Armstrong has been tinkered with!!

MJtje

Lemond also used according to Flyer........everyone uses........cause he knows.........

VeloFlash

Some extracts from your posting:

He (Millar) said LA is a freak of nature!

Only from 1999 onwards.

This is the same Dr. Ferrari who said EPO doesn´t fundamentally change a riders performance!

Prior to the 2000 Sydney Olympics, the IOC requested field validation tests for the Australian developed EPO blood testing. Any sports persons who were part of the testing were not allowed to compete. I know an elite cyclist/triathlete who was part of that testing. He went into great detail on his website on how he demolished all his TT PB's when he was training whilst legally on EPO. He said he could do hard 100kms in the morning and felt he back up with a similar effort in the afternoon, such was the recovery. It was all detailed on his website. Unfortunately I cannot find his website.

However, he (Ben Larsen) wrote for CyclingNews and this was in an article in 2002 in testing equipment:

The 10km time-trial course is close to my home and is rolling hills; I ride it often and have three years of periodic testing over the same course with heart rate files so it works pretty well as a real-life laboratory. Over three years of testing my times tend to range from 13m40s to 13m50s with average heart rates of 163-165 (Hrmax = 182) when I am in good form. The only repeatable variations from that pattern came when I was part of the EPO test validation program in 2000. During this period I managed to ride the course consistently at 13m00s-13m10s with slightly lower heart rate averages but I have never managed to consistently get that low again

If Ben Larsen could produce 10k TT times (I personally know the course - it is tough) out of competition (no adrenaline) that are 40-50 seconds better, then EPO does fundamentally change performance. Would not mind that type of improvement to a prologue time.

Remember, we are talking about improvements to AT power which can only be viewed exponentially.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

snyper0311

I know for a fact that my doctor was able to detect EVERYTHING (100%) I ever put into my body (and it wasn't much). When I went through my struggle with cancer, they were able to tell me everything about my medical history through the tests I was given. So for you to say that they can not detect these drugs, sounds like BS to me. If they can find things they are not looking for (my cancer), they sure as hell can detect any foreign matter in an athletes system. From there, the detection can be used to identify the foreign matter/substance in the system.

VeloFlash

Suggest you read this article on how they beat EPO (microdosing) and steroid (cocktail) testing.

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=7844

Also, 70% of the pro peloton have therapeutic use exemptions for asthma drugs (asthma general population incidence 5%). This 70% includes LA. One particular asthma drug increases muscle volume by 50% and acts as a masking agent for other illegal PED's.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

Biscayne

Very interesting ... if true. Where can I find a reference of this claim?

If it is true, then the names of the doctors, the approximate date of this alleged confrontation will be known as well as the name of the person(s) making the claim. Assuming the person was present s/he can decribe exactly the substance of the conversation and how it is s/he was present for the conversation. If the person was not present but is passing along second-hand information, s/he still will be able to name the person present who made the firsthand observation.

"It is believed that Lance admitted it". Believed by whom? There should be no belief involved. Either someone heard him admit it and that person is known and credible and has confirmed it, or not. If not, then it's a belief without basis.

The more I read though your posts, Flyer, the more I have questions about your credibility. I ask simple questions which you don't answer. It seems you have made conflicting claims about your own racing experience.

Here's your chance to demonstrate that you're a credible source of information.

Biscayne

VF, where can someone like me find out what TUEs have been granted to a particular racer? If, for example, I wanted to see what TUEs have been granted to George Hincapie, is there a place I could find that information?

How does the TUE process work? Presumably a rider has to file a written request that isn't granted automatically just because it's asked for, no? So, what governing body approves TUEs? Is it a race by race thing, or once you've received a TUE, it's good for as long as you race? Or is it good for a limited period of time (i.e. one racing season), and they you'd have to re-up?

Last, about the asthma drug you refer to, what is it called and where can I go to read up on it -- where I'll find info explaining how it increases muscle volume by 50% and what other drugs it might mask? From the little I know about asthma medications, they do contain adrenaline, which I can understand as a nice boost agent, and presumably they would open the bronchi to permit greater oxygenation of the blood too.

Circling back to the approval process ... whatever entity grants TUEs, what has to be proven to them in order to grant an exemption for powerful asthma medications? Is a doctor's note really sufficient? Is there some objective measure of impairment they need to show in order to demonstrate a "need" for the drug?

Hopefully you can help me get a better grip on this seemingly huge "back-door" around the PED rules and barrier. TIA.

Biscayne

Snyper -- you need to do some reading up on this stuff

1. While testing is good, it is only going to find what it specifically searches for. So if you're using an experimental drug or compound the chemical structure of which is not specifically tested for, you are not going to test positive. This issue is hit on in this informative piece ...
http://outside.away.com/outside/fea...n-sports-1.html

2. There are plenty of compounds, notably the various forms of human growth hormone, for which there still has not been a test derived.

3. It should be clear on the surface that there are doped athletes testing negative -- there are a number of guys who have admitted straight out that they were doped when they took tests which showed them to be clean. The names are numerous. David Millar is one. Even now, we see guys getting booted out of races not because they've tested positive, but because they're caught with suitcases full of dope in their cars, campers or with their wives. Obviously they tested clean, but were doping. Unless you believe all the drugs were for after the race, or "for my mother."

4. There are plenty of methods athletes use to beat the system, not the least of which is submitting bogus samples. It may sound quaint but the oldest method of evading detection is still in use. Festina soigneur Willy Voet detailed a couple methods the Festina team used to test clean even though he was doping them to the gills. It's kind of a joke, sure, but the Whizzinator and dried clean urine the Minnesota Vikings running back Ontario Smith got caught passing through airport security is a reminder.