Dublin Girl Accuses Tour Hero

gntlmn

It's interesting how they sidestep the entire Lemond/Hinault controversy in this interview. Lemond gave his teammate Hinault the tour victory on a silver platter in 1985 after getting false information from the coach.
http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html

If he had known that Hinault was 4 minutes behind him on that one climb, he would have won the tour himself. And that Hinault hung up his bike in 1985 was simply false. Here is a photo of Hinault and Lemond in the 1986 Tour when Lemond finally refused to lie down any more for Hinault.
http://grahamwatson.safeshopper.com/5/10.htm?905

So it's interesting how Hinault seems to be rewriting history, along with the apparently misinformed interviewer in this article.

On the other hand, Hinault does not mince words about the attacks on Lance re doping. It sounds like he would make a great coach. He has a way of crystallizing the whole discussion into a powerful statement which I admit gave me goosebumps. I don't think anyone could have said it better.

limerickman

I'd like to know how you draw this conclusion about the SI ?
The SI is a broadsheet (not tabloid) and it has the highest
circulation for a sunday newspaper here.
If it's reports were inaccurate why do so many people buy it ?

Ted B

No, I think you misread this. Hinault won his last tour in '85 (he was second in '86). He did hang up his bike on the day of his 32nd birthday, which I believe was in Nov. '86.

steve007

Eurosport: Amidst the doping innuendo that is continually swirling around cycling, some have made the connection between Armstrong and the medications he was allowed to take – and may currently still be taking – because of his cancer…

Bernard Hinault: Yeah, I've heard that and here's what I have to say to that bunch of assholes: I wish you just one thing: That you have the same sickness. That you have one foot in the grave. Then you'll see how much you'll want to live. How much you'll want to do what you love and do it to it's maximum.

EXACTLY!! WHAT GOES AROUND......

gntlmn

You're right. I misread this because he didn't mention directly that he road the tour in '86, and it didn't say when his birthday was, which I assumed, incorrectly, was before the 1986 Tour. Perhaps he was being diplomatic in not mentioning the 1986 Tour. I'm sure that's not one of his favorite races, considering his previous win record in the Tour.

Also, I might point out what seems to be another inaccuracy in this interview. Hinault says that Lance lost 12 kg from his precancer riding days to his postcancer. I don't think it was quite that much. I think the amount was closer to 8 kg, but I'm not sure on this either. I suppose it also depends on exactly when you take the measurements. I suspect that his weight range is a far narrower range since cancer than it used to be. He used to get really big off season, but not anymore. He always looks the same now--very lean.

limerickman

Bernard Hinault - his comments sound a bit defensive to me, don't you think ?
Hinault as you know is a highly visible figure at the TDF and ASO
(the company that organises a lot of the major races).
Hinault is clearly worried about all of the bad press at the TDF.
There is severe pressure now being applied about the very nature of the TDF from goverment circles in France.

For those of you who live outside France, the TDF is but a part of their "En fete" (national holiday) each July.
France goes on holiday for the month of July and knowing that their national sport is given international prominence, the French people want their national race to be free of scandal.
The French goverment realise that the public backing of the TDF is waning - and they have applied pressure to ensure that the
race and it's organisers clean up their act.

Bernard knows that the pressure is on.

gntlmn

I'm glad it is because if they don't watch it, it will collapse of it's own weight. Can you imagine all the sponsors abandoning the Tour en masse?

tafi

Your mathematical foundations have been shaky from the start.

Firstly you have plucked a figure out of your arse for the probability of being caught in any one individual test. Than you have assumed that the results of the next test are independant of those of the first. If a method of avoiding a positive result had been applied to stage 16 of the Tour then the residual of that method will affect the result of a test conducted the very next day and for some days afterwards.
There is no way you can no either the probability of an outcome or the covariance between events.
You cannot quantify this.

You have completely ignored the fact (and continue to do so) that there are methods of avoiding detection no matter what the drug used.

The level of accountability is really quite low. David Millar is known for having an anti drug stance similar to that of Armstrong. He has never been tested positive but has admitted to using EPO and EPO vials have been found. You conveniently ignored the fact that Millar has alos been undergoing tests for a long period of time.
Jesus Manzano has also avoided detection for many years and detailed exaclty how earlier this year.

You have also ignored the possibility that a rider may not be on a drug for a significant part of the season. If they are only on a particular drug for a short period of time (and timed correctly so that benefits coincide with major competitions), then they can avoid detection all together more easily because the are only doped for the necesary period of time.

gntlmn

Clearly, what has been derived is a loose estimate. That's how you begin to see probabilities in the real world--by using estimates. This is not a math class; it's a real world problem. It's how actuaries make estimates to determine the insurance rate when they want to insure against an event that has never occurred or only rarely occurred or for which the facts are not necessarily reliable. It's a lot better to be approximately right than 100% wrong, and so I am trying to approximate. As for my anatomy having anything to do with this process of approximation, I assure you that it has nothing to do with it.

You might be interested in the thread that I started on Grand Tours forum entitled "A Way to End the Drug Controversy".

Instead of trying to poke holes in my approximations, why don't you propose how to get a better estimate? I come up with odds of 3 out of 10,000 for a 5 year random testing program. This might be, and I think very strongly that it is, a guess on the HIGH side. Yes, I said HIGH side. In other words, the probability of Lance doping is I suspect way lower than this. He's been riding more than 10 years. 3/10,000 times 3/10,000 is 9/100,000,000 or 9 out of 100 million, roughly 1 out of 10 million. This is the highest rate of assurance you can get for non doping using the rather rosy assumptions I have made about the accuracy. You don't buy the rosiness of the assumptions, and I don't blame you. It's a starting point.

Note that I have assumed that the random drug testing program is the only drug testing I am focusing on. This is another error on my part which understates the level of assurance. But I did this intentionally because I don't want to fool myself on the strength of this level of assurance. I was focusing only on the times when a test is unexpected. If you include the other tests, the level of assurance also goes way up. To think that he can successfully dodge all those other tests to test false negative that whole time is not a very reliable thought. It doesn't ring true. Even if he is 99% effective at getting false negatives, he is going to get caught in 10 years of tests. The odds would be way against him, and this would be for the non random tests--the ones they do at races.

When you factor in the adjustments you propose, I suspect that I wouldn't be far off to propose that this figure will still be way lower than 1 out of 100 odds of being a doper. This would be giving up a factor of 100,000 to account for the uncertainties.

I'm sorry if you may be getting upset judging by your language. I don't get that way. All this is just numbers and logic, nothing personal.

Feel free to make some quality adjustments to this process. Can you imagine having less than 99% assurance that he is a clean rider? I have already adjusted the assurance level downward by a factor of 100,000 for estimates instead of certainties. It would be a very safe guess with a LOT of room for error. To think otherwise is very obviously (to me) ludicrous.

As for doping only in specific instances, this is not borne out by the facts, most notably that Lance's performance has been consistent ever since he lost weight from cancer. So this argument doesn't make much sense. If he were doping periodically, he would have sensational performances and mediocre ones as well. He doesn't have that much variation in his riding.

JAPANic

This reminds me of Michael Jackson a little bit...

If there was going to be a cover-up O'reilly would have been paid off by now...

I suspect that there probably is some doping going on with Lance..

All be it, minimal....

We all take caffeine, aspirin, amino acids.... if you had access to something that is going to give you more red blood cells you'd probably try it too....

If Lance got his extra red blood cells from altitude training then that is the answer to the doping allegations.... (if he has extra red blood cells).


I say if he hasn't been caught, then he hasn't done anything illegal....

If the bitch is going to write a damaging defaming book without proof then she should have her arse sued....

I hope is doesn't all turn bad... My Trek 5500 will depreciate quickly and I'll have to throw all those Lance training books away I have.....

steve007

I just Hope Lance wins!

gntlmn

The tent manufacturers brag that Lance uses a hypoxic (low oxygen) tent to sleep in. This raises red blood cell count significantly, and it's legal. I think top athletes have been using these about 10 years now, which could explain increases in endurance and O2 uptake.

gntlmn

This year's Tour de France, it appears, will have even tougher drug testing. As more riders are eliminated who flunk, the spread between those with natural advantages and the cheaters grows. I bet Lance is happy the tests get tougher, although his top contenders are probably not doping either.

Here's an article which describes some of the advances in testing that will be employed in this year's Tour. Notice that they are going to be freezing some samples for later testing. I am happy to see these new developments. It's great for the survival of the sport (and the riders).

From http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/6399.0.html

UCI and Tour promise rigorous testing
Riders on this year's Tour de France could become the first in any sport to undergo new blood tests which will target the use of banned synthetic blood boosters and growth hormones.

The three-week Tour starts in Liege, Belgium, on Saturday in the wake of several doping controversies.

However, UCI medical director Mario Zorzoli says new tests have been developed for synthetic blood plasma products and previously undetectable growth hormones.

"It would be a first in any sport if we introduced these tests," he said. "French law already allows any kind of biological sample to be taken from riders with a view to testing them for banned drugs. We are very confident we can introduce them on the Tour de France."

The new tests could be carried out both in the morning prior to racing at riders' hotels, or in the doping control near the finish line of each stage.

The UCI, which has been battling doping claims and controversies involving some of the sport's top names this year, including Britain's David Millar and American five-time Tour winner Lance Armstrong, has sent letters to all Tour riders warning them of recent advances in detecting synthetic hemoglobin (blood plasma), blood transfusions and growth hormones.

Samples from riders could be frozen and, in the case of growth hormones, tested at a later date, according to the UCI.

Zorzoli said they had also made significant progress in detecting illegal blood transfusions which some riders claim has made a return to the sport.

However the UCI doctor said no samples taken so far this season showed any use of synthetic hemoglobin - a product which can boost performance by increasing the oxygen in the blood.

The current EPO screening involves both testing for hematocrit levels which indicate the volume of red blood cells and a urine test designed to distinguish the isoforms - proteins produced by different genes - present in synthetic EPO from the natural form of erythropoietin which is produced in the human body.

Synthetic - or recombinant - erythropoietin is derived from the cells of hamster ovaries and the resulting isoforms produce a measurably different electrical charge than do the isoforms produced by human erythropoietin. Nonetheless, both tests have limits and, according to medical experts, are actually easy to beat.

The new tests, said Zorzoli, may offer more assurances of accuracy and are less likely to be defeated by riders able to employ relatively sophisticated means to beat them.

French court promises Armstrong ruling by Friday
A Paris court said it will make a decision on Friday on Lance Armstrong's appeal against a ruling denying him the right to insert a denial against accusations of doping published in a book released last week.

The five-time Tour de France winner's lawyer Christian Charriere-Bournazel has taken action over the book "L.A. Confidential: The Secrets of Lance Armstrong" by award-winning Sunday Times journalist David Walsh and Pierre Ballester, a cycling specialist formerly with French sports daily L'Equipe, which alleges he used banned drugs.

The book focuses on statements attributed to Emma O'Reilly, a soigneur who worked with Armstrong from 1998-2000. O'Reilly claims Armstrong used the banned blood booster EPO.

Armstrong, who starts his bid for a sixth successive Tour de France victory on Saturday, has never tested positive for banned substances and has always strenuously denied taking any such products.

limerickman

AS REPORTED AT EUROSPORT 1ST JULY 2004
(LAST PARAGRAPH IS INTERESTING)

The Tour de France starts from the Belgian city on Saturday.

The American rider's request that his firm denial of the allegations be included in the book were rejected by a French court last month. An appeal court is expected to rule on the case on Friday.

The book, "L.A. Confidential, the secrets of Lance Armstrong", written by journalists David Walsh and Pierre Ballester, contains testimonies by a former U.S. Postal team masseuse hinting at possible wrongdoing.

"In my view, extraordinary accusations should be followed up by extraordinary proof," Armstrong said.

"Ballester and Walsh have worked for five years on this book and did not come up with any proof," he added.

Whereas in the past the American had stopped short of suing the authors of previous allegations, he decided to fight back this time.

"I've engaged a legal case both in France and in England. It's a long and complicated case," Armstrong said, adding he had received letters of support from both fans and other cycling personalities.

The U.S. Postal team leader, who is bidding for a record sixth Tour victory, said the doping controversy had not affected his preparation for what he foresees as his "hardest Tour".

Armstrong has had to face doping allegations in the past. In 1999, he tested positive for corticoids but produced a medical prescription for a cream used to treat lower back pains.

In 2000, traces of a performance-enhancing drug were found in plastic bags thought to have been thrown away by U.S. Postal staff but the team were cleared by a French police investigation.