Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45
  1. #1
    always right sometimes
    Reputation: rydbyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,837

    Truth? LA clearly stated to Orpah that he "Did NOT use drugs/doping" in his 3rd

    place finish in the 2009 TdF.

    Is there any proof that he lied to Orpah about this? If so, I am absolutely done with him...even more so than before...

    This was his ONE chance to come clean and he 100% honest about this mess.

    IF he honestly earned a 3rd place racing totally clean, then wow...I am impressed considering he was in his late 30's...

    I had assumed that he was on the best doping regimen ever when he got that 3rd place!

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Wookiebiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,133
    To avoid prosecution he has to lie about this ... ask him again in 5 years and he will likely have a different answer.

    The Oprah interview was to come out with the fact he has used PED's ... but he only did the interview after the prosection's statute of limitations had passed. The 09 and 10 season is still within that time frame, so of course he is going to lie about it ... it's not like he's going to purposefully do something that's going to put him in jail, much to the dismay of many.

    I "Highly" doubt he was clean considering Contador was popped in the 2010 Tour.
    Bikes:
    • 2012 CAAD10 (4)
    • 2013 Jamis Nova Race (winter training bike)
    • 1998 Marin East Peak - MTB
    • 2012 Argon 18 E-118


  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: mpre53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,993
    His blood values from those two years, cited in USADA's Reasoned Decision, indicate a high likelihood that he was at least transfusing, if not microdosing EPO.

    It's not really "prosecution" that he's concerned about. He wants to be re-instated. There's an 8 year statute of limitations on doping violations. Admit doping in 2005, he can be re-instated later this year. Push that ahead 4-5 years, and you can do the arithmetic yourself.

  4. #4
    always right sometimes
    Reputation: rydbyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,837
    Thx for the responses. I was kinda hoping to find that he did actually race clean that year. Man...the WAY he looked into Orpah's eyes and adamantly said he did NOT dope was just like the deposition where he did the same thing. He even went on to say the his ex-wife "gave him permission to come back to the TdF given that "he would never cross that line again (cheat/dope)" He didn't have to tack this part on, but chose to...

    Bummer. I thought there was a glimmer of hope for the guy...

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Robert1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    352
    Think about this for a second. When asked earlier in the interview why he doped he said it was necessary and put him on a level playing field. He also said he did not believe he could win without it because of the "culture", ie everyone else was doing it. But then when discussing his comeback, Oprah asks him if he thought he couldn't win without it, why did you go clean in the comeback? His response was because the sport was now clean, or at least cleaner. But in 2010, the year LA placed twenty something, Contador, the winner, was stripped of his title for doping. Give me a break already, did LA, (or anyone for that matter believe doping was no longer needed to compete in the tour? Besides his bio passport samples showed something like 1 in a million that he wasn't doping. Though not a directly positive test, people have been convicted of murder on lesser odds. My money is on that he did dope.



    Quote Originally Posted by rydbyk View Post
    place finish in the 2009 TdF.

    Is there any proof that he lied to Orpah about this? If so, I am absolutely done with him...even more so than before...

    This was his ONE chance to come clean and he 100% honest about this mess.

    IF he honestly earned a 3rd place racing totally clean, then wow...I am impressed considering he was in his late 30's...

    I had assumed that he was on the best doping regimen ever when he got that 3rd place!

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Robert1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    352
    You bring up another good point that goes to contradiction. When Oprah asked LA earlier about what his wife thought of his doping during 99-05 he stated she really didn't get all that involved and was kind of apathetic about it. So why now all of sudden does it become important to her for him to race clean? I'm no fan of Betsy's but when she said all the wives turned a blinds eye as long as they could maintain their lifestyles, it seemed like this aligned with the description of his wife's feelings on the doping. Now all of a sudden she forces him to race clean. I find it hard to believe with his personality he would do anything someone forced him to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by rydbyk View Post
    Thx for the responses. I was kinda hoping to find that he did actually race clean that year. Man...the WAY he looked into Orpah's eyes and adamantly said he did NOT dope was just like the deposition where he did the same thing. He even went on to say the his ex-wife "gave him permission to come back to the TdF given that "he would never cross that line again (cheat/dope)" He didn't have to tack this part on, but chose to...

    Bummer. I thought there was a glimmer of hope for the guy...

  7. #7
    Pencil of death
    Reputation: Bluenote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,018
    Quote Originally Posted by rydbyk View Post
    Thx for the responses. I was kinda hoping to find that he did actually race clean that year. Man...the WAY he looked into Orpah's eyes and adamantly said he did NOT dope was just like the deposition where he did the same thing. He even went on to say the his ex-wife "gave him permission to come back to the TdF given that "he would never cross that line again (cheat/dope)" He didn't have to tack this part on, but chose to...

    Bummer. I thought there was a glimmer of hope for the guy...
    When lying before he was frequently defiant or appealed to emotion. 'Wouldn't risk my cancer foundation, wouldn't risk my health after surviving cancer, wouldn't hurt my kids.'

    He was very unemotional through the interview and suddenly became emotional when talking about his vow to come back clean?

    It's not uncommon for manipulators and liars to put a backwards inference in their lie 'saying I'm a liar is just ripping the heart out of cancer patients everywhere.'

    Michael Ashenden explains the science of detecting blood doping, in lay mans language. His web site is a good read.

  8. #8
    always right sometimes
    Reputation: rydbyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,837
    Again, the WAY he made these claims were just unnecessary IF he was trying to protect himself legally... NOT necessary.

    Did he really think this would not leak and we would find out he was lying about this too?

    Come on man! LA...You have EVERY SINGLE sports analyst etc chomping at the bit to find you lying again....and that's the best you got!?

    Idiot. (Assuming it was another bold faced lie....) Good people learn from their mistakes correct?

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by rydbyk View Post
    Thx for the responses. I was kinda hoping to find that he did actually race clean that year. Man...the WAY he looked into Orpah's eyes and adamantly said he did NOT dope was just like the deposition where he did the same thing. He even went on to say the his ex-wife "gave him permission to come back to the TdF given that "he would never cross that line again (cheat/dope)" He didn't have to tack this part on, but chose to...

    Bummer. I thought there was a glimmer of hope for the guy...
    Pretty sure he's clean in all the sanctioned events he's participating in now.

    Am I the only one who wonders why he supposedly asked Kristin's "permission" to come back. And if he did, why did she insist that he do it clean? Did she run out of aluminum foil?

  10. #10
    Pencil of death
    Reputation: Bluenote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,018
    Quote Originally Posted by BGEPizza View Post
    Pretty sure he's clean in all the sanctioned events he's participating in now.

    Am I the only one who wonders why he supposedly asked Kristin's "permission" to come back. And if he did, why did she insist that he do it clean? Did she run out of aluminum foil?
    I don't ask my ex-wife for permission to do anything....

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: mpre53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert1 View Post
    You bring up another good point that goes to contradiction. When Oprah asked LA earlier about what his wife thought of his doping during 99-05 he stated she really didn't get all that involved and was kind of apathetic about it. So why now all of sudden does it become important to her for him to race clean? I'm no fan of Betsy's but when she said all the wives turned a blinds eye as long as they could maintain their lifestyles, it seemed like this aligned with the description of his wife's feelings on the doping. Now all of a sudden she forces him to race clean. I find it hard to believe with his personality he would do anything someone forced him to do.
    I'm pretty sure that he and Kristin were divorced well before 2009. Why he would give a damn about her asking him not to dope at that time is beyond me.

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Robert1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    352
    No you're not the only one. See my post above which mentions in addition, he came out and said directly in the interview earlier she never cared before when he was racing, so why would it matter for the comeback?
    Last edited by Robert1; 01-22-2013 at 01:42 PM. Reason: typo

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Dave Cutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,903
    Quote Originally Posted by rydbyk View Post
    ..... Is there any proof that he lied to Orpah about this?
    How could anyone ever think Lance could have possibly lied to Orpah.... when Lance has been so honest and forth coming in the past.

    Lairs lie. It would be best to assume that nothing Lance ever says will ever be truthful.

  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Tomahawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert1 View Post
    Think about this for a second. When asked earlier in the interview why he doped he said it was necessary and put him on a level playing field. He also said he did not believe he could win without it because of the "culture", ie everyone else was doing it. But then when discussing his comeback, Oprah asks him if he thought he couldn't win without it, why did you go clean in the comeback? His response was because the sport was now clean, or at least cleaner. But in 2010, the year LA placed twenty something, Contador, the winner, was stripped of his title for doping. Give me a break already, did LA, (or anyone for that matter believe doping was no longer needed to compete in the tour? Besides his bio passport samples showed something like 1 in a million that he wasn't doping. Though not a directly positive test, people have been convicted of murder on lesser odds. My money is on that he did dope.
    That all can't be said with certainty.

    First, he finished 23rd in 2010 because he had a few crashes in the early stages that put him out of contention. That was unfortunate for him because his form looked to be coming good when he came 2nd in the Tour of Luxembourg and 4th in the TDF prologue. So for the next 2 weeks he basically limped around and didn't push himself all that hard except for one stage. But out of 200 riders he still finished 23rd. The guy's talented, with or without drugs - period.

    Lance's hematocrit never exceeded 45.7% in 2009 and never went below 38.2%, so that's not massive fluctuation at all - and that's not a very high rating. That's pretty normal on face value...

    Analysis: Armstrong?s Tour Blood Levels Debated | Cyclingnews.com

    I'm not at expert in the slightest sense (obviously), but basically it looks like the whole science behind the biological passport is based on a study of only 7 riders. If that's still the basis today that's very lame.

    Basically I think the idea is that your hematocrit is supposed to fall over the course of Grand Tours, something like 12%. Lance's fell 5% during the Giro, but stayed the same over the Tour de France and that's what is suspicious. It's possible that he was micro dosing EPO throughout the year (but that would have been harder than in the past with more out of competition testing) and blood transfusions during the Tour. He did come out of the second rest day raging (rest day is to recover, no?). But you can't rule out much simpler things like sickness, hydration, supplements and biology.

    Since Lance posted those results on his website in an attempt to prove himself clean we can't compare them to other riders at the time as their results aren't available.

  15. #15
    Pencil of death
    Reputation: Bluenote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomahawk View Post
    That all can't be said with certainty.

    First, he finished 23rd in 2010 because he had a few crashes in the early stages that put him out of contention. That was unfortunate for him because his form looked to be coming good when he came 2nd in the Tour of Luxembourg and 4th in the TDF prologue. So for the next 2 weeks he basically limped around and didn't push himself all that hard except for one stage. But out of 200 riders he still finished 23rd. The guy's talented, with or without drugs - period.

    Lance's hematocrit never exceeded 45.7% in 2009 and never went below 38.2%, so that's not massive fluctuation at all - and that's not a very high rating. That's pretty normal on face value...

    Analysis: Armstrong?s Tour Blood Levels Debated | Cyclingnews.com

    I'm not at expert in the slightest sense (obviously), but basically it looks like the whole science behind the biological passport is based on a study of only 7 riders. If that's still the basis today that's very lame.

    Basically I think the idea is that your hematocrit is supposed to fall over the course of Grand Tours, something like 12%. Lance's fell 5% during the Giro, but stayed the same over the Tour de France and that's what is suspicious. It's possible that he was micro dosing EPO throughout the year (but that would have been harder than in the past with more out of competition testing) and blood transfusions during the Tour. He did come out of the second rest day raging (rest day is to recover, no?). But you can't rule out much simpler things like sickness, hydration, supplements and biology.

    Since Lance posted those results on his website in an attempt to prove himself clean we can't compare them to other riders at the time as their results aren't available.
    I think we need to make an apples to apples comparison here. Lets look at the actual text from the reasoned decision and let the USADA 'speak for itself' on Armstrong's blood values.

    The link Tomahawk posted and the 7 riders number he cites don't come from the "reasoned decision".


    The text from the USADA decision can be found on page 140 (145 in the PDF)

    USADA’s Armstrong Reasoned Decision full text

    As best I understand the USADAs position - they evaluated Armstrong's blood from the Giro versus Armstrong's blood from the Tour. The found that his plasma (kind of the inverse if hemocrit, I think) and his 'baby blood cells' (reticulocytes) behaved very differently during the Tour than during the Giro. The body repressing production of baby blood cells is a sign that adult blood cells are being artificially added.

    To state the obvious, I'm no expert on blood science. But as a lay person being told 'his blood was different in the Tour than in the Giro' seems pretty convincing, understandable evidence. And while the study of catching blood dopers is fairly new, the study of blood in general has been around for quite some time.

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Tomahawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
    I think we need to make an apples to apples comparison here. Lets look at the actual text from the reasoned decision and let the USADA 'speak for itself' on Armstrong's blood values.

    The link Tomahawk posted and the 7 riders number he cites don't come from the "reasoned decision".


    The text from the USADA decision can be found on page 140 (145 in the PDF)

    USADA’s Armstrong Reasoned Decision full text

    As best I understand the USADAs position - they evaluated Armstrong's blood from the Giro versus Armstrong's blood from the Tour. The found that his plasma (kind of the inverse if hemocrit, I think) and his 'baby blood cells' (reticulocytes) behaved very differently during the Tour than during the Giro. The body repressing production of baby blood cells is a sign that adult blood cells are being artificially added.

    To state the obvious, I'm no expert on blood science. But as a lay person being told 'his blood was different in the Tour than in the Giro' seems pretty convincing, understandable evidence. And while the study of catching blood dopers is fairly new, the study of blood in general has been around for quite some time.
    Lance was training at high altitude in Aspen Colorado right before the Tour - so is it any surprise that his body had already produced all the red blood cells it needed for altitude? After returning to lower ground, he would not be producing many new red blood cells, and the reticulocytes would be low. (BTW that last sentence is copied and pasted FYI) I don't mean to pose as an expert but, it's an interesting topic.

  17. #17
    Pencil of death
    Reputation: Bluenote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomahawk View Post
    Lance was training at high altitude in Aspen Colorado right before the Tour - so is it any surprise that his body had already produced all the red blood cells it needed for altitude? After returning to lower ground, he would not be producing many new red blood cells, and the reticulocytes would be low. (BTW that last sentence is copied and pasted FYI) I don't mean to pose as an expert but, it's an interesting topic.
    USADA’s Armstrong Reasoned Decision full text

    It seems pretty dangerous for two non-experts to try and discuss the science of blood doping, particularly by cutting and pasting scientific sentences out of context. Can you at least explain where you got your citation?

    That still wouldn't explain his odd plasma levels. And it wouldn't explain why he was still working with Ferrari, why he was lying about working with Ferrari and why he assembled others from his dope days? (The above also comes from the reasoned decision.)

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Tomahawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
    USADA’s Armstrong Reasoned Decision full text

    It seems pretty dangerous for two non-experts to try and discuss the science of blood doping, particularly by cutting and pasting scientific sentences out of context. Can you at least explain where you got your citation?

    That still wouldn't explain his odd plasma levels. And it wouldn't explain why he was still working with Ferrari, why he was lying about working with Ferrari and why he assembled others from his dope days? (The above also comes from the reasoned decision.)
    Can't reveal it, top secret hah. But it would be good if someone with knowledge or can be bothered to research and cite it could chip in to back it up or refute it.

    I'm fairly certain Ferrari wasn't just a dope doctor from his dope days... He was totally involved in his training, at least according to Daniel Coyle's 2 books. None of the emails between Lance and Ferrari's son in 'A Reasoned Decision' mentioned doping. So it could be Lance just wanted all the best ingredients he could get minus doping from his glory days to try and pull it off again.

  19. #19
    You Phillip mah census
    Reputation: sir duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomahawk View Post
    Can't reveal it, top secret hah. But it would be good if someone with knowledge or can be bothered to research and cite it could chip in to back it up or refute it.

    I'm fairly certain Ferrari wasn't just a dope doctor from his dope days... He was totally involved in his training, at least according to Daniel Coyle's 2 books. None of the emails between Lance and Ferrari's son in 'A Reasoned Decision' mentioned doping. So it could be Lance just wanted all the best ingredients he could get minus doping from his glory days to try and pull it off again.

    That's right, he paid over a million dollars to Ferrari just to get his seatpost at the right height. Why on earth would Lance mention doping in any email to Ferrari or his son? You crack me up.
    There ain't no sanity clause... (Chico Marx)

    I accidentally..a burrito. (Old Fuji)

    Norman Wisdom, Johnny, Joey, Dee Dee, good times... (Phil Oakey)

  20. #20
    You Phillip mah census
    Reputation: sir duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Cutter View Post
    How could anyone ever think Lance could have possibly lied to Orpah.... when Lance has been so honest and forth coming in the past.

    Lairs lie. It would be best to assume that nothing Lance ever says will ever be truthful.
    So he goes from being a meticulous planner who would go to any lengths to ensure victory, and any lengths to keep the means to those victories away from public scrutiny. Then out of the clear blue sky he decides to abandon the tactics that brought success and stardom (and rock chicks) to race clean? Lance leave things to chance??

    Ah..one,two,three,four....

    There ain't no sanity clause... (Chico Marx)

    I accidentally..a burrito. (Old Fuji)

    Norman Wisdom, Johnny, Joey, Dee Dee, good times... (Phil Oakey)

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Tomahawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by sir duke View Post
    That's right, he paid over a million dollars to Ferrari just to get his seatpost at the right height. Why on earth would Lance mention doping in any email to Ferrari or his son? You crack me up.
    Obviously the emphasis was on training. Athletes pay a lot of money for training programs. Shocking I know. Lance and Ferrari were obviously close, and winning the Tour de France meant everything to him. Lance trusted him, viewed him as a good man and valued his expertise as the best in the world. So I don't know what the going rates are between millionaire pals.

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by sir duke View Post
    So he goes from being a meticulous planner who would go to any lengths to ensure victory, and any lengths to keep the means to those victories away from public scrutiny. Then out of the clear blue sky he decides to abandon the tactics that brought success and stardom (and rock chicks) to race clean? Lance leave things to chance??

    Ah..one,two,three,four....

    Exactly. This is why I also say his ex-teammates are full of crap as well. We are supposed to believe that after using PEDs for numerous years with great success and very few positive tests, everyone just coincidentally stopped using at once for no particular reason? Uh, I don't think so.

  23. #23
    Pencil of death
    Reputation: Bluenote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomahawk View Post
    Can't reveal it, top secret hah. But it would be good if someone with knowledge or can be bothered to research and cite it could chip in to back it up or refute it.

    I'm fairly certain Ferrari wasn't just a dope doctor from his dope days... He was totally involved in his training, at least according to Daniel Coyle's 2 books. None of the emails between Lance and Ferrari's son in 'A Reasoned Decision' mentioned doping. So it could be Lance just wanted all the best ingredients he could get minus doping from his glory days to try and pull it off again.
    Or maybe if you are going to make arguments and claim to quote sentences you could actually bother to research them and cite them.

    I love the goal post moving - first all of blood doping science came from 7 riders. Oops.

    Then his reticulocytes could be explained by some unsourced medical article.

    Then he wasn't stupid enough to leave a big flaming email trail saying 'Ferrari, how much EPO should I take?' So he must be innocent.

    If Lance Armstrong doped or not in 2009-10 isn't of huge importance to me. But I do actually care about well thought out positions that are grounded in evidence and reason.

  24. #24
    Pencil of death
    Reputation: Bluenote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,018
    Here. Fine here is a citation that Armstrong's low reticks would not be from training at altitude. Shockingly it was posted right here on the forum.

    Expert Analysis of Armstrong 09/10 blood values

  25. #25
    Pencil of death
    Reputation: Bluenote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Addict07 View Post
    Exactly. This is why I also say his ex-teammates are full of crap as well. We are supposed to believe that after using PEDs for numerous years with great success and very few positive tests, everyone just coincidentally stopped using at once for no particular reason? Uh, I don't think so.
    My understanding is they testified first under oath. Then repeated their stories for the USADA while a Fed watched. Doping (outside if US soil) isn't a federal crime, but lying to the Feds under oath is.

    Plus, They'd be better off to admit the complete truth and get it covered in their plea deal. If they left something out of their confession it would likely be a second strike and a long - 8 year or lifetime ban.

    Not to mention that whole perjury thing. Feds get touchy about that.

    I wouldn't be surprised if some of them "spun" their stories, but it would be pretty stupid to pass up a 'get out of jail free' card.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Sea Otter Classic

Hot Deals

Contest


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook