LA: Engaged, pissed off, training for comeback!

Discussion in 'Professional Cycling' started by bobke, Sep 6, 2005.

  1. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    I only read two CyclingNews articles about comments made by Jongen and Vaughters about the USPS team's concern about the high 50% hct level.

    28 September 2005: "At the last team meeting before the race, the 42-year old Dutchman [Jongen] from Kerkrade recalled, "Bruyneel said: they're just under 50 [Jonathan Vaughters noted this too - ed.]. When he saw that I heard what he said, he put his finger on his lips immediately: I wasn't supposed to say anything about it.""

    25 September 2005: Vaughters: "I'd never tested (at a race) above 50 percent, except before the start of the '99 Tour," he said. "I told the team doctor 'don't worry, I've got a certificate, I've got a hall-pass for this'," he recalled. "But the doctor said it wasn't me they were worried about, it was that the whole team was very close (to the 50 percent limit)."

    Other than from Vaughters in the next paragraph, where is a reference to the admission by UCI that their machines were calibrated on the high side?

    Did the UCI make notional adjustments when rider's were found over 50%?

    Did any riders appeal findings based on this "over calibration"?

    If you analyse Vaughters' statement it is quite apparent that Vaughters' would prospectively use his high hct exemption certificate (to 52%) if he was found to be over 50%.

    Also in relation to Jongen's statement, if the UCI had found the whole team to be just under the 50% why was Bruyneel indicating information that would be available in the public domain was confidential? I would suggest this was the result of USPS testing and the riders were then "prepared" for UCI testing.
     


  2. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    House, provide me with some reputable links from entities other than riders. I have not been able to find any reference to your well known claims.

    I note that Vaughters stated:

    But that year, it is now widely accepted even by the UCI, according to Vaughters, that its testing apparatus was calibrated somewhat high. He said this is not that uncommon, given that the machines are carried from race-to-race, through baggage handling and screening, and while efforts are made to ensure they are accurately calibrated, "there is some slop room" for variations.

    Most, if not all, of the 21 TdF teams have these machines. Do you really believe the UCI's sensitive machine would be the only one subject to inaccurate calibrations through mishandling? I would think this explanation would apply to all machines if it had foundation.

    Tyler Hamilton claims Phonak has a machine solely to authenticate the results of UCI testing. The only other purpose would be to test their riders prior to health checks to ensure they were under the 50% hct level.

    But no team would undertake this unnecessary task if their riders have not used blood boosters. :rolleyes:
     
  3. House

    House Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for proving exactly what I said about you. It's just getting way to easy because you are like one of those dolls with the pull string. Pull it and they say the same thing over and over. At least Flyer attempted to make it interesting.
     
  4. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    You cannot answer a reasonable question so you employ an ad hominem attack as a deflection.

    House, known debating tactics of a loser by detrimentally addressing the opponent rather than the argument.

    You are continuing to enhance your reputation on cycling forums.
     
  5. House

    House Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0
    *yawn* Veloflash, you are boring me with your attacks and intense desire to ignore anything that doesn't fit what you say. Strangely it's just like a handfull of other people here and on that other board (you know the one where you do this exact same thing), all of you bay for blood and ignore anything that doesn't bring it. I guess I could bring up the corticoid thread where you did the same thing, that's your favorite, you like to argue that one over and over on every forum, except you ran away from me after trying to ignore what you didn't like. Perhaps that other person who conveniently shows up after I put you in your place will "suddenly" appear now. Go on with your little game, but once again you will be playing with yourself, as I am bored of you, just like I grew bored with Flyer.
     
  6. Mike_Rides_Red

    Mike_Rides_Red New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    1
    Lance has every right to be pissed at the french. L'Equipe has tried to turn his name into mud.

    You guys are trashing Armstrong just because some samples turned up with positive epo tests when anything could have happened to those samples in 5 years. Also no one was even supposed to know those samples were his. Let's just say that Armstrong did take EPO in 1999 (which I strongly believe he didn't) and won that tour because he dopped. What about the 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 tours which have been all clean. How could you discredit him when he has won so many tours even if you think he dopped in 1999?
     
  7. patch70

    patch70 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    0
    If he truly did dope in 1999, he should not have been riding in 2000 & 2001 at least.

    There have been changes to the way Epo is used to avoid detection and the uses of newer preparations that are more difficult to test for.

    Early on (eg late 1990's), Epo was used in bigger doses further apart. This was easier to test for using the Epo test that is being done on the '99 samples.
    More recently, Epo is used in smaller doses closer together. The test is unable to detect this when it is done "properly". Thus with good team medical staff, you can use Epo and never test positive. You can also use other products eg Growth Hormone, that cannot (yet) be tested for. GH enhances the effect of Epo too.
     
  8. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not to forget homologous blood doping (test introduced July 2004) and autologous blood doping (not test to date) which both have the same benefits as EPO.

    According to Jesus Manzano of Kelme they were using autologous blood doping whereas Phonak were into homologous blood doping with the positives of Perez and Hamilton (Hamilton subject to appeal - Perez never contested his B sample or attended his hearing).

    Or did Phonak mean to autologous blood dope but, through error, ended up homologous blood doping? If so, Perez and Hamilton were fortunate they were the same blood type. Manzano suffered terribly from mistakenly receiving another rider's blood.

    Riders can avoid a positive for steroids by mixing together a cocktail of different steroids where the individual doses of each steroid is below the minimum detectable limit.

    Have you got any more to add, House?
     
  9. tinks

    tinks New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Think about it. If he "dopped" in 1999 and then rode clean, his performances should have suffered and he should have done worse in 2000 etc. The fact that he got better would suggest that he was still using PEDs and that the tests simply haven't been able to catch him. I'm sure winning the TdF would have given him some cash to play around with. Perhaps he chose to invest some of that in scientists who could help him stay one step ahead of the tests.
     
  10. thebluetrain

    thebluetrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  11. davidbod

    davidbod New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you are saying there is no other way to raise your hematocrit other than by PEDs. Then what are the oxygen tents and weeks of alltitude training for, just for fun?
     
  12. Mike_Rides_Red

    Mike_Rides_Red New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    1
    Perhaps the moon is made of cheese. Interesting assumptions. Lance is depending on "PED"'s to win tours. How could he get better every year? He worked his ass off to do it, probably training more than any other cyclist in the TDF.

    This is why Lance is thinking of doing another tour. He sick of everyone thinking hes been using "PED's" just because of some tests that are not supposed to be traced back to the rider.
     
  13. Ullefan

    Ullefan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is too much of a coincidence that all the team were just below 50% at the exact same time. Not all benefit from altitude training, for some it may cause a drop in performance. If your hypothesis were true, it would also depend upon exactly when they did altitude training and for how long. If their heamatocrit stayed around 50%, then that would suggest PED use. Effects of altitude training are known to only last around 2-3 weeks.

    Even if they did use ''altitude training'' to boost their heamtocrit levels, US postal probably weren't the only team to do so. From that logic, other team's heamatocrit levels should also have been just under 50% before the start. :rolleyes:

    One or two examples wouldn't cut it.
     
  14. JohnO

    JohnO New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    That fact can also indicate that Lance was not doping in 1999. Not to diminish the accomplishments of Olano or Zulle, but the competition in 2000 was quite a bit stiffer than 1999, with Ullrich and Pantani in the peloton. Yet Lance's margin of victory in 2000 was larger. His even more decisive victory in the 'clean' 2000 TDF, with stiffer competition, tends to cast doubt on accusations against him in 1999.

    And successive years saw even stronger performaces, except for 2003, which was a damned exciting Tour to watch. 2003 showed Lance to be clearly dehydrated in the first TT, which is not an indication of doping gone bad, it's an indication of illness.

    In fact, the only person to truly beat Lance in a climb where he was actually trying to win was - Marco Pantani in 2000. He did it twice that year. (I don't buy that 'gifting' line on Ventoux, Marco might well have sprinted away had Lance tried to pass him)
     
  15. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    Other teams Hematocrits WERE also elevated which is why the UCI later admitted their machines were running high on everyone's.
    Can you guys take this crap where it belongs?
    This thread is about Lance's comeback and lets keep it that way.

    Like Jack Nicholson....in The Shining, Lance will chop down the paper-thin door of the Froggy L'Equipe writers lies and stick his head in and announce he's back.
    Deal with it.
     
  16. Ullefan

    Ullefan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reference?
     
  17. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
  18. portia

    portia New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you really believe that French mayors will allow Lance Armstrong "to piss off" spectators during "Le Tour"? Should he seriously ponder on taking part, I suggest the skilled application of a lasso during the prologue. It´s just a question of intelligent organization.
     
  19. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1

    Lance is back.
    Ullrich is fat.
    Basso is sad.

    go cry to your mommy...

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/vaughters_1999

    Vaughters is directeur sportif of a Team currently racing in France this week I believe at Tour de L'Avenir, so I dont think he'd say stuff to piss people off unnecessarily.
    By the way, to judge from the results this week, very little avenir for cyclisme francais, comme toujours...


    Still, it was Vaughters himself who received a fright at the pre-Tour medical tests, as his hematocrit posted a 51 percent reading, above the UCI's limit of 50 percent, but still under his special dispensation of 52 percent. (Frequent testing had shown that Vaughters - like many good climbers - have naturally high hematocrit levels and they are granted dispensation from doctors.)

    "I'd never tested (at a race) above 50 percent, except before the start of the '99 Tour," he said. "I told the team doctor 'don't worry, I've got a certificate, I've got a hall-pass for this'," he recalled. "But the doctor said it wasn't me they were worried about, it was that the whole team was very close (to the 50 percent limit)."

    But that year, it is now widely accepted even by the UCI, according to Vaughters, that its testing apparatus was calibrated somewhat high. He said this is not that uncommon, given that the machines are carried from race-to-race, through baggage handling and screening, and while efforts are made to ensure they are accurately calibrated, "there is some slop room" for variations.
     
  20. Ullefan

    Ullefan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can't answer the question so instead deflect the arguement.
    If you aren't clear, my question was, ''do you have a reference to back up your comments that it wasn't just the whole US postal team who had heamatocrit levels just below 50%?''
     
Loading...
Loading...