those two instances from 1999 aside, however, the issue of testing is a red herring. The past few years have repeatedly demonstrated through police and judicial investigations that large doping rings exist amongst a large number of cyclist who NEVER tested positive, but have been definitely shown to be doping. The only people who get popped by the testing regime are the unlucky and the sloppy. In fact, much evidence has arisen that suggests that numerous team doctors get warned by informants within the anti-doping establishment that surprise out-of-competition tests are coming. It is all that cynical and dirty.

So....

Dope or not, LA is/was that 1:1,000,000 person with a drive that is undeniable, meaning he has a mind set where he won't be beat.
He wasn't that special before he almost died. I think it resulted in him being able to access whatever kept him going during that time, so when he was riding in the TdF, he could feel like he was riding for his life.
It's hard to catch someone if they fear for their life (real or imagined).

Yeah, Lance never doped, however all of his competitors in virtually every race apparently did and Lance crushed the competition in the Tour. Lets see who is on the list who has been implicated and assumed by many to be a doper:

Ullrich
Pantani
Virenque
Zulle
Heras
Basso
Museeuw
Botero
Bartoli
Vandenbroucke
Hamilton
Landis
Riis
Rominger
Berzin
Valverde
Beloki
Moreau

Only Lance stands alone at the pinnacle of the sport, due to his one of a kind training methods, which no one else is capable of replicating.

Yes the guy was a fine, fine cyclist, but he was doing the same things his competition was doing (maybe more). Forget the drug tests which never showed positive, but the circumstantial stuff is so much more compelling anyway. How much more do we need to hear from GL, Emma O'Reilly, Betsy Andreu, David Walsh and others to know that the reality is that apparently no one is above the level of fraud in the sport. The Christophe Bassons were run out of cycling. Omerta ruled the sport. Lance ruled by imtimidation (see the Simeoni run-down in the Tour and the zipped lips symbolism in Lance's subsequent peloton conversation with Jan as he returned to the group with his quarry), legal wrangling and outright threats (read any stories from Lemond concerning the telephone conversation which Lance initiated where he threatened GL). To assume all of these people just hate Lance and are willing to lie to bring down a clean cyclist is just so naive. Sorry but those of us who live in reality, while we hate to burst your bubble, know that even though he never tested positive, he did what he did. Many of us refuse to live with our heads firmly planted in the ground in order to worship at the shrine of St. Lance.

Lance is the only virgin at the orgy