Armstrong Again

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by cyclintom [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

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.

You should send all of your insights to the USADA.
Usada might well refer you to this confession

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

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.

Well said. This is one of the most understated facts about doping.

1. The effects of doping can vary wildly from one athlete to the next.
2. The amount and methods of doping differ from one athlete to the next, making a comparison even more impossible.
3. How do you measure the benefits of doping between an athlete who dopes on his own, and an athlete who is doping in concert with multiple team mates?
4. Some athletes doped with the oversight of a medical staff, as Armstrong did, while others doped without sophisticated methodology because they lacked money.

You could go on all day. How in the hell can anyone say everyone was on equal footing? It's a ridiculous rationalization.

at this point, if not for the ridiculous rationalisation, the armstrong bunch would have little to post.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by slovakguy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

at this point, if not for the ridiculous rationalisation, the armstrong bunch would have little to post.

ah but reading the rational contortions is quite funny in parts.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by cyclintom [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

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.

Maybe more like -

(As a scientist) Armstrong did absolutely nothing to advance the science of doping ....

(As one of the sport's most influential and successful competitors adopting PED technology) Armstrong did absolutely everything to facilitate an underground effort by (some) scientists/medical professionals to continually advance (optimize) the science / art of doping....

LA is neither a hero, nor a villain to me as it relates to PED (or more correctly PEB - Performance Enhancing Biochemistry). I believed it was highly unlikely he accomplished his successes cleanly against a field of formidable rivals who were either proven, or reasonably suspected, to have included PEB in their training. Wasn't a deal breaker for me ... "dirty among dirty" playing a very demanding game. Would be nice if it didn't exist, but it does and has been a long-time part of professional cycling entertainment. Same for all other professional sports. At the core it's about money ... for everyone but the idealistic fan.

The "sport" of cycling is probably net positive from his participation. As an athlete his successes raised awareness of, participation in, and funding for, the sport to unprecedented levels. I don't think his fall has undermined that completely - at least not yet. However, his means did not justify the ends and he must pay the appropriate penalties for the rules he ignored by choice. The truth of his actions initially appears to be a turning point in the petulant slide of cycling and may be the catalyst that moves the sport toward a more idealistic realm of sportsmanship.

Other than his charitable efforts, his off-saddle behavior was appalling, unethical, and inexcusable. Definitely a villain in that respect - a model of inhumanity.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by slovakguy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

at this point, if not for the ridiculous rationalisation, the armstrong bunch would have little to post.

What do you call a rationalization? Do you believe that under any system of justice that one man doing something that all are doing should be picked from the crowd to become victimized?

So you aren't an American? Czech perhaps?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by cyclintom [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

What do you call a rationalization? Do you believe that under any system of justice that one man doing something that all are doing should be picked from the crowd to become victimized?

So you aren't an American? Czech perhaps?

That's the delusional part to think that Armstrong is the only party to be sancioned. He is just one of dozens. It is just that Lance lovers refuse to accept that manyu have been stripped and banned. I use to cheer for him also but I can accept reality.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by sitzmark [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]
Maybe more like -

(As a scientist) Armstrong did absolutely nothing to advance the science of doping ....

(As one of the sport's most influential and successful competitors adopting PED technology) Armstrong did absolutely everything to facilitate an underground effort by (some) scientists/medical professionals to continually advance (optimize) the science / art of doping....

LA is neither a hero, nor a villain to me as it relates to PED (or more correctly PEB - Performance Enhancing Biochemistry). I believed it was highly unlikely he accomplished his successes cleanly against a field of formidable rivals who were either proven, or reasonably suspected, to have included PEB in their training. Wasn't a deal breaker for me ... "dirty among dirty" playing a very demanding game. Would be nice if it didn't exist, but it does and has been a long-time part of professional cycling entertainment. Same for all other professional sports. At the core it's about money ... for everyone but the idealistic fan.

The "sport" of cycling is probably net positive from his participation. As an athlete his successes raised awareness of, participation in, and funding for, the sport to unprecedented levels. I don't think his fall has undermined that completely - at least not yet. However, his means did not justify the ends and he must pay the appropriate penalties for the rules he ignored by choice. The truth of his actions initially appears to be a turning point in the petulant slide of cycling and may be the catalyst that moves the sport toward a more idealistic realm of sportsmanship.

Other than his charitable efforts, his off-saddle behavior was appalling, unethical, and inexcusable. Definitely a villain in that respect - a model of inhumanity.

Let me quote from a paper:

"rHuEPO became a sports-doping drug of choice after it was shown to increase red blood cell mass and exercise capacity in patients with anemia from chronic kidney disease. This is in part a result of an increase in patients' maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), one of the factors in endurance performance.

However, elite athletes are not debilitated renal failure patients. Their VO2max is already so high that adding rHuEPO has little effect, and marginal increases in VO2max have little effect on performance, according to J.A.A.C. Heuberger, BSc, from Leiden University in the Netherlands, and colleagues.

The authors note that in elite endurance athletes, VO2max can be 50% to 100% greater than those in normal healthy young people, but that VO2max plateaus in elite athletes while performance continues to improve. They suggest that this may be because of other factors involved in endurance such as high muscle capillary density, muscle metabolic adaptations such as increased mitochondria and oxidative enzymes, or more efficient biomechanics."

This is what I mean when I say that you cannot trust what athletes have to say about drugs. Remember that for decades the drug of choice was alcohol to kill the pain despite the fact that today we know that alcohol greatly reduces performance and doesn't enhance it, pain killer or not. We also are aware of those super drugs of the 50's that would give performance increases only to stop the athletes heart.

The only reliable performance enhancer is training. Elite trained athletes are so significantly different physically than even normally well trained individuals that drugs that would increase performance in you or I have absolutely no effects. There are limits to human performance and pretending that you can make increases without corresponding decreases simply is irresponsible.

Tell me - do you think that a doctor would treat nothing but athletes were he of a quality to do significant scientific research to establish new medical parameters?

I had a serious head injury in 2009 and it wasn't until 2012 that it was treated properly. I had no short term memory and was also having seizures which knocked out large blocks of long term memory. Essentially I was walking and talking but no one was home. Do you have any idea how many doctors my friends took me to until I found a competent neurologist? When the correct doctor finally started treating me I had lost 70 lbs and I'm a thin person. I was literally suicidal. If my brother hadn't forced me to sell my guns I would have killed myself. And when I was finally treated properly it was with two common drugs that are cheap and easily available. If a large number of doctors couldn't treat a concussion properly how would you think that they could invent performance enhancing in someone trained to the limits of human performance?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by sitzmark [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

The "sport" of cycling is probably net positive from his participation. As an athlete his successes raised awareness of, participation in, and funding for, the sport to unprecedented levels. I don't think his fall has undermined that completely - at least not yet. However, his means did not justify the ends and he must pay the appropriate penalties for the rules he ignored by choice. The truth of his actions initially appears to be a turning point in the petulant slide of cycling and may be the catalyst that moves the sport toward a more idealistic realm of sportsmanship.

Other than his charitable efforts, his off-saddle behavior was appalling, unethical, and inexcusable. Definitely a villain in that respect - a model of inhumanity.

I think that we pretty much agree to this point. But my original posting wasn't about the kind of person he was but the reactions to his wins by those who went from worshippers to haters in an instant.

And I am absolutely appalled that it was the USADA that attacked Armstrong as a player in a foreign sport while leaving American sports almost untouched. It sure was easy to tell which side their bread was buttered on. Watch basketball today - do you really think that those guys aren't using anything they can find? Or football? With complete pads and helmet and football in hand they are completing 50 yard runs in near world record sprint times. They are now "talking" about random testing.

I would note sprinting but I do not believe that to be a sport in which drugs could actually add anything since it is purely power to weight ratio and reaction time. And all those black guys get plenty of training running from the cops. (PS - I grew up in a neighborhood in which the blacks composed the most respectable people. And I don't mean comparatively. When you have a neighbor who was a cited officer in WW II and teaches military science in the San Francisco Military Academy you say "yes sir" and mean it.)

I think the rules and the spirit of the rules were/are clear in prohibiting PED use for performance enhancement. LA admitted to using such. End of story.

His physical accomplishments - and those of his peers - are impressive. At least to me, who knows how much it hurts to perform at a level significantly below that level. To what extent he/they would have excelled without resorting to real or imaginary enhancements we will never know. For almost every scientific statement of fact, there is a contradictory opinion/study. My understanding and study of health sciences leads me to conclude there was benefit derived from the substances and practices undertaken. Regardless, see above.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by cyclintom [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

The only reliable performance enhancer is training. Elite trained athletes are so significantly different physically than even normally well trained individuals that drugs that would increase performance in you or I have absolutely no effects. There are limits to human performance and pretending that you can make increases without corresponding decreases simply is irresponsible.

The rub here is that Lance actually stated in "the interview" that he didn't take EPO/HGH/Cortisone/Horse Tranquilizer/etc during races, only in training. It allowed him to maintain an inhuman training schedule because there was pretty much nothing he couldn't recover from, and on race days they could test him out the wazoo because he wasn't taking it then. Apparently during that time out of competition testing was somewhat of a joke.

So what you say may actually be true, but it doesn't mean Lance didn't gain any benefit from using. He most certainly did.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by cyclintom [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]
And I am absolutely appalled that it was the USADA that attacked Armstrong as a player in a foreign sport while leaving American sports almost untouched. It sure was easy to tell which side their bread was buttered on. Watch basketball today - do you really think that those guys aren't using anything they can find? Or football? With complete pads and helmet and football in hand they are completing 50 yard runs in near world record sprint times. They are now "talking" about random testing.

who, pray tell, should have investigated armstrong if not usada? foremost, competitive cycling-professional or otherwise-is hardly a foreign sport. the closest this statement can be contorted to something like truth is to write that cycling has greater popularity as a spectator sport in europe than the usa. to further the point, basketball, most assuredly developed in the united states (regardless what the dutch maintain as the game's origin) is played internationally. by your logic, i should believe the usada must administer all doping tests for the game both domestic and international? laughable. while i agree that most american professional sports, no matter how they protest their purity, are rife with ped usage. that being said, usada has not been invited to test those athletes by the several leagues, most likely because of the negative publicity such scrutiny would incur.

in sum, you seem to be hitting every point that armstrong's sycophants have bleated since the moment armstrong's performances first raised a suspicious eyebrow.

I for one will be happy to see him end up in Jail.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by sitzmark [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I think the rules and the spirit of the rules were/are clear in prohibiting PED use for performance enhancement. LA admitted to using such. End of story.

His physical accomplishments - and those of his peers - are impressive. At least to me, who knows how much it hurts to perform at a level significantly below that level. To what extent he/they would have excelled without resorting to real or imaginary enhancements we will never know. For almost every scientific statement of fact, there is a contradictory opinion/study. My understanding and study of health sciences leads me to conclude there was benefit derived from the substances and practices undertaken. Regardless, see above.

And my understanding and study of health science leads me to conclude that what might effect you or I as normal human beings cannot be applied to elite athletes. Hence without a great deal of scientific study you simply cannot reach intelligent conclusions. And what studies there are tend to suggest that doping has close to no effect on these people unless is a psychological.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by slovakguy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

who, pray tell, should have investigated armstrong if not usada? foremost, competitive cycling-professional or otherwise-is hardly a foreign sport. the closest this statement can be contorted to something like truth is to write that cycling has greater popularity as a spectator sport in europe than the usa. to further the point, basketball, most assuredly developed in the united states (regardless what the dutch maintain as the game's origin) is played internationally. by your logic, i should believe the usada must administer all doping tests for the game both domestic and international? laughable. while i agree that most american professional sports, no matter how they protest their purity, are rife with ped usage. that being said, usada has not been invited to test those athletes by the several leagues, most likely because of the negative publicity such scrutiny would incur.

in sum, you seem to be hitting every point that armstrong's sycophants have bleated since the moment armstrong's performances first raised a suspicious eyebrow.

Exactly why did the USADA investigate cycling before it's own far more publically available and much higher money sports? They did this for one reason and one reason only - they needed to appear to be doing a job but they didn't want to upset their funding applecart. They are little more than crooks themselves.

I hate to point this out to you but the Tour de France is in France and not the USA. All of the famous and most of the non-famous races are in Europe and completely outside of the scope of the USADA.

cyclintom said:

Exactly why did the USADA investigate cycling before it's own far more publically available and much higher money sports? They did this for one reason and one reason only - they needed to appear to be doing a job but they didn't want to upset their funding applecart. They are little more than crooks themselves. I hate to point this out to you but the Tour de France is in France and not the USA. All of the famous and most of the non-famous races are in Europe and completely outside of the scope of the USADA.

But US teams are under the jurisdiction of USADA, as is anyone licensed by the US federation. Moreover, not every US big money sport is an olympic sport. USADA's purview only covers olympic sports. Do you have nay proof to back up your allegations?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by cyclintom [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Exactly why did the USADA investigate cycling before it's own far more publically available and much higher money sports? ..

Your arguments keep coming back to the same thing, why did they pursue this case and not others. That is exactly the logic of a driver who gets pulled over for speeding and tries to argue that others were speeding or perhaps that there are other bigger crimes in the city that should take priority.

Guess what, that argument does not hold. Armstrong by his own eventual admission violated the rules and was finally caught. Whether others are also guilty or whether other sports have their own problems worthy of investigation is irrelevant.

To further the above points, Armstrong tried that jurisdictional dodge himself. Motion denied by a federal court in downtown Austin Texas. Your whinging like armsrron's is without merit concerning the usada. I'm sure that even with that information you will labour the point of how unfair this has all been.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by cyclintom [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Exactly why did the USADA investigate cycling before it's own far more publically available and much higher money sports?

Which sports would you suggest they investigate?

An Englishman, Irishman, Welshman, Scotsman were captured while fighting in a far-off foreign land, and the leader of the captors said, 'We're going to line you up in front of a firing squad and shoot you all in turn. But first, you each can make a final wish.'

The Englishman responds, 'I'd like to hear "God Save The Queen" just one more time to remind me of the auld country, played by the London All Boys Choir. With Morris Dancers Dancing to the tune.'

The Irishman replies, 'I'd like to hear "Danny Boy" just one more time to remind me of the auld country, sung in the style of Daniel O'Donnell, with Riverdance dancers skipping gaily to the tune.'

The Welshman answers, 'I'd like to hear "Men Of Harlech" just one more time to remind me of the country, sung as if by the Treorchy Male Voice Choir.'

The Scotsman says quickly, 'I'd like to be shot first.'