Armstrong Again

[cyclintom]

You know I've been thinking about all of this calling Armstrong a cheat.

Exactly what did he accomplish?

EPO and blood transfusions were to increase his hematocrit. But the average athlete in good shape has a hematocrit between 45 and 50 percent. Most are right at the line.

Very early on because of the discovery of EPO and the unexpected Tour wins of Greg LeMond after his "iron" shots to allowed his body to manufacture more blood (I am making no accusation only the odd case of him riding at or near the back of the pack and then suddenly riding on the front) the UCI set a limit on hematocrit of 50%.

You might remember that one year Marco Pantani was ejected from the Tour de France for having a hematocrit above 50% even though there are medical explanations of how that could be so without him using illegal drugs.

So Armstrong says that he was using drugs. But since he couldn't put his body in any better shape than a well trained athlete exactly how was this "cheating" except according to the rules?

Mind you I believe in enforcing the rules but the bitter hatred I've seen on this subject as if Armstrong took some sort of advantage of the other athletes simply isn't true.

Professional cyclists start early and usually quite young. In order to obtain and retain a position many of them go along with what everyone else is doing. Do you hate them for that?

Today we have the biological passport for professional racers and this should prevent the vast majority of cheating in the sport. But to pretend that the past masters were not masters of their sport for their time is ridiculous.

 

[alienator]

You know I've been thinking about all of this calling Armstrong a cheat. Exactly what did he accomplish? EPO and blood transfusions were to increase his hematocrit. But the average athlete in good shape has a hematocrit between 45 and 50 percent. Most are right at the line. Very early on because of the discovery of EPO and the unexpected Tour wins of Greg LeMond after his "iron" shots to allowed his body to manufacture more blood (I am making no accusation only the odd case of him riding at or near the back of the pack and then suddenly riding on the front) the UCI set a limit on hematocrit of 50%. You might remember that one year Marco Pantani was ejected from the Tour de France for having a hematocrit above 50% even though there are medical explanations of how that could be so without him using illegal drugs. So Armstrong says that he was using drugs. But since he couldn't put his body in any better shape than a well trained athlete exactly how was this "cheating" except according to the rules? Mind you I believe in enforcing the rules but the bitter hatred I've seen on this subject as if Armstrong took some sort of advantage of the other athletes simply isn't true. Professional cyclists start early and usually quite young. In order to obtain and retain a position many of them go along with what everyone else is doing. Do you hate them for that? Today we have the biological passport for professional racers and this should prevent the vast majority of cheating in the sport. But to pretend that the past masters were not masters of their sport for their time is ridiculous.

What did Armstrong achieve with his doping? Hmmm. How about these things: the theft of 7 TdF's; a place in the record books he didn't deserve (and which has now been justly erased); "respect" as a humanitarian for the lies he told the cancer victims served by his charity; fame he didn't deserve; fabulous wealth he didn't deserve (stolen money); political friends with benefits and undue influence; fans; financial reward from selling Livestrong gear; financial reward from all of his sponsors.... Should I name more things? There's no pretending: Armstrong didn't win any Grand Tours. As for the benefits of EPO, they're far more extensive than you give them credit for. Namely, in Grand Tours, it's normal for hematocrit to go down over the course of a GT as the rider fatigues and the body can't produce enough RBC's to make up for those lost. Taking EPO allows your hematocrit to remain constant. Note that you've made the wrong assumption about the reasons why Armstrong is reviled. It's not so much for the doping. That was well known. He's reviled for not only being a cheat, but also because the threatened people, intimidated people, slandered people, was a major factor in the organization of the USPS/Discovery doping regimes, and sued people who had the audacity to tell the truth about them. Not only did he sue them, he actually won and took money from said wins. That makes him not only a scumbag but a thief. You're also wrong in the belief that all dopers are on equal footing. That is simply not the case. You need to learn a lot more about doping, its "benefits", and how it varies from rider to rider, team to team. I would imagine that Armstrong's financial "gift" to the UCI put him on significantly better footing than anyone else in the peloton. Luckily for everyone who actually cares about cycling and isn't enthralled by the Armstrong myth, his attempt to bribe USADA went no where.

 

[slovakguy]

Originally Posted by cyclintom .
Exactly what did [Armstrong] accomplish?

given your position, perhaps you can answer that question. if armstrong had nothing at all to gain, as you posit, by cheating, then isn't he the greatest ass of all for having cheated?

 

[asgelle]

The number of factual errors in this post makes it impossible to take anything here seriously.

 

[cyclintom]

Alienator - you responded with exactly the acerbic comments I was talking about. Who from and how did he steal the Tour? Since the following year they developed a test to detect EPO and disqualified the entire front 10 speaks volumes about your ideas of who was somehow a helpless victim.

Yes, he certainly didn't deserve any records. But perhaps you can tell us who did? Virtually every winner of the Tour from it's inception has had questionable performances. Using drugs didn't even become illegal until modern times when medical procedures were developed to allow it.

If you haven't worked in medical research I suggest you not invent physiologies. Nor suggest to me what I should learn.

Somehow I'm not aware that all dopers aren't on an equal footing? Exactly what do you know about doping? And later in a Tour the same exhaustion that prematurely ages erythrocytes, exhausts bone marrow and limits the speed at which it can produce. EPO becomes meaningless. That's why blood packing was used as well. Strange that all of the top athletes still tested near the upper limits huh?

USPS made many times their investment from accessory sales alone let alone the advertising which was strongly felt by FedEx and UPS. So they lost nothing. The outing of Armstrong damaged the Tours far more than Armstrong. It also damaged the Livestrong people despite the fact that they were totally formed and initially funded by Armstrong and saved literally tens of thousands of lives.

Spitting venom as you're doing certain helps nothing since you simply haven't bothered to know anything about what you're talking about.

 

[cyclintom]

Originally Posted by slovakguy .

given your position, perhaps you can answer that question. if armstrong had nothing at all to gain, as you posit, by cheating, then isn't he the greatest ass of all for having cheated?

So you're telling me that staying even with the rest of the field was gaining nothing? He shouldn't have used the same devices they did to accomplish the same things?

 

[alienator]

Alienator - you responded with exactly the acerbic comments I was talking about. Who from and how did he steal the Tour? Since the following year they developed a test to detect EPO and disqualified the entire front 10 speaks volumes about your ideas of who was somehow a helpless victim. Yes, he certainly didn't deserve any records. But perhaps you can tell us who did? Virtually every winner of the Tour from it's inception has had questionable performances. Using drugs didn't even become illegal until modern times when medical procedures were developed to allow it. If you haven't worked in medical research I suggest you not invent physiologies. Nor suggest to me what I should learn. Somehow I'm not aware that all dopers aren't on an equal footing? Exactly what do you know about doping? And later in a Tour the same exhaustion that prematurely ages erythrocytes, exhausts bone marrow and limits the speed at which it can produce. EPO becomes meaningless. That's why blood packing was used as well. Strange that all of the top athletes still tested near the upper limits huh? USPS made many times their investment from accessory sales alone let alone the advertising which was strongly felt by FedEx and UPS. So they lost nothing. The outing of Armstrong damaged the Tours far more than Armstrong. It also damaged the Livestrong people despite the fact that they were totally formed and initially funded by Armstrong and saved literally tens of thousands of lives. Spitting venom as you're doing certain helps nothing since you simply haven't bothered to know anything about what you're talking about.

Actually if you had read with comprehension, you'd see I didn't say anything about who deserved those wins, only that Armstrong didn't. Why? Because your rant was about Armstrong. Certainly there were other dopers on the podium, but only one won. The prosecution of Armstrong was about making him pay for his deeds. It wasn't a prosecution based on relativism. He stole the TdF because he cheated to get it. If someone else had won and they'd cheated, they'd have stolen the TdF. Sadly, USADA's jurisdiction in the case didn't cover many of the riders on those podiums or in the top 10 of those races. Further, nothing at all in this entire thread said anything about helpless victims. Only in your post quoted above was that mentioned. Please, don't insert your misinterpretations of what I said in my mouth. Learn to think objectively. As a working scientist I am able to read, with comprehension research outside of my field. I've invented no physiologies. I think it'd be helpful if a lot of people suggested you learn more because most of your statements so far have been devoid of critical thought, objectivity, and scientific literacy. Whether or not USPS the agency, not the team, made money is not relevant to Armstrong cheating. Moreover, where are your supporting facts on that claim. Livestrong saved literally tens of thousands of lives? How exactly did they do that, especially when their entire history is examined it's found that they contributed very little to research. Certainly they've contributed nothing for quite some time. Please prove your extreme claim. What venom? Is stating the totality venom? If that's the case, so be it. Perhaps in that light you can explain your willful ignorance of all of what Armstrong did and all of what was put forth in USADA's Reasoned Decision. Lastly, you have zero proof that outing of Armstrong served any damage on the TdF or any grand tour at all. Damage to Livestrong? That was done by Armstrong, no one else. Feel free, however, to give Armstrong excuses and justifications all you want. Perhaps you can excuse him for all the lies he told to cancer patients and to his children. Perhaps you can excuse him for suing all those who dared tell the truth about him. Objectivity and facts as venom. That's hilarious.

 

[cyclintom]

Again your proved my original point.

 

[alienator]

Again your proved my original point.

Actually, no, because I've injected no venom in my comments. You've got a wild imagination. Feel free to verify your claims about Armstrong, but so far your statements about Armstrong don't read like unbiased observer but rather like a fan with a crushed heart. You're unable to respond on point and instead resort to troll tactics. Try a bit of objectivity.

 

[cyclintom]

I find it curious that you say "What did Armstrong achieve with his doping? Hmmm. How about these things: the theft of 7 TdF's; a place in the record books he didn't deserve (and which has now been justly erased); "respect" as a humanitarian for the lies he told the cancer victims served by his charity; fame he didn't deserve; fabulous wealth he didn't deserve (stolen money); political friends with benefits and undue influence; fans; financial reward from selling Livestrong gear; financial reward from all of his sponsors.... Should I name more things?" and then claim absence of malice.

Personally I didn't like Armstrong from the start because like Eddy Merckx he dominated the sport making it predictable and boring.

But according to you NOTHING matters except your personal hero turned out to be human after all. You are literally hopping up and down and screaming like a 5 year old that can't have his way. It doesn't MATTER that everyone else was doing the same thing and have been in all professional sports since each started. Your knight's armor has been tarnished.

Actually you're pretty funny.

As for you being able to read scientific papers: I suggest you leave that to people who can understand what they read. I did work on the first heart/lung machine, blood typers, respiratory gas analyzer, thermocycler for DNA analysis etc. And there weren't any "scientific papers" to read on any of those.

 

[alienator]

I find it curious that you say "What did Armstrong achieve with his doping? Hmmm. How about these things: the theft of 7 TdF's; a place in the record books he didn't deserve (and which has now been justly erased); "respect" as a humanitarian for the lies he told the cancer victims served by his charity; fame he didn't deserve; fabulous wealth he didn't deserve (stolen money); political friends with benefits and undue influence; fans; financial reward from selling Livestrong gear; financial reward from all of his sponsors.... Should I name more things?" and then claim absence of malice. Personally I didn't like Armstrong from the start because like Eddy Merckx he dominated the sport making it predictable and boring. But according to you NOTHING matters except your personal hero turned out to be human after all. You are literally hopping up and down and screaming like a 5 year old that can't have his way. It doesn't MATTER that everyone else was doing the same thing and have been in all professional sports since each started. Your knight's armor has been tarnished. Actually you're pretty funny. As for you being able to read scientific papers: I suggest you leave that to people who can understand what they read. I did work on the first heart/lung machine, blood typers, respiratory gas analyzer, thermocycler for DNA analysis etc. And there weren't any "scientific papers" to read on any of those.  

Sorry. I wasn't and am not an Armstrong sycophant. Those things I stated above are true. Cheating on the level Armstrong cheated and committing the other acts he committed to preserve his ability to cheat and his image of a "champion" are not excused by him being human. He made those choices all by himself. You should be proud of being a lab tech that helped people assemble those things, and there's naught wrong with being charged with cleaning the lab once everyone is gone.

 

[limerickman]

Originally Posted by cyclintom .

I find it curious that you say "What did Armstrong achieve with his doping? Hmmm. How about these things: the theft of 7 TdF's; a place in the record books he didn't deserve (and which has now been justly erased); "respect" as a humanitarian for the lies he told the cancer victims served by his charity; fame he didn't deserve; fabulous wealth he didn't deserve (stolen money); political friends with benefits and undue influence; fans; financial reward from selling Livestrong gear; financial reward from all of his sponsors.... Should I name more things?" and then claim absence of malice.

Personally I didn't like Armstrong from the start because like Eddy Merckx he dominated the sport making it predictable and boring.

But according to you NOTHING matters except your personal hero turned out to be human after all. You are literally hopping up and down and screaming like a 5 year old that can't have his way. It doesn't MATTER that everyone else was doing the same thing and have been in all professional sports since each started. Your knight's armor has been tarnished.

Actually you're pretty funny.

As for you being able to read scientific papers: I suggest you leave that to people who can understand what they read. I did work on the first heart/lung machine, blood typers, respiratory gas analyzer, thermocycler for DNA analysis etc. And there weren't any "scientific papers" to read on any of those.

No.
Merckx did actually dominate the sport unlike Armstrong.
Armstrong never won the Tour De France for example.

Check out their respective palmares

http://www.cyclingbase.com/palcoureurs.php?id=175&idtitle=1
http://www.museociclismo.it/content/ciclisti/palmares.php?cod=9537

 

[CAMPYBOB]

 

[jhuskey]

EPO is more about recovery than conditioning although being able to train day after day at a high level affords you the ability to get in better condition. He advanced the science of doping to new levels and World War II greatly advanced medicine and technology so I guess it is all worth it.

 

[cyclintom]

Originally Posted by alienator .


Sorry. I wasn't and am not an Armstrong sycophant. Those things I stated above are true.

Cheating on the level Armstrong cheated and committing the other acts he committed to preserve his ability to cheat and his image of a "champion" are not excused by him being human. He made those choices all by himself.

You should be proud of being a lab tech that helped people assemble those things, and there's naught wrong with being charged with cleaning the lab once everyone is gone.

Your comment was duly noted. Too bad that I was either lead or only electronics engineer involved since I was a superior embedded systems designer and programmer. Though I do remember being a lab tech - it was in high energy nuclear research. And I also remember being an Engineering Dept. Manager. And I also remember doing some defense work. I could tell you what it was but then I'd have to kill you.

As for your not being a sycophant: then why not equal distain for the other top riders who so obviously were also using illegal performance enhancers? Instead you wrote, "What did Armstrong achieve with his doping? Hmmm. How about these things: the theft of 7 TdF's" Theft from whom? Other cheaters? So the winning cheater is the biggest cheater?

All of your reactions plainly speak of a lover scorned. And that plainly demonstrates my original posting.

 

[cyclintom]

jhuskey - What is your understanding of the effects of EPO?

Armstrong did absolutely nothing to advance the science of doping except perhaps systemization for which he was known even in improving training through exact systemization.

Let's be clear - it seems pretty obvious that Greg LeMond used EPO whether purposely or simply by his doctor under the guise of "iron" injections. And remember that at that time the entire blood banking system was tainted with HIV and so was unusable and hence LeMond would have required EPO to build his hematocrit back up to a normal level after his hunting accident. Since EPO was isolated at about that time it seems likely. As it became widely available most endurance athletes began using it.

Do you suppose that the promise of high salaries and a relatively easy life isn't enough for anyone to use? And if that's not the draw how would a real "sportsman" compete against the others without doing the same thing? Do you believe that anyone would squeal? Who would hire them after that? Would you go from riding in Europe to delivering groceries?

You can't make heroes out of people who are merely human.

 

[jhuskey]

"Armstrong was always ahead of the game in relation to the rest of the peloton as far as his doping techniques ". That is a quote from another former pro. Blood transfusions EPO enhanced gives an individual a great advantage in stage races where fatigue is an issue.

 

[cyclintom]

Originally Posted by jhuskey .

"Armstrong was always ahead of the game in relation to the rest of the peloton as far as his doping techniques ". That is a quote from another former pro. Blood transfusions EPO enhanced gives an individual a great advantage in stage races where fatigue is an issue.

You cannot trust an athlete to tell you about drugs. All EPO does is increase the hematocrit. And since at that time all people's hematocrit was limited to 50% they were all on even ground.

In fact, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology reported that studies at several universities suggest that not only did EPO not help professional endurance athletes but that it might even harm performance. That's the sort of problem you run across when you tell an athlete that you have magic in a bottle and he gets a good performance that day.

Remember that I said that Armstrong was known as an extremely systematic trainer. His idea of a day off was only riding 100 miles.

 

[limerickman]

Originally Posted by cyclintom .

You cannot trust an athlete to tell you about drugs. All EPO does is increase the hematocrit. And since at that time all people's hematocrit was limited to 50% they were all on even ground.

In fact, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology reported that studies at several universities suggest that not only did EPO not help professional endurance athletes but that it might even harm performance. That's the sort of problem you run across when you tell an athlete that you have magic in a bottle and he gets a good performance that day.

Remember that I said that Armstrong was known as an extremely systematic trainer. His idea of a day off was only riding 100 miles.

 

[jhuskey]

So I should trust you? I am not even going to respond to your theories since it is clear that you only believe what you want to believe and any attempt to get you off the Armstrong Train would be futile.
He is done! You might as well accept it.