For Coggan and Coyle

B. Lafferty said:

Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé des
produits dopants à un moment donné."

DUMBASS,

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DOPING.

Quoted message said:

After the cancer,
however, his body dropped most of its muscle mass.

IIRC, Coyle's paper showed that at least in the off-season Armstrong's
weight and % of which that was muscle vs. fat were the same after
cancer.

I'd conclude from that that the weight loss as Tour time approached was
the key and that whatever type of tissue that was loss had nothing to
do with his cancer. Pre-cancer (and early in the season post-cancer)
Armstrong appears to have simply competed at a much higher weight then
he did at the Tour. He certainly carried more fat and this whole idea
that cancer robbed him of his muscle mass seems to be a myth.

Finally, it seems to me that the idea that Armstrong didn't dope before
he got cancer and did afterwords which seems to be the basis for a lot
of the doubt over his Tour performances being natural is silly. He, in
all probability, was doping all along.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

B. Lafferty said:

Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé des
produits dopants à un moment donné."

DUMBASS,

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DOPING.

Incorrect. It is circumstantial evidence. The weight of circumstantial
evidence of doping continues to grow.

B. Lafferty quoted:

Quoted message said:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-824775@51-789918,0.html

Confidentiel.

Officiel.

Nothing in English yet? I think "officiel" will produce a smaller thud
than "confidentiel".

Here's some more newspaper coverage IRT Lance's body weight you might
enjoy:

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/editorial/stories/10/13/dyc_lancerun5.html

As the French say, "Ooo la la!"

(Note: Easily made into a desktop background!) --D-y

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty quoted:

Quoted message said:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-824775@51-789918,0.html

Confidentiel.

Officiel.

Nothing in English yet? I think "officiel" will produce a smaller thud
than "confidentiel".

With the new ruling from the British Law Lords as to libel, it will be
interesting to see if it does come out in English. How should we measure
thud? By Armstrong's legal fees incurred?

Quoted message said:

Here's some more newspaper coverage IRT Lance's body weight you might
enjoy:

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/editorial/stories/10/13/dyc_lancerun5.html

As the French say, "Ooo la la!"

Now Henry will be boking a flight to NYC to watch.

Quoted message said:

(Note: Easily made into a desktop background!) --D-y

B. Lafferty said:

With the new ruling from the British Law Lords as to libel, it will be
interesting to see if it does come out in English.

The obvious point is, the first tome didn't find a publisher in the
USA. I'd say there is a story there. It doesn't have anything to do, I
would think, with English law.

Quoted message said:

How should we measure
thud?

Assuming a publisher is found, by book sales, of course.

Quoted message said:

By Armstrong's legal fees incurred?

Well, if Lance's lawyers are on retainer, he probably did pretty well
on the $7.5 million from the last go-round when the first book,
foolishly as it turned out, was used as "evidence".

Quoted message said:

Now Henry will be boking a flight to NYC to watch.

You'll be driving, I take it? --D-y

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

With the new ruling from the British Law Lords as to libel, it will be
interesting to see if it does come out in English.

The obvious point is, the first tome didn't find a publisher in the
USA. I'd say there is a story there. It doesn't have anything to do, I
would think, with English law.

Quoted message said:

How should we measure
thud?

Assuming a publisher is found, by book sales, of course.

65,000+ copies sold in France, IIRC. Not too bad. I suspect that in the US
the threat of litigation was enough to prevent a publisher from putting it
on the shelves. Not that Armstrong would have prevailed in court here with
Times v. Sullivan to contend with, but I can certainly understand publishers
not wanting to get involved in costly litigation. My comment above was
directed to publishing it in the UK now that the libel law is no longer so
weighted against the publisher. I wonder if the Times and Walsh would have
settled if that decision had come down a year ago.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By Armstrong's legal fees incurred?

Well, if Lance's lawyers are on retainer, he probably did pretty well
on the $7.5 million from the last go-round when the first book,
foolishly as it turned out, was used as "evidence".

Retainer does not mean no billable hours. It's usually billable hours
against the retainer. Foolish? The CSA case was never decided and there was
no credibility assigned to any of the witnesses or other evidence admitted
in the arbitration proceeding.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now Henry will be boking a flight to NYC to watch.

You'll be driving, I take it? --D-y

Not likely.

B. Lafferty said:

Les relevés laissent apparaître que le poids de Lance Armstrong est passé de
78,9 kg à 79,7 kg entre novembre 1992 et novembre 1999. Selon Ed Coyle,le
poids de forme du coureur, lorsqu'il est devenu champion du monde en 1993,
était de 75 kg. Interrogé sur son poids de course après son cancer lors de
la séance d'arbitrage avec SCA, Lance Armstrong explique : "J'aurais aimé
débuter le Tour à 72 kg ou 72,5. Faut pas rêver. Je n'ai probablement jamais
atteint ce chiffre. En général, quand j'affichais un petit 74 kg, j'étais
satisfait." Lors de ses Tours victorieux, l'Américain pesait donc seulement
un kilo de moins qu'avant son cancer.

Concernant l'évolution de ses capacités respiratoires, l'expert australien
relève que Lance Armstrong ne dispose pas d'une VO2 "exceptionnellement
élevée" comme l'affirme Ed Coyle. Selon le Journal de physiologie appliquée,
non seulement ses valeurs ne progressent pas, mais elles reculent, passant
de 81,2 en 1993 - année où il ne parvenait pas à terminer le Tour de
France - à 71,5 en 1999 - année de la première de ses sept victoires.
Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé des
produits dopants à un moment donné."

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-824775@51-789918,0.html

I'm not sure what this has to do with me, but:

1) I don't believe that Ed has accurate data on Armstrong's exact mass
at all time points for which he has, e.g., VO2max data;

2) even if he wasn't any lighter at the start of each Tour than he was
pre-cancer, and even if his VO2max didn't increase, it would still be
possible for his performance power to increase, as a result of A) an
increase in LT relative to VO2max, and/or B) an improvement in cycling
efficiency. Indeed, it would be very surprising if such changes did not
occur, and finally;

3) if Ashenden draws his conclusion based simply on the data presented
in the above quotes (and he himself is not being misquoted), then I'd
say that it's a good thing he left academia for other endeavors, as his
critical thinking skills appear suspect.

Andy Coggan

B. Lafferty said:

Non-lawyers, such as you, really do make stupid remarks about legal topics.
Whatever.

"Sore loser". --D-y

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

I'm not sure what this has to do with me, but:

1) I don't believe that Ed has accurate data on Armstrong's exact mass
at all time points for which he has, e.g., VO2max data;

I'll be there's a lot Ed doesn't know about his subject. Maybe he should
put a call in to Ferrari?

-----------------------------------------------

2) even if he wasn't any lighter at the start of each Tour than he was
pre-cancer, and even if his VO2max didn't increase, it would still be
possible for his performance power to increase, as a result of A) an
increase in LT relative to VO2max, and/or B) an improvement in cycling
efficiency.

To what extent professor, in relation to the wattages put out by Armstrong
climbing in the the Tour?

-----------------------------------------------------
Indeed, it would be very surprising if such changes did not
occur

Of course they occurred, so much so that the pig was able to fly all by
itself--naturally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
, and finally;

3) if Ashenden draws his conclusion based simply on the data presented
in the above quotes (and he himself is not being misquoted), then I'd
say that it's a good thing he left academia for other endeavors, as his
critical thinking skills appear suspect.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that he had a good amount of data to look at
prior to his testimony. Assuming that it's accurate that Armstrong had a
VO2max of 71.5 before the 1999 Tour (I'd like more data on this), how would
you have prepared him to confront a doper like Pantani in the mountains?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Coggan

B. Lafferty said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

2) even if he wasn't any lighter at the start of each Tour than he was
pre-cancer, and even if his VO2max didn't increase, it would still be
possible for his performance power to increase, as a result of A) an
increase in LT relative to VO2max, and/or B) an improvement in cycling
efficiency.

To what extent professor, in relation to the wattages put out by Armstrong
climbing in the the Tour?

As we've been over before, to a large enough extent that you can't view
Armstrong's performances as proof of doping.

Quoted message said:

Assuming that it's accurate that Armstrong had a
VO2max of 71.5 before the 1999 Tour (I'd like more data on this)

I'm not sure where this value comes from, but it can't be accurate.
Even in his cancer-debilitated, detrained state, Armstrong's VO2max was
in the mid-60's, and he was repeatedly measured as having a VO2max in
the low 80's (at altitude, yet) at the OTC long before he became a Tour
contender. For example, I believe his VO2max was stated as being 83
mL/min/kg in an article that appeared in Scientific American prior to
the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.

Quoted message said:

, how would
you have prepared him to confront a doper like Pantani in the mountains?

Well for one thing, I would have had him deliberately lose as much
weight as he possibly could w/o getting sick/compromising his
performance, as it is clear that he is naturally too stocky/muscular to
be great in the mountains unless he did so.

Andy Coggan

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

2) even if he wasn't any lighter at the start of each Tour than he was
pre-cancer, and even if his VO2max didn't increase, it would still be
possible for his performance power to increase, as a result of A) an
increase in LT relative to VO2max, and/or B) an improvement in cycling
efficiency.

To what extent professor, in relation to the wattages put out by
Armstrong
climbing in the the Tour?

As we've been over before, to a large enough extent that you can't view
Armstrong's performances as proof of doping.

Right.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Assuming that it's accurate that Armstrong had a
VO2max of 71.5 before the 1999 Tour (I'd like more data on this)

I'm not sure where this value comes from, but it can't be accurate.
Even in his cancer-debilitated, detrained state, Armstrong's VO2max was
in the mid-60's, and he was repeatedly measured as having a VO2max in
the low 80's (at altitude, yet) at the OTC long before he became a Tour
contender. For example, I believe his VO2max was stated as being 83
mL/min/kg in an article that appeared in Scientific American prior to
the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.

Armstrong's web site in the past few years has variously listed his VO2 as
82/83 or so. We'll have to see where the 71.5 figure comes from. It could
well be accurate, particularly as his VO2 was in the 60s according to you
just a short time before. His return to the peloton was initially not
stellar. One wonders whether or not there was in fact damage to his lungs
from either the cancer itself or some of the chemo.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

, how would
you have prepared him to confront a doper like Pantani in the mountains?

Well for one thing, I would have had him deliberately lose as much
weight as he possibly could w/o getting sick/compromising his
performance, as it is clear that he is naturally too stocky/muscular to
be great in the mountains unless he did so.

And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the 7
or 8 kilos that has been the stock myth for public consumption coming from
Armstrong and his camp. A 2.2 lb loss is markedly different from 15-20lbs.

Quoted message said:

Andy Coggan

B. Lafferty said:

And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the 7
or 8 kilos

No, we don't know that, because we don't know at what mass Armstrong
was before he got down to 74 kg and change.

So let's see: 83 mL/min/kg x 74 kg = a VO2max of 6.14 L/min. That's
essentially identical to Chris Boardman's VO2max, yet Boardman's race
weight was only 68-69 kg. Are you now going to argue that Boardman was
also a doper? How about Obree (VO2max = 88 mL/min/kg, mass similar to
Boardman's)?

Andy Coggan

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the
7
or 8 kilos

No, we don't know that, because we don't know at what mass Armstrong
was before he got down to 74 kg and change.

Keep dancing, Andy. Lets talk about weight. It's quite clear now that
Armstrong and his minions were misrepresenting how much weight he lost
post-cancer.

Quoted message said:

So let's see: 83 mL/min/kg x 74 kg = a VO2max of 6.14 L/min. That's
essentially identical to Chris Boardman's VO2max, yet Boardman's race
weight was only 68-69 kg. Are you now going to argue that Boardman was
also a doper? How about Obree (VO2max = 88 mL/min/kg, mass similar to
Boardman's)?

And how did Boardman do climbing in the Tour?

Quoted message said:

Andy Coggan

B. Lafferty wrote:
]

Quoted message said:

And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the 7
or 8 kilos that has been the stock myth for public consumption coming from
Armstrong and his camp.

I weigh myself many mornings, pretty much first thing. Wed AM I was 125.3.
This morning I was 128.0. I'll probably be 125 and change again within
a few days. One kilo is essentially nothing -- a liter of water. Armstrong's
loss was a lot more than that.

Dan

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty wrote:
]

Quoted message said:

And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the
7 or 8 kilos that has been the stock myth for public consumption coming
from Armstrong and his camp.

I weigh myself many mornings, pretty much first thing. Wed AM I was
125.3.
This morning I was 128.0. I'll probably be 125 and change again within
a few days. One kilo is essentially nothing -- a liter of water.
Armstrong's
loss was a lot more than that.

Dan

Let us know when your weight varies by 15 to 20 lbs in one day.

B. Lafferty said:

Lets talk about weight. It's quite clear now that
Armstrong and his minions were misrepresenting how much weight he lost
post-cancer.

How much do you say they say, Brian? Something around 20 lbs?

How much do you say? That is, what do you think was the weight he raced
at (generally, of course) before cancer, and what did he bottom out at
post cancer? What was the difference, according to what you believe?

Maybe later we can backtrack on this thread and you can explain how SCA
didn't lose that $7.5 million in arbitration, $2.5 million more than if
they had just paid up-- that they didn't see the writing on the wall,
and bail, thinking to have done the most damage they could without
having to pay another million or three. Or why did they bail, again?
--D-y

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the
7 or 8 kilos

Andy Coggan said:

Quoted message said:

So let's see: 83 mL/min/kg x 74 kg = a VO2max of 6.14 L/min. That's
essentially identical to Chris Boardman's VO2max, yet Boardman's race
weight was only 68-69 kg. Are you now going to argue that Boardman was
also a doper?

B. Lafferty said:

And how did Boardman do climbing in the Tour?

Coming soon:
Lafferty vs Coggan rbr deathmatch.
Format: ITT or boxing match
Date: To be decided
Admission price: 1 Cadbury slab

Donald Munro said:

B. Lafferty said:

Andy Coggan said:

B. Lafferty wrote:

Coming soon:
Lafferty vs Coggan rbr deathmatch.
Format: ITT or boxing match
Date: To be decided
Admission price: 1 Cadbury slab

No no no. The Lafferty vs Coggan deathmatch will be run at
the next Low-Key Hillclimb, but instead of climbing the hill,
they will duke it out by attempting to guess Dan Connelly's
weight. (Like one of those guess-how-many-jellybeans
contests.) As a tie breaker, they will use his weight and HCT
to predict his Old La Honda time. Admission will still be one
Cadbury bar/person, and all proceeds will be donated to
a charity, namely Dan Connelly (who needs some fattening
up to qualify to post in rbr).

Ben
Event Promoter