# Hard hitting interview with Dr. Michael Ashenden



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

This is a "must read" for those interested in doping in Cycling as far as I am concerned. Great explanations etc... some revalations too...

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
-Dr Michael Ashenden

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Nik


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

excellent read. best piece I've read in a long time. thanks for the post. lance is a punk.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

I'll gurantee you this piece will make not one ounce of difference to most of his fans. MA is clearly jealous of Lance and aiming to make a quick dollar from LA's reputation. 
I especially like his dismissal of the notion that EPO somehow appeared from nowhere due to the storage over the years.
We have all these scientists, including Ed Coyle, who haven't got solid figures for his weight, yet his fans will use the anecdotal 'evidence' from the picture of Lance crossing the line in the World Championships, the picture which appears in his first book, with the caption talking about how different he looks now. 
But L'Equipe must have invented these results. Well Lance doesn't even dispute that EPO is in the samples himself. He disputes how it got there. 
People talk about the likes of Kimmage, Ressiot and Walsh making money on the bak of Lance, but the irony here is that Ed Coyle has done very well on the back of Lance, for falsifying his study in favour of Lance. 
Shouldn't take long before the first Lance fan is on this thread saying that if Lance really did dope, why hasn't he been sanctioned?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Note how there is no discussion of why there were only 87 "usable samples" (the exact wording from the article) from 1999 tour. There were far more than 87 samples taken. What happened to the rest of them to make them unusable?

Note also how there is no discussion of why the chart shows "Sample Missing" for stage 11.

These are glaring omissions from an otherwise good article. Some here want us to believe those 1999 samples were stored properly in a WADA lab and were untouchable and not subject to manipulation. Except that some of the samples are obviously missing and many are unusable. And nobody is offering an explanation for that.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> Note how there is no discussion of why there were only 87 "usable samples" (the exact wording from the article) from 1999 tour. There were far more than 87 samples taken. What happened to the rest of them to make them unusable?
> 
> Note also how there is no discussion of why the chart shows "Sample Missing" for stage 11.
> 
> These are glaring omissions from an otherwise good article. Some here want us to believe those 1999 samples were stored properly in a WADA lab and were untouchable and not subject to manipulation. Except that some of the samples are obviously missing and many are unusable. And nobody is offering an explanation for that.


The samples which were 'usable' met strict criteria which allowed for their use. As was stated in the article, the researchers only wanted samples which were PERFECT, otherwise it would've negated the reason for the research.
And no Lance was not the only rider whose samples later turned up positive. Bo Hamburger was another.

Aside from this, and the 'glaring omissions', do you attach any credence whatsoever to EPO being found in Lance's samples? Or do you think they were spiked? And if they weren't spiked, and Lance is clean, is it phantom EPO?
Because you're mentioning faults with the article, but for a Lance fan, do you not feel there are more pertinent points from the article which need addressing? Your line of thinking is akin to someone saying 'look over there', and then making a run for it. It merely acts as a distraction from the simple fact that EPO was found in these samples and there are no plausibe reasons for this, other than cheating.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

What's this about Pharmstrong being 5'5" to 5'6"?

The Cloak of Secrecy

AS: The other thing that surprised me is this idea of cancer taking away 15 pounds, it's another one of these publicly held beliefs that became so ingrained, and it was surprising to find that he didn't lose any weight post cancer. And not only that, he's listed as 5' 9", 5' 10", but we know from speaking to his teammates he's more like 5' 5", 5' 6". I guess you're on the metric system...


It's said he rides a 58cm Trek with a saddle height of 75 cm. This was on cyclingnews regarding the new bike.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2009/probikes/?id=lance_armstrong_trek_livestrong09

Critical measurements
Rider's height: 1.79m (5' 10") ; Weight: 76kg (164lb) 
Seat tube length, c-c: 500mm 
Seat tube length, c-t: 598mm 
Saddle height, from BB (c-t): 750mm 
Tip of saddle nose to C of bars (next to stem): 565mm 
C of front wheel to top of bars (next to stem): 605mm 
Top tube length: 572mm (horizontal)


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

No, my line of thinking is not look over there, it's look here. The foundation of everything is the sanctity of the samples, and here we have samples missing, and apparently IMPERFECT samples, whatever that means. Wouldn't all conclusions derived from a flawed sample set also be flawed? Unless you can adequately explain these issues, I will always be suspicious of the 1999 tests.

Subtract Lance from this equation and consider this on its merits. That is, after all, how they supposedly did their testing. If nothing else, explain to me how could a sample go missing, which everyone involved will swear was properly stored and maintained. That doesn't wash.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> No, my line of thinking is not look over there, it's look here. The foundation of everything is the sanctity of the samples, and here we have samples missing, and apparently IMPERFECT samples, whatever that means. Wouldn't all conclusions derived from a flawed sample set also be flawed? Unless you can adequately explain these issues, I will always be suspicious of the 1999 tests.
> 
> Subtract Lance from this equation and consider this on its merits. That is, after all, how they supposedly did their testing. If nothing else, explain to me how could a sample go missing, which everyone involved will swear was properly stored and maintained. That doesn't wash.


But the presence of EPO in the samples?

And you're suspicious of the samples, yet scientists are willing to stake their reputations on the results of these samples - someone like MA, known all over the world. 
And why are you not focusing on the farcical Coyle report, if faulty science is a theme here.....


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> No, my line of thinking is not look over there, it's look here. The foundation of everything is the sanctity of the samples, and here we have samples missing, and apparently IMPERFECT samples, whatever that means. Wouldn't all conclusions derived from a flawed sample set also be flawed? Unless you can adequately explain these issues, I will always be suspicious of the 1999 tests.
> 
> Subtract Lance from this equation and consider this on its merits. That is, after all, how they supposedly did their testing. If nothing else, explain to me how could a sample go missing, which everyone involved will swear was properly stored and maintained. That doesn't wash.


What about this part of the interview:



> MA: One of the things, I guess there's been misinformation in this particular area - is that the samples weren't analyzed properly, that they were analyzed using a different protocol than what was used in proper dope controls - and that's just not correct. Obviously in research where the data you come up with is going to govern how you do testing in the future, you're exceptionally careful with these measurements. You want to make sure that you don't make any mistakes. And you want to make sure that you, for example, weren't looking at urine that has been contaminated with bacteria, or isn't what we call unstable urine, where sometimes the bands shift not because of EPO use, but because of some other factors. So all of these checks and cross checks were put in place with these samples, so the data is valid. The laboratory, I've checked with the people who did the analysis, and I very carefully went through it with them. They're absolutely 100% sure that these results are valid.


Sounds to me like they checked to make sure the samples were in good condition to be tested. If you told me that there were 1000 samples, only 87 of which were valid, I would be somewhat troubled by this. Hypothetically it would appear that so many of the samples degraded, I would think that there is a possibility that unknown degradation could be occurring in the supposedly valid samples as well. But there are roughly 20 stages, with the winner, yellow jersey holder, and some number of random samples taken. 87 seems like a reasonable number of those samples to hold up.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Digger28 said:


> But the presence of EPO in the samples?


Clearly you missed my point. If the foundation is compromised, everything else that follows is also compromised. If your sample set has unusable and missing samples, that is proof that they weren't stored and controlled properly. (Explain the missing sample.) If the samples weren't properly stored and controlled, who cares what you find in them? You don't get to skip over the inconvenient parts. That's called denial. 

This is my problem. No one can adequately explain these issues away. The guy in the interview didn't even bother. And yet plenty of people just say yada, yada, yada, then jump right to the end and say, yeah, but what about the EPO? Start at the beginning, not the end.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

All that says is, I talked to the people, and they said they did it right. Uh, yeah. What did he expect them to say? Seriously. Would he really expect anyone to say they did it wrong?

Figure six people tested per stage, for 21 stages, comes to 126 samples. We know at least one is missing, leaving 125. There were 87 "usable," leaving 38 unusable, or 30%. That's a lot of unusable samples.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Note how there is no discussion of why there were only 87 "usable samples" (the exact wording from the article) from 1999 tour. There were far more than 87 samples taken. What happened to the rest of them to make them unusable?
> 
> Note also how there is no discussion of why the chart shows "Sample Missing" for stage 11.
> 
> These are glaring omissions from an otherwise good article. Some here want us to believe those 1999 samples were stored properly in a WADA lab and were untouchable and not subject to manipulation. Except that some of the samples are obviously missing and many are unusable. And nobody is offering an explanation for that.


It's biology. Some samples go bad, some do not. If you put three loaves of bread somewhere and one gets moldy, do you no longer eat the other two? As for missing samples, there's no reason to believe that they were somehow stolen from the lab. They could have been lost in transport or some other way. Regardless, the whole point of claiming bad chain of custody is to imply that somehow the samples were tainted. Ashendon goes into great detail as to how that is basically impossible.

I agree that some coverage of this would improve the article, but I can't say it changes my thoughts about the tests that were done.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> You don't get to skip over the inconvenient parts. That's called denial.
> 
> This is my problem. No one can adequately explain these issues away. QUOTE]
> 
> Slightly hypocritical there I would've thought!!!


----------



## smbrum (Jul 9, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> I'll gurantee you this piece will make not one ounce of difference to most of his fans. MA is clearly jealous of Lance and aiming to make a quick dollar from LA's reputation.
> I especially like his dismissal of the notion that EPO somehow appeared from nowhere due to the storage over the years.
> We have all these scientists, including Ed Coyle, who haven't got solid figures for his weight, yet his fans will use the anecdotal 'evidence' from the picture of Lance crossing the line in the World Championships, the picture which appears in his first book, with the caption talking about how different he looks now.
> But L'Equipe must have invented these results. Well Lance doesn't even dispute that EPO is in the samples himself. He disputes how it got there.
> ...


i dont know about all that digger. admitedly I was a fan of LA and although still hold out like a parent who just cant believe it was their kid that did it, find this interview to be pretty damning. This interview makes it pretty clear to me that he in fact doped at least during one point of his career. Do I still hold out some hope that all his wins werent tainted...sure. His story was one that got me in to cycling in the first place so yeah I'd like to believe. Problem is it was becoming increasingly difficult, before this interview. Now, I feel a bit betrayed and would take equal evidence from the scientific community to convince me he didnt do it. There will still be plenty of admires who prostest his innocense but I dont think a rational person can read this and not have their doubts.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

smbrum said:


> i dont know about all that digger. admitedly I was a fan of LA and although still hold out like a parent who just cant believe it was their kid that did it, find this interview to be pretty damning. This interview makes it pretty clear to me that he in fact doped at least during one point of his career. Do I still hold out some hope that all his wins werent tainted...sure. His story was one that got me in to cycling in the first place so yeah I'd like to believe. Problem is it was becoming increasingly difficult, before this interview. Now, I feel a bit betrayed and would take equal evidence from the scientific community to convince me he didnt do it. There will still be plenty of admires who prostest his innocense but I dont think a rational person can read this and not have their doubts.


Fair play to you.
All I'd ask any cycling fan out there to do is read all the material which is out there on BOTH sides of the argument and then formulate their opinion. I respect your post above though, I really do.
IMO, very few people, including myself, had doubts about Lance from the start. Personally I too was caught up in the cancer angle. I live in Europe and spent the summer of 2000 in America. I distinctly remember going out of my way to buy his first book in the airport book shop for the flight home. What changed? About 2001, I looked at the dopers he was beating, he wasn't just winning, he was obliterating them. I saw his ambiguity to doping, even back then. I found out about Ferrari, the TUE from '99 ,and essentially every time I found out and read a little more, it usually pointed to Lance having doped. And this was long before LA Confitential, Hospital rooms, EPO tests etc.
One of the positives of Lance making a comeback is that it sheds more light on '99-'05 and the question of whether he doped. This MA interview is a great example. The truth is slowly getting out there about him, and to read your post is refreshing. :thumbsup:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> All that says is, I talked to the people, and they said they did it right. Uh, yeah. What did he expect them to say? Seriously. Would he really expect anyone to say they did it wrong?
> 
> Figure six people tested per stage, for 21 stages, comes to 126 samples. We know at least one is missing, leaving 125. There were 87 "usable," leaving 38 unusable, or 30%. That's a lot of unusable samples.


six people per stage? where is that from?


----------



## are (Feb 5, 2005)

I haven't read the article yet, but I don't buy the height ... I'm 95% sure I saw him in a Whole Foods in Los Angeles back when he was dating Cheryl Crow, and the person I saw was definitely not 5'5" or 5'6" - looked more 5'9" or 5'10".


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

i think reading the article in full should be mandatory before posting a reply in this thread


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

den bakker said:


> six people per stage? where is that from?


It's usually the stage winner, the GC leader, plus three randoms. That's four or five right there. If they do top three or other jersey winners, that's usually more than six.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> If the foundation is compromised, everything else that follows is also compromised


No, it is not. But this would be the case if you are struggling to continue to believe in miracles and do not want to face reality at will grasp at anything to dismiss evidence 



mohair_chair said:


> If your sample set has unusable and missing samples, that is proof that they weren't stored and controlled properly. (Explain the missing sample.) If the samples weren't properly stored and controlled, .


You are assuming that becuase one sample was deemed not worth testing that all are that way. You, once again, have assumed wrong. 



mohair_chair said:


> You don't get to skip over the inconvenient parts. That's called denial. .


You are skipping the inconvient part about EPO being in Armstrongs samples, that is called denial. You once said that there are a dozen rational explinations for how EPO got in those samples, please share with us the ones that do not involve Nazi frogmen or French conspiracies. 

Before you do this you may want to read the followup interview where Asheden talks about the difficulty of sabatoge. 

http://velocitynation.com/content/features/2009/spiking-armstrongs-99-samples

Spiking Armstrong's '99 Samples

Submitted by Andy on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 22:32.
In my interview with Michael Ashenden we discussed the improbability of Lance Armstrong's '99 Tour samples being spiked. In an effort to cross all our t's and dot our i's I followed up with him to completely eliminate the possibility of foul play. First we have to assume that a lab worker has somehow accessed the UCI's files and figured out which samples belong to Armstrong. This saboteur now has to spike these samples so they fit a profile of an athlete who is injecting EPO every few days, where the % of isoforms spike up and then tail off gradually. I asked Dr. Ashenden how much urine was in each test sample, and how much EPO would be needed to spike those samples to a precise %. Here's his answer:

That's an interesting angle - I'll do my best to explain.

Based on the doping control forms, which report the volume of urine collected, all his samples were 120-125 ml except for Prologue (75ml) and Stage 1 (115ml). From that, the lab takes 20ml for the EPO test.

The urine is placed in a cup that has a special filter attached. The cup is placed in a centrifuge and high molecular weight material is retained on the filter. This step is repeated a second time, and the final retentate (it is a liquid!) left on the filter will contain the EPO.

The concentration of EPO in the urine is measured by immunoassay. The concentration of EPO in the retentate is adjusted to an optimal value (no adjustment if the concentration is low, but adjustments made if the concentration is too high). Twenty MICROLITRES of the retentate are applied to the gel (1 litre = 1 million microlitres).

I've reattached the spreadsheet with an additional column, that shows the concentration of EPO in the retentate corresponding with each sample. You can see the value is quite variable, and does NOT correspond with the percentage of basic isoforms. (See table below)

To answer your question - how much EPO would you spike to vary between 100% and 89.7%? I honestly don't know how you could even attempt such a process...but I will give it a shot just to illustrate.

For the Prologue sample with 100% isoforms, the easy explanation would be that you would 'drown' the sample in EPO to ensure that it was 100%. Note - this is not failsafe, because compare sample 16 July (906 UI/L and 95.2%) against Prologue (600UI/L and 100%) and you see there is no correlation between EPO concentration and % isoforms!!!

The problem is that the IEF test contrasts the amount of synthetic EPO with the amount of endogenous EPO - and expresses the former as a percentage of total EPO in the sample (so 16 July says that 95.2% of the EPO in that sample was in the basic region and only 4.8% in the 'natural' region). So when you leave the realm of getting 100% basic isoforms, the amount of synthetic you would have to add must be in relation to the amount of natural EPO already present.

So let's use 4 July as a test case: you know you have 20 uL of retentate with an EPO concentration of 210 UI/L. So in 20uL of that sample there is 210 divided by 50,000 = 0.0042 UI of EPO in that 20 uL. Let's approximate and say that we need 89.7% of that to be synthetic - which is 0.0037674 UI. (Just to explain: UI stands for 'units international' which is the standard way to report EPO levels).

The concentration of commercial EPO is around 20,000 UI per 0.6ml of injection. So if you wanted to add 0.0037674 UI you would add 0.000000113 ml (i.e., 0.6ml divided by 20,000/0.0037674 = 0.000000113 ml) of the synthetic EPO solution. This is 0.113 microlitres.

Let's now try and manipulate that same sample to arrive at 95% basic isoforms. You would need .95 x 0.0042 UI = 0.00399 UI. At a concentration of 20,000UI per 0.6ml you would need 0.000000126 ml. This is 0.126 microlitres.

So 0.000000113 ml gives you 89.7% and 0.000000126 ml gives you 95%. Good luck finding a pipette able to get down to that level of accuracy so you could inject the corresponding amount.... Remember 1 microlitre is one millionth of a litre, so you want to get your accuracy down to less than 1 ten millionth of a litre.

And perhaps most importantly - remember that the smallest overdose in this context and the synthetic EPO will drown out the endogenous and you will get 100% basic isoforms (because literally their intensity will drown out any of the endogenous EPO appearing).

Andy I am honestly doing my best here - but I am not confident I am correct! I hate very low numbers and the quantities we are talking here are minute. But I am pretty confident my logic is correct, if not my maths. Do you know a chemist or pharmacologist who you could run the figures past???

So to summarize, this lab technician would have to centrifuge the sample and run a test to measure the EPO concentration. Then he'd have to calculate the percentage he was shooting for and spike the sample with that amount. From one sample to the next he'd need to be accurate to approximately .126-.113uL, or .013uL. Just for reference, a drop of water is 50 uL, so this is .013x.02=.00026 of a drop of water. So unless he has a pipette that can spike one sample with .013uL more of EPO from one sample to the next, he won't be able to replicate that pattern of EPO leaving the body from one day to the next. Dr. Ashenden is not aware of any pipettes with that degree of accuracy. If there are any readers out there with any expertise on this matter, we'd love to hear from you.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

To Mohair:
Lance himself when confronted with the positives in 2005 had this to say:
Asked whether the samples identified as his were actually his, Armstrong said, "I have no idea. I can only believe that they either are not mine or have been manipulated.
Later on the Larry King show, he admitted that he did not think the doping forms were manipulated. 
Exact quotes from the Larry King show, "What was manipulated was the urine. What was put in the urine? Who was there when..." Well Michael Ashenden certainly blows this theory away in the above interview. Lance also alluded in this interview to the witch hunt against him by the French - thus planting the seed in many of his fan's heads. 
L'Equipe called Lance a liar and cheat at the end of their article, and asked him to sue. He refused to do this, eventhough it was by far and away the most damaging article against him. 
Mohair, if there was any credence in your defense here of Lance, and the quality of the samples, do you not think Lance would've used this excuse, considering how nonsensical his other excuses were? Even the farcical Vrijman report didn't mention or question the quality of the samples. Frrom a Scientific viewpoint these samples are above board. 

For the likes of you, all I can think of is Stephen Swarts' words, a guy who doped with Lance on the Motorola team. When talking about people who didn't want to believe in Lance having doped, "There will always be a percentage of people who refuse to believe the reality. You're not going to change them." Swart is from New Zealand by the way.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

are said:


> I haven't read the article yet, but I don't buy the height ... I'm 95% sure I saw him in a Whole Foods in Los Angeles back when he was dating Cheryl Crow, and the person I saw was definitely not 5'5" or 5'6" - looked more 5'9" or 5'10".


I have met Lance many times and always laugh when he tries to say he is 5'10". 5'8" is likely correct. If you really want to see a midget check out Levi, no way that guy is over 5'5"








Looks like Armstrong has a team of giants on the U23 squad.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> It's usually the stage winner, the GC leader, plus three randoms. That's four or five right there. If they do top three or other jersey winners, that's usually more than six.


You are struggling with the math.

In 99 There were four riders tested on the first stage. 4-5 tested each stage. This does not add up to 126 and does not produce the 30% number you were hoping for.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> When talking about people who didn't want to believe in Lance having doped, "There will always be a percentage of people who refuse to believe the reality. You're not going to change them." Swart is from New Zealand by the way.


*"Whoever still can't put one and one together about what happened in cycling is beyond my help." *

Jan Ulrich


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> I have met Lance many times and always laugh when he tries to say he is 5'10". 5'7" or 5'8" is correct. If you really want to see a midget check out Levi, no way that guy is over 5'5"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even if we give him 5' 8", he really is a heavy rider, to be coming in at in the mid to late 70s in Kgs...Comparing him to Cadel or Contador for example....


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Digger28 said:


> To Mohair:
> Lance himself when confronted with the positives in 2005 had this to say:
> Asked whether the samples identified as his were actually his, Armstrong said, "I have no idea. I can only believe that they either are not mine or have been manipulated.
> Later on the Larry King show, he admitted that he did not think the doping forms were manipulated.
> ...


God, it's always about Lance for you. Lance this. Lance that. Have you ever considered that you might be the biggest Lance fanboy out there? It sure seems that way.

I did not mention Lance. I am not defending Lance. I don't care that much about Lance.

But I have read many posts, most by bigpinkt, that claim that these samples were stored properly and securely in WADA labs, in ideal conditions, etc., etc., when the reality is far different. Samples are unusable. Samples are missing. How does a properly and secured sample go missing? That blows bigpinkt's claims out of the water. But then it has been shown that many of his claims are made up or exaggerated (always) anyway.

If the sample set is compromised (where are the missing samples? why are they gone? who took them?), then the whole test is compromised. The data is suspect. Now that doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but it does create reasonable doubt. Feel free to ignore that if you like, but don't be mad with me for pointing this out.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> No, it is not. But this would be the case if you are struggling to continue to believe in miracles and do not want to face reality at will grasp at anything to dismiss evidence


How is it not? A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. If you start with bad data, you cannot get reliable results. In any scientific process, that is guaranteed. Believing otherwise is fantasy.


----------



## smbrum (Jul 9, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> God, it's always about Lance for you. Lance this. Lance that. Have you ever considered that you might be the biggest Lance fanboy out there? It sure seems that way.
> 
> I did not mention Lance. I am not defending Lance. I don't care that much about Lance.
> 
> ...


doesnt that argument then have to go both ways? see "Ed Coyle publishes a study on Armstrong" and "Previously undisclosed inconsiste" part of the interview. the very argument as to why LA was able to come back from cancer and dominate the TDF was attributed to effeciency. Yet, the testing done by Cole to validate the improvement in LA obviously had its flaws. So by the same argument you are using we would need to toss out the whole efficiency thing as data was manipulated and lost. What are we left with then to explain how he came back to be such a dominant figure.


----------



## r_mutt (Aug 8, 2007)

repeat after me mohair: "if the glove does not fit, you must acquit".


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

smbrum said:


> doesnt that argument then have to go both ways? see "Ed Coyle publishes a study on Armstrong" and "Previously undisclosed inconsiste" part of the interview. the very argument as to why LA was able to come back from cancer and dominate the TDF was attributed to effeciency. Yet, the testing done by Cole to validate the improvement in LA obviously had its flaws. So by the same argument you are using we would need to toss out the whole efficiency thing as data was manipulated and lost. What are we left with then to explain how he came back to be such a dominant figure.


It is the same argument. If data was manipulated and lost, then the results are unreliable. There are no inconsistencies from my point of view.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> God, it's always about Lance for you. Lance this. Lance that. Have you ever considered that you might be the biggest Lance fanboy out there? It sure seems that way.
> 
> I did not mention Lance. I am not defending Lance. I don't care that much about Lance.
> 
> ...


The samples in question are from Lance, so obviously he is going to come up here...

where is your qualification as a scientist to say that the 'data is suspect'? The reasonable doubt you talk about, reasonable doubt to who? To the scientists there isn't a reasonable doubt. Because you want there to be reasonable doubt doesn't mean there is. 

And you talk about ignoring, but three times now I've asked you to address the samples that did have EPO in them...how did it get there? Did the samples have phantom EPO?
It's not as though the samples had an unknown substance in them - there was a specific PED in the samples. This cannot be explained away.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> It is the same argument. If data was manipulated and lost, then the results are unreliable. There are no inconsistencies from my point of view.


You're back here to the 'manipulation' word. A word which has very negative connotations regarding the lab.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Digger28 said:


> You're back here to the 'manipulation' word. A word which has very negative connotations regarding the lab.


That's not my word. That was the word smbrum used in his post. 

But manipulation doesn't necessarily mean tampering with the data. If I cherry pick the data, only taking the data I want to see and ignoring the rest, that is manipulating the results.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> That's not my word. That was the word smbrum used in his post.
> 
> But manipulation doesn't necessarily mean tampering with the data. If I cherry pick the data, only taking the data I want to see and ignoring the rest, that is manipulating the results.


:mad2: 

Your hypocrisy is beyong belief.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> How is it not? A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. If you start with bad data, you cannot get reliable results. In any scientific process, that is guaranteed. Believing otherwise is fantasy.


The problem for you is that it's not a corrupt tree. The samples from '99 were tested in 12/2004 and had unique 6 digit numbers assigned to them. The positives happened anonymously when the samples could only be identified by the numbers. Ressiot tricked Armstrong and Verbruggen into releasing Armstrong's doping control forms thinking that Ressiot was writing a story about Armstrong's TUE's or lack thereof and they thought such a story would clear Armstrong. He got the numbers of the positives from WADA or the French sports ministry on 8/22/2005 and he matched them to LA's doping control forms. Those results confirmed what he already knew but he refuses to be specific about that.

Whether some samples had degraded or were misplaced is irrelevant. The contention that they were spiked is absurd nonsense as detailed in bigpinkt's Ashendon interview.

I myself am working on some pipettes in order to screw Armstrong but so far I can only spike a sample to an accuracy of thousandths of a liter. It's hard to build such delicate instrumentation in a high rise condo.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Digger28 said:


> :mad2:
> 
> Your hypocrisy is beyong belief.


Explain, please.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> That's not my word. That was the word smbrum used in his post.
> 
> But manipulation doesn't necessarily mean tampering with the data. If I cherry pick the data, only taking the data I want to see and ignoring the rest, that is manipulating the results.


But it wouldn't make the data invalid, only incomplete.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> The samples in question are from Lance, so obviously he is going to come up here...
> 
> where is your qualification as a scientist to say that the 'data is suspect'? The reasonable doubt you talk about, reasonable doubt to who? To the scientists there isn't a reasonable doubt. Because you want there to be reasonable doubt doesn't mean there is.
> 
> ...


yeah, also address the proven fact that it has been shown that at least 9 out of 10 in the scientific community hate Lance! I'm waiting......:lol: :wink:


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> Explain, please.


See my previous posts to figure this out. Can't be bothered. If you can't figure it out though, I worry for you.

One thing - what scientific qualification do you have to say there is reasonable doubt?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> But it wouldn't make the data invalid, only incomplete.


True, but that's a suspicious methodology from which to draw conclusions.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> True, but that's a suspicious methodology from which to draw conclusions.


I don't think so. We're not discussing the "populations" use of EPO, which would be confounded anyway by the fact that most of them weren't tested, or if tested were only tested once or a few times at most. 

We're interested in if Lance took EPO since he's the only one whose samples can be identified (other than the 4 prologue tests, including Lances, which were all positive). So then the question becomes is there any reason to think the results from his samples are suspect. As I've argued before here, without the benefit of the data Ashendon provided on percentages, the internal validity of the pattern of positives was already pretty damning as is the fact that there is no way, as far as anyone is aware, that the lab could have possibly known the samples were his. That makes both a natural and a conspiracy explanation of the results pretty darn unlikely.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I don't think so. We're not discussing the "populations" use of EPO, which would be confounded anyway by the fact that most of them weren't tested, or if tested were only tested once or a few times at most.
> 
> We're interested in if Lance took EPO since he's the only one whose samples can be identified (other than the 4 prologue tests, including Lances, which were all positive). So then the question becomes is there any reason to think the results from his samples are suspect. As I've argued before here, without the benefit of the data Ashendon provided on percentages, the internal validity of the pattern of positives was already pretty damning as is the fact that there is no way, as far as anyone is aware, that the lab could have possibly known the samples were his. That makes both a natural and a conspiracy explanation of the results pretty darn unlikely.


I agree, believe it or not. But I'm still concerned that samples that were claimed to be properly and securely stored have gone missing. Clearly the "secure" part was not accurate. And if they weren't secure, then I am suspicious. Nothing to do with Lance. It's just my nature.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Old_school_nik said:


> This is a "must read" for those interested in doping in Cycling as far as I am concerned. Great explanations etc... some revalations too...
> 
> "So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
> -Dr Michael Ashenden
> ...


Thanks. I printed this article at home this morning and read it on the way to work, on the bus.
Here is the part that jumped out of this interview at me, from the third to last paragraph.



> Which is to say, you talk about the Simeoni's and people who speak out, overnight they virtually, well they do jeopardize their career, and perhaps they even destroy it. And what has it achieved? Some could say it has raised awareness, but has it changed anything? And that's an incredibly hard choice for us to foist upon an athlete, to say, "We want you to be brave, stand up in the media, tell us that you doped, tell us who else doped, and we'll publicize that story." Now, the athlete could do that, next day, particularly with this omerta in cycling, the guy's going to be out of a job, he's gonna be ostracized from his friends and his peers, and a week later that newspaper is fish wrappings, and nothing's changed.


As long as the system does nothing to protect the so called "whistleblowers", I agree that not much is going to change, whether one is talking about cycling or politics or big business.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> I agree, believe it or not. But I'm still concerned that samples that were claimed to be properly and securely stored have gone missing. Clearly the "secure" part was not accurate. And if they weren't secure, then I am suspicious. Nothing to do with Lance. It's just my nature.


Does missing mean literally missing or something like missing because it was contaminated due to not being sealed properly or a lab tech dropped it, etc.?

Regardless, as far as anyone knows there is simply no way for the lab to have intentially spiked his samples. Furthermore, it wouldn't make any sense to spike samples to frame Armstrong when at the time of testing no one was going to ever see individual results. IIRC, it was something like 6 months after the testing was complete that the journalist conned Armstrong into access to his medical records at the UCI, and then got access to more than what he originally asked for.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> God, it's always about Lance for you. Lance this. Lance that. Have you ever considered that you might be the biggest Lance fanboy out there? It sure seems that way.
> 
> I did not mention Lance. I am not defending Lance. I don't care that much about Lance.
> 
> ...


You may want to read the intire article as Asheden covers most of your silly objections.

Still waiting for your dozen plausable reasons how EPO got in Armstrongs samples.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> From interview:
> So to summarize, this lab technician would have to centrifuge the sample and run a test to measure the EPO concentration. Then he'd have to calculate the percentage he was shooting for and spike the sample with that amount. From one sample to the next he'd need to be accurate to approximately .126-.113uL, or .013uL. Just for reference, a drop of water is 50 uL, so this is .013x.02=.00026 of a drop of water. So unless he has a pipette that can spike one sample with .013uL more of EPO from one sample to the next, he won't be able to replicate that pattern of EPO leaving the body from one day to the next. Dr. Ashenden is not aware of any pipettes with that degree of accuracy. If there are any readers out there with any expertise on this matter, we'd love to hear from you.


I was discussing this with my girlfriend this morning, and she told me that you can get amounts that small by using a process called serial dilution. Essentially diluting a small amount of rEPO in whatever solution (the retetante) is used in the experiment during the filtering process. Then dilute over and over until you can draw a very small amount of rEPO out. She said it would be pretty trivial to dilute down to two distinct numbers such as .125ul and .11ul, give or take a couple percent. In other words, you could spike the samples knowing that stage one would be lower than the prologue, and stage two would be lower than stage one.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> I was discussing this with my girlfriend this morning, and she told me that you can get amounts that small by using a process called serial dilution. Essentially diluting a small amount of rEPO in whatever solution (the retetante) is used in the experiment during the filtering process. Then dilute over and over until you can draw a very small amount of rEPO out. She said it would be pretty trivial to dilute down to two distinct numbers such as .125ul and .11ul, give or take a couple percent. In other words, you could spike the samples knowing that stage one would be lower than the prologue, and stage two would be lower than stage one.


Still leaving the massive problem of how they would have known which samples were Armstrong's. Sure if only all the prologue one's were positive, this conspriacy might have some legs but they weren't.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Ardor said:


> But it doesn't take a genious to realize that something wasn't right somewhere along the lines of him having to wait for two years for some of the results.
> The probabilities of someone tampering with samples greatly increases then.


What are you on about here?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Still leaving the massive problem of how they would have known which samples were Armstrong's. Sure if only all the prologue one's were positive, this conspriacy might have some legs but they weren't.


No disagreement here, for the conspiracy to have legs there would have to be other people involved. The lab couldn't do it on their own.

Just thought that Ashenden's credibility deserves a knock or two. He comes across as god of science in this interview, but missed the mark by a lot on this explanation. My girlfriend explained the whole process to me (serial dilution) and says it is quite common in her day to day work. Has Ashenden never heard of it? This increases my doubts about his knowledge on how the actual tests were run.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Haha,
tha replys there are just like here. Bash Lance/Lance supporters bash Lemond/ then back and forth on who did or didnt dope......

It was 10 years ago...why does anyone still care? Show me some recent failures then I will no longer support LA. :lol:


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Ardor said:


> Have you read any of his books? .


Enough said.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Oy. He doped. Get over it.

3 pages of this crap and there's, yet again, NOTHING to show for it. The past is the past. The fact he is again racing doesn't mean the past remains relevant. If he gets busted now, he gets busted. If not, then he doesn't. Doping in cycling does no more damage than Shawn Merriman or Deuce McAllister being suspended in the NFL. No-one really gives a damn except the zealots. The general public is so apathetic that they don't really care, no do they wish to care.

Believers won't be swayed, disbelievers won't be swayed, and even if he admitted to those samples being positive, it couldn't change anything since he's outside the statute of limitations to impose sanctions. So...who cares? If the need to be "right" is that strong, go argue particle physics with a 4 year old. You can't possibly lose.


I feel dirty for reading this whole thread.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> How is it not? A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. If you start with bad data, you cannot get reliable results. In any scientific process, that is guaranteed. Believing otherwise is fantasy.


This is a bad argument. I've done studies where I've had to throw out samples due to a bad sample, one that has become unusable through contamination usually by mishandling. This is just part of research. When you're doing a study to look at historic specimens it's not uncommon to pick and chose samples that will provide the most data.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> Oy. He doped. Get over it.
> 
> 3 pages of this crap and there's, yet again, NOTHING to show for it. The past is the past. The fact he is again racing doesn't mean the past remains relevant. If he gets busted now, he gets busted. If not, then he doesn't. Doping in cycling does no more damage than Shawn Merriman or Deuce McAllister being suspended in the NFL. No-one really gives a damn except the zealots. The general public is so apathetic that they don't really care, no do they wish to care.
> 
> ...


Then don't read it.

Why does anyone care if McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, or Bonds gets in the Hall of Fame? What effect does it have on anyones life other than theirs? So, are only the zealots going to keep these people out of the Hall of Fame? Your argument is asinine. The fact is that people *do *care. No one is chaining you to this thread are they?

Actually if you read the thread, a former believer *is* being swayed.

Before 2004 I was pretty sure LA was clean myself. I saw how vociferous the people were who said Armstrong was doping and I read stuff like From Lance to Landis and that kind of stuff is damning as are LA's own words.

Good Lord, you feel dirty. Whatever dude.

I mean, why do people do crosswork puzzles, or play bridge, or fantasy football, or argue whether Jordan was better than Magic, or Mantle was better than Mays? Or, why do people try to build a sub 12lb bike? Why people use latex tubes, or are trying to save 100 grams on their brakes? What does is really matter who wins a bike race?

So, my question to you is wtf is your point?

Oy is right.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Still leaving the massive problem of how they would have known which samples were Armstrong's. Sure if only all the prologue one's were positive, this conspriacy might have some legs but they weren't.


Are you talking about the massive problem that a journalist had no problem figuring out? Turns out it wasn't much of a problem at all.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

lookrider said:


> blah blah blah


Hook line and sinker. 

Go poll the average fan and come back to tell me that people really care if LA doped 10 years ago. They don't. Only the zealots give a damn, and zealots like you are just standing on a soapbox, listening to yourselves talk and think "damn, I sound great."

Most people just don't care, the same way they don't care if dopers are in the baseball hall of fame or football hall of fame. This is only news to the zealots. Frankly, it shouldn't even be news to the zealots, because they can't do a thing about it anyway. 

Then again, zealots need feeding every so often so as to refresh their beliefs.

Oh, and my point is that you're all arguing about something so dramatically insignificant in your life that it's nothing more than foolish. Good luck changing the sporting world. I'm sure you'll get there soon.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Are you talking about the massive problem that a journalist had no problem figuring out? Turns out it wasn't much of a problem at all.


Of course if you remember back to 2005, the UCI knowingly gave out the info. It wasn't detective work on the part of L'Equipe.

One would imagine the UCI would have similar records if someone working at the lab asked for that information. They would probably be happy to go along with the tampering charge if they had any evidence, as they were quite happy to get Vrijman to write the cover-up report.


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> No, it is not. But this would be the case if you are struggling to continue to believe in miracles and do not want to face reality at will grasp at anything to dismiss evidence
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All you have to do would be to dilute your stock EPO by 1:1000 and then you would be able to pipette 13µl no problem. Just saying.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Hook line and sinker.
> 
> Go poll the average fan and come back to tell me that people really care if LA doped 10 years ago. They don't. Only the zealots give a damn, and zealots like you are just standing on a soapbox, listening to yourselves talk and think "damn, I sound great."
> 
> ...


Ah yes the irony of this lengthy retort....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> Hook line and sinker.
> 
> Go poll the average fan and come back to tell me that people really care if LA doped 10 years ago. They don't. Only the zealots give a damn, and zealots like you are just standing on a soapbox, listening to yourselves talk and think "damn, I sound great."
> 
> ...



No one cares, eh?

Then why did Armstrong put on his whole charade with Catlin?

Why did the doping lab go to all the trouble to freeze the '99 samples in the first place and then go back and test them in December of 2004?

Why is Pharmstrong always threatening litigation against those who expose him as the fraud he is? Because he realizes that most people do care if he is known as a cheat.

I don't get this most people argument anyway. Most people think the majority of us on these forums are nuts to spend thousands of dollars on bikes and ride around in colorful spandex and lycra. Do you post on these forums from the perspective of most people?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

lookrider said:


> No one cares, eh?
> 
> Then why did Armstrong put on his whole charade with Catlin?
> 
> ...


Everyone needs a cause, and it seems yours is crusading for things that the average fan couldn't care less about. 

I'll ask again: what will any admission of guilt do for anyone (besides make you all warm and fuzzy inside?) History won't be re-written, so don't worry about it.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> Everyone needs a cause, and it seems yours is crusading for things that the average fan couldn't care less about.
> 
> I'll ask again: what will any admission of guilt do for anyone (besides make you all warm and fuzzy inside?) History won't be re-written, so don't worry about it.


Thanks Socrates.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Are you talking about the massive problem that a journalist had no problem figuring out? Turns out it wasn't much of a problem at all.


Thanks to Armstrong's instructing the UCI to release his forms it wasn't that hard. 

Arrogance gets him in trouble yet again.


----------



## parker3375 (May 6, 2008)

What was that quote about the tree and the fruit being tainted as well...usps/disco team tainted=tainted riders? You la supporters are out there man. "Science doesn't prove anything" this, but I'm pretty sure we use the same test now and we accept those test. Go ahead and jump on that Schumacher bandwagon next, he could use some followers after his country bailed on him.


----------



## moonstation2000 (Sep 5, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Everyone needs a cause, and it seems yours is crusading for things that the average fan couldn't care less about.
> 
> I'll ask again: what will any admission of guilt do for anyone (besides make you all warm and fuzzy inside?) History won't be re-written, so don't worry about it.



History won't be re-written? I think those 7 TDF wins will lose a lot of their luster if gets caught in the act.

P.S. I am probably a pretty average fan (or less than average) and I care! I even remember a couple years ago before I got back into cycling telling my boss about LA's exceptional physiology when he asked me about his tour wins. I didn't know any better.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Thanks Socrates.


Excellent!!


----------



## Balderick (Jul 11, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Then why did Armstrong put on his whole charade with Catlin?


I am no particular fan of Lance. But what if the scheme he set up was not workable? Just seems there may be a reasonable explanation, yet many jump to conclusions based on press reports. The only person who really knows if he doped in Lance.



> Why did the doping lab go to all the trouble to freeze the '99 samples in the first place and then go back and test them in December of 2004?


 Foresight? An evil plot to frame Lance Chose one.



> Why is Pharmstrong always threatening litigation against those who expose him as the fraud he is?


That is one way of putting it, but it assumes he is a fraud in the first place, which no one here knows. If he is not a fraud, why shouldn't he take action to protect his reputation?

It is a very bold, or mentally deficient person, who makes bold statements like "Lance is a doper" or "Lance is a fraud". If he were so minded, how would these people who are so willing to post their opinions on forums establish crticial defences to defemation like truth? Imagine trying to convince a court that "well, what I said was true because I read it on RBR" or "I think he is a doper because some person said so in an interview".

L'Equipe and other media outlets often give their journalists indeminities for the defamatory statements they make, and then use the litigation that follows as another opportunity to legitimately report on the proceedings and so prolong the pain. it is a game, and they sell a shipload of papers from the stories they publish.

I have acted for clients in defamation/libel matters for much much less than is typed on this forum about Lance.A word of warning - people here think they are safe because they have taken steps to hide their identities. Go to the PpRune forum (for pilots) and with a bit of digging around in the Dunnunda and Godzone you will find out what Dick Smith - a controversial person in Australian aviation - did to track down someone who had defamed him. Cost the lady who defamed Dick a bit of money, and I think Dick was quite comapssionate in letting her off the way he did. Like Lance, Dick is a man of means and drive.

Perhaps the best warning is that on pPrune: As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> Are you talking about the massive problem that a journalist had no problem figuring out? Turns out it wasn't much of a problem at all.



Assuming you know how he "figured it out", you're being disingenuous.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Balderick said:


> I am no particular fan of Lance. But what if the scheme he set up was not workable? Just seems there may be a reasonable explanation, yet many jump to conclusions based on press reports. The only person who really knows if he doped in Lance.


The only part of the scheme which wasn't workable was Pharmstrong doping and getting away with it.




Balderick said:


> Foresight? An evil plot to frame Lance Chose one.


You're an attorney? You should have followed this better. One of the other posters was saying that no one cares about doping that happened in '99. I answered with an obvious rhetorical question, that if no one cared, why were the samples frozen for future testing? Obviously a lot of people care if Pro cyclist's are using PED's, or no one would have gone to that trouble.





Balderick said:


> That is one way of putting it, but it assumes he is a fraud in the first place, which no one here knows. If he is not a fraud, why shouldn't he take action to protect his reputation?


Very little _assuming_ is necessary, as there is a mountain of stuff you attorneys like to call *evidence*, against Pharmstrong.

Also it's implicit that Pharmstrong realizes people *do care if the general perception is that he is a doper.* Why in heck else would it be necessary to protect a reputation that the other poster posits, *people don't care about?* People clearly care about this stuff.



Balderick said:


> It is a very bold, or mentally deficient person, who makes bold statements like "Lance is a doper" or "Lance is a fraud". If he were so minded, how would these people who are so willing to post their opinions on forums establish crticial defences to defemation like truth? Imagine trying to convince a court that "well, what I said was true because I read it on RBR" or "I think he is a doper because some person said so in an interview".



If you're an attorney you should be able to spell "defamation."

There are more liberal laws in the U.S. regarding defamation...

_Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)
Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).[
_

and your spelling of "defen*c*e" indicates you're not an American. Anyway, I don't have to convince a court that my statements on RBR are true. Pharmstrong has to convince a court that I knew my statements were false and I made them anyway. Actually I came to believe Pharmstrong is a doper because I read it in a book published by Random House. Now, why the f&ck would Pharmstrong sue me along with the other posters here who know he is a doper and not sue the publishers of the book which is promulgating these truths?



Balderick said:


> L'Equipe and other media outlets often give their journalists indeminities for the defamatory statements they make, and then use the litigation that follows as another opportunity to legitimately report on the proceedings and so prolong the pain. it is a game, and they sell a shipload of papers from the stories they publish.


First of all, if this practice could be shown to be true, I'd imagine these media outlets would be opening themselves to potentially ruinous exposure to compensatory and punitive damages. Yes, they can take out insurance for the whole outlet in the event of a lawsuit, but to encourage journalists to commit libel and then "prolong the pain" as you put it, is absolute bs, and betrays your prejudices. I don't know if you've noticed but many newspapers are closing down as it is, and L'Equipe and LeMonde are not tabloids as the Pharmstrong defenders like to portray them.



Balderick said:


> I have acted for clients in defamation/libel matters for much much less than is typed on this forum about Lance.A word of warning - people here think they are safe because they have taken steps to hide their identities. Go to the PpRune forum (for pilots) and with a bit of digging around in the Dunnunda and Godzone you will find out what Dick Smith - a controversial person in Australian aviation - did to track down someone who had defamed him. Cost the lady who defamed Dick a bit of money, and I think Dick was quite comapssionate in letting her off the way he did. Like Lance, Dick is a man of means and drive.
> 
> Perhaps the best warning is that on pPrune: As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.


If you're Austrailian, it's pretty funny that your countryman Ashenden would expose himself to a libel action knowing what the law is assuming you're portraying the aviation case accurately.

At any rate Pharmstrong hasn't sued Walsh or Ashenden here, so I'm not exactly quaking in my boots.

It would really make my day if Pharmstrong sued a peon like me though.ut: :Yawn: :Yawn: :yesnod: :yikes: :ciappa: :ciappa: :lol: :lol: :lol: :nono: :skep: ut: :hand: rrr: :crazy: :nonod:

The first thing I'd do if I saw Pharmstrong in court, would be to laugh my a$$ off as I towered over him at my exact height of 5"9.5".

Look, the guy can't even tell the truth about how tall he is.....:lol: :lol: :lol::lol: :lol: :lol:

*BTW, are you Tim Herman?*


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Assuming you know how he "figured it out", you're being disingenuous.


Not disingenuous at all. All they did was match up the sample numbers. A bottle to a form. Given that there was almost six years between taking the samples in 1999 and testing them in 2005, that's a lot of time to do that research. It shouldn't be that hard. Forget matching numbers and just go with who is likely to have the most samples. Hmm. Could it be Lance, who won four stages and wore the yellow jersey for at least half the race? There should be a disproportionate number of samples for one particular rider, and by tracking and filtering that sample number through the stages, you can make a very good guess that it was Lance. It's not a massive problem by any means. Access to the samples and a few hour's work is all it takes. We already know the samples weren't secure, and there was plenty of time for someone to do the work given the 5-6 year gap.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Forget matching numbers and just go with who is likely to have the most samples. Hmm. Could it be Lance, who won four stages and wore the yellow jersey for at least half the race? *There should be a disproportionate number of samples for one particular rider, and by tracking and filtering that sample number through the stages, you can make a very good guess that it was Lance*..


How would you know which samples are Pharmstrong's?

"tracking and filtering that number through the stages?"

It's not each rider that is assigned a number. It's each sample.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

While many would rather this topic is not discussed and would prefer that we all chose to believe in miracles instead of reality..... this is a doping forum where we discuss doping in our sport.

For years Armstrong's fanboys, like Mohair, have used increasingly irrational defenses of his doping. They clutch to the widely discredited Vrijman report and routinely embarrass themselves in defense of their hero. It was good to see an expert go into detail to explain why their blind devotion is misguided and their weak excuses were in fact....weak.



Dr. Ashenden was kind enough to respond to some follow up questions. Here are some additional comments

Dear Readers,

I realise the interview contained confronting material, addressing many different issues. Andy has asked me to respond, and for those of you with sufficient mental stamina (which, unfortunately, is not known to improve even if you read for 3-6 hours per day) I would make the following points.

1.	Guilty or not of doping. Lance Armstrong is not a convicted doper, he has never been found guilty of doping, and he has steadfastly maintained his innocence. As far as I am aware, Marion Jones is not a convicted doper, she has never been found guilty of doping, and she steadfastly maintained her innocence - until she admitted lying to a federal investigator about taking banned substances (note: lying to a federal investigator is NOT a doping offence). Whether or not their respective sports can benefit from increases in mechanical efficiency, neither athlete has ever had a positive doping sanction imposed. To put it simply - not testing positive does not establish that an athlete did not use banned substances.


2.	Remuneration. Yes I was remunerated ($150 per hour + expenses) for my role in the SCA case. I would be very surprised if any expert witness, including Professor Coyle, was not (the $2.5 million SCA had to pay in penalties included payment for Armstrong's legal team and expert witnesses).


3.	Do financial payments influence outcomes? Interesting point. Its public record that Armstrong donated $1.5 million to the Indiana University Hospital a few days after his oncologist delivered an affidavit stipulating Armstrong's medical treatment. Its also public record that Armstrong paid an undisclosed sum to the UCI who were responsible for conducting and reporting his doping controls (I say ‘undisclosed' because under oath Armstrong could not remember how much, to whom, or when he made the payment, only that he did send them money whilst he was competing). Moreover, Armstrong benefited to the tune of $5 million from the SCA case, yet his testimony/evidence was relied upon. Perhaps financial remuneration, and how that influences your conduct, is a tricky issue to tackle? So, back to my original point: if one asserts that financial payments may influence expert witnesses carrying out their duties, then one must also acknowledge that it is conceivable that financial payments might influence other entities as well.


4.	Trust. See page 179 of "Its not about the bike", where Armstrong says: ""The old me had weighed 175 pounds. Now I was 158, my face looked narrow and hawkish, and you could see every sinew in my legs." In the context of the book, this was post-cancer shortly before he resumed racing. 175 pounds (~79kg) vs. 158 pounds (~72kg). Later, Armstrong confirmed under oath that he had never raced at 72 kg - yet this leaner body weight has entered folklore (and Coyle's publication!) as the explanation for his improved performance. He had lied to the public about his weight loss. To quote Armstrong's agent Bill Stapleton, when questioning the motives of allegations against his friend: "He lied once, therefore it brings everything else into question".


5.	Interpreting the urine results. I expect people to challenge my interpretation of the science, and rightly so. I do have some experience interpreting results - see here the link to a peer-reviewed article I wrote describing how the percentage basic isoforms are reduced in the hours/days after an EPO injection (http://www.haematologica.org/cgi/reprint/91/8/1143). I'd also direct you to the WADA website where you can practice for yourselves to see if you can visually tell the difference between a doped sample and a clean athlete (http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/td2007epo_en.pdf see Figure 1 on page 3 where the right hand lane = ‘clean'). It's not always that clear cut, I admit, but it gives you some idea of what the lab has to do to determine whether or not a sample has synthetic EPO!). It's not the rocket science it is sometimes made out to be...but you do have to rely on the expertise and experience of the lab who generated the gels. In the case of the 99 Tour samples, the gels were generated by the lab who developed the original test, so their expertise is self-evident.


6.	Comparison of pre vs. post cancer performance. Apparently some readers have objected that my comparison lacked scientific credibility. I accept that criticism as justified (it was a very long interview...). However his times, performances and those of his rivals are again public record - they do not mandate scientific interpretation. Time trials are perhaps the fairest way for a lay person to compare performances across time. It is a statement of fact that he lost minutes during time trials pre-cancer, and gained minutes post-cancer, compared with his rivals. David Walsh's book(s) address this in more detail for those interested.


7.	Finally, I wish to add comment about the recent sample collection in France. Lance Armstrong is the self-proclaimed ‘most tested athlete in the history of sport' which infers he well and truly knows the drill - when you are notified to provide a doping control you MUST be chaperoned at all times until the urine sample is provided. The athlete is not allowed to leave the tester's presence (this is an age-old guard against the athlete attempting to mask drug use, for example by placing soap under their fingernails and discretely adding this to their urine sample so as to destroy proteins like EPO in the urine). Obviously I have no evidence to suggest this is what Armstrong did. But I find it curious that he feels he has special dispensation to leave the tester's sight and take a shower. Perhaps old habits die hard?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

moonstation2000 said:


> History won't be re-written? I think those 7 TDF wins will lose a lot of their luster if gets caught in the act.
> 
> P.S. I am probably a pretty average fan (or less than average) and I care! I even remember a couple years ago before I got back into cycling telling my boss about LA's exceptional physiology when he asked me about his tour wins. I didn't know any better.


Did Riis's win lose any luster? Not really. It was same old same old for him.

The only win in contention is '99, and it can't be stripped, so who cares? Again, only the zealots really care about such things.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Did Riis's win lose any luster? Not really. It was same old same old for him.
> 
> The only win in contention is '99, and it can't be stripped, so who cares? Again, only the zealots really care about such things.


Riis is a laughing stock here in Europe when it comes to his career cycling. His 'win' is seen as a farce.

And you keep talking about zealots. I'd like you to take your line of reasoning into a court of law. It was in the past judge. Let me know how that goes.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> Did Riis's win lose any luster? Not really. It was same old same old for him.


Yes it did matter and it did tarnish his record. It also proved what many had thought obvious and ended the endless speculation. 



robdamanii said:


> The only win in contention is '99, and it can't be stripped, so who cares? Again, only the zealots really care about such things.


Yes, there are many zealots who rush to defend Armstrong and ignore the obvious. Even with mountains of evidence these zealots continue to defend their hero.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> Riis is a laughing stock here in Europe when it comes to his career cycling. His 'win' is seen as a farce.
> 
> And you keep talking about zealots. I'd like you to take your line of reasoning into a court of law. It was in the past judge. Let me know how that goes.


Too bad this isn't a court of law, and so therefore holds no merit, which coincides with your entire crusade holding no merit.

Face it fella, the world doesn't care about doping in cycling, football, soccer, baseball, track or any other sport. There's a phony outrage when someone tests positive, then it resolves into a "oh well, it happens" mentality.

If people gave a crap about it, there would be a world wide, non-sport specific push to eradicate cheating. It'll never happen. The only people who care are the zealots like youself, look, bigpinkt, Walsh, etc etc.

Now I'm going to go catch the highlights of a bunch of doped up major league ballplayers, and I'm going to enjoy it.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Yes it did matter and it did tarnish his record. It also proved what many had thought obvious and ended the endless speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are many zealots who rush to defend Armstrong and ignore the obvious. Even with mountains of evidence these zealots continue to defend their hero.


Of course there are. There are zealots that blow up towers and zealots that believe in nuking the entire middle east. There are zealots on both sides of the argument.

The point is: he doped. We know. Get over it.


----------



## r_mutt (Aug 8, 2007)

let's see if any of these steroid using baseball players get into the hall of fame. that's who cares.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

lookrider said:


> It's not each rider that is assigned a number. It's each sample.


You are right. I got that wrong.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

r_mutt said:


> let's see if any of these steroid using baseball players get into the hall of fame. that's who cares.


Why isn't Bond's record gone then? What about Clemens? A-Rod? Why are they still loved if everyone cares?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

robdamanii said:


> Why isn't Bond's record gone then? What about Clemens? A-Rod? Why are they still loved if everyone cares?


Is this last sentence supposed to be funny? Those three are somewhere between loathed and outright hated by fans. Just because you can't erase their accomplishments doesn't mean that people don't care.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> Why isn't Bond's record gone then? What about Clemens? A-Rod? Why are they still loved if everyone cares?


The Bonds fan club has one member, Berry Bonds.


----------



## Jokull (Aug 13, 2007)

robdamanii said:


> If people gave a crap about it, there would be a world wide, non-sport specific push to eradicate cheating.


Um. Haven't you just exactly described the aim of WADA (The World Anti-Doping Agency). Looks like someone does care after all.


----------



## Balderick (Jul 11, 2006)

lookrider said:


> You're an attorney? You should have followed this better.


No - I am a solicitor. We don't call ourselves "Attorneys" where I live. I have followed the thread just fine, thanks.




lookrider said:


> Very little _assuming_ is necessary, as there is a mountain of stuff you attorneys like to call *evidence*, against Pharmstrong.


Great - point to the evidence. There is a difference between knowing something and proving something. 




lookrider said:


> People clearly care about this stuff..


So? 



lookrider said:


> If you're an attorney you should be able to spell "defamation."..


I am not an "attorney" - I am a solicitor. Spelling was not part of the courses of study for the undergraduate or post graduate law degrees I hold, nor was it a part of any entry requirement set by the Supreme Court. Despite this, I can spell. I do, like many people, make typos from time to time. I do not exercise the same care to typos when posting on a forum as I would, say, in a Court pleading.





lookrider said:


> There are more liberal laws in the U.S. regarding defamation...
> 
> _Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)
> Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).
> _."..


There might be debate about which jurisdiction has the more liberal laws concerning defamation. There are public interest defences here as well.



lookrider said:


> and your spelling of "defen*c*e" indicates you're not an American.


You are correct - I am not American. Amercians do have some interesting adaptions of the Queen's English: "tires" for "tyres", "color" for "colour" etc etc.. 



lookrider said:


> Anyway, I don't have to convince a court that my statements on RBR are true. Pharmstrong has to convince a court that I knew my statements were false and I made them anyway. Actually I came to believe Pharmstrong is a doper because I read it in a book published by Random House. Now, why the f&ck would Pharmstrong sue me along with the other posters here who know he is a doper and not sue the publishers of the book which is promulgating these truths?.


Getting a bit steamed up there. Not too hard for you, is it?

Are you saying that you hold an honest opinion, based on proper material, that Armstrong is a doper and that is an issue of public interest? If so, you would have to prove that, and I am not sure reading an unspecified book would be regarded "proper material". 

Or are you asserting that Lance is a doper as a statement of fact? if so then Lance probably would have to prove he is not a doper.



lookrider said:


> First of all, if this practice could be shown to be true, I'd imagine these media outlets would be opening themselves to potentially ruinous exposure to compensatory and punitive damages. Yes, they can take out insurance for the whole outlet in the event of a lawsuit, but to encourage journalists to commit libel and then "prolong the pain" as you put it, is absolute bs, and betrays your prejudices.


Seriously? Prejudices against what? Yes, I am prejudiced against people, like you, using these forums to slander other people. RBR provides a useful means of communicating with other cyclists, but when (not if) those who operate forums like RBR start getting sued over comments published (and yes, there are some defences available to those who publish forums) then the future of RBR and other forums becomes an issue.

Do you read case law? Do you watch TV or read newspapers? There are ample examples where what I describe has occurred.



lookrider said:


> I don't know if you've noticed but many newspapers are closing down as it is, and L'Equipe and LeMonde are not tabloids as the Pharmstrong defenders like to portray them..


I had not noticed that newspapers are closing down. Which newspapers are closing down? Perhaps my part of the world is not as badly affected by the current economic "crisis" as the part of the world where you live. 



lookrider said:


> If you're Austrailian, it's pretty funny that your countryman Ashenden would expose himself to a libel action knowing what the law is assuming you're portraying the aviation case accurately...


I am an Australian - note the spelling is not Austra*i*lian. I do not know if Dr Ashenden is Australian or not, nor do I know if he is aware of what Mr Smith did to pursue the person who defamed him on PpRune. I have no idea whether Dr Ashenden has received legal advice on the possible consequences of his public statements, or whether he was indemnified by anyone for his statements, or what risks he might be prepared to take. However, he may well have a more reasonable basis for the statements that he is reported to have made, and hence better defences, than others. 

How is it "funny"? 



lookrider said:


> At any rate Pharmstrong hasn't sued Walsh or Ashenden here, so I'm not exactly quaking in my boots. It would really make my day if Pharmstrong sued a peon like me though...The first thing I'd do if I saw Pharmstrong in court, would be to laugh my a$$ off as I towered over him at my exact height of 5"9.5".
> 
> Look, the guy can't even tell the truth about how tall he is.


How would he establish jurisdiction to sue Walsh in the US. As I understand it, and please correct me if I am incorrect, Walsh's books have not been published in the US. I suspect there might be a very good reason why the book was published outside the US. I also understand, and again correct me if I am wrong, that Lance did commence proceedings in the country that Walsh's books were originally published in.

5'9.5" - Do you need to measure it to the half inch? Must be nice to be such a tall person. You want to laugh off your donkey?



> *BTW, are you Tim Herman?*


No. I have no idea who Tim Herman is.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Balderick said:


> s
> How would he establish jurisdiction to sue Walsh in the US. As I understand it, and please correct me if I am incorrect, Walsh's books have not been published in the US. I suspect there might be a very good reason why the book was published outside the US.
> 
> No. I have no idea who Tim Herman is.


Walsh has published "From Lance to Landis" in the US. No Lawsuits. Smart move as he has lost or gave up all his other useless lawsuits against Walsh

Herman is a guy who is paid to lie for Lance.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*I'll make this simple for you.*



Balderick said:


> No - I am a solicitor. We don't call ourselves "Attorneys" where I live..


Solicitor, Attorney, color, colour, tyre, tire....pretty much the same thing.



Balderick said:


> I have followed the thread just fine, thanks.


Actually, no you haven't.

I asked the rhetorical question to another poster, "Why did the doping lab go to all the trouble to freeze the '99 samples in the first place and then go back and test them in December of 2004? He was saying that no one cared about whether anyone doped 10 years ago. Clearly if the authorities are testing samples 5 years later, and giving Pharmstrong a hard time to this very day, *there are people out there who care a lot.* Pharmstrong clearly wants to keep the fantasy alive that he was and is clean because he knows he'll be ruined if and when it gets out that he's a cheat.

You chose to respond to this rhetorical question this way



Balderick said:


> Foresight? An evil plot to frame Lance Chose one.


a smart aleck answer with no applicability anyway.







Balderick said:


> Great - point to the evidence. There is a difference between knowing something and proving something.


And you're under the delusion that lawyers *prove* things in a court of law. In actuality they're presenting a narrative to an audience and then they're asking for their vote. 



Balderick said:


> So?


Ha! So we'll continue to discuss this stuff any time a poster has the urge to uh post.



Balderick said:


> I am not an "attorney" - I am a solicitor. Spelling was not part of the courses of study for the undergraduate or post graduate law degrees I hold, nor was it a part of any entry requirement set by the Supreme Court.


Good grief! This kind of $hit doesn't even merit a response other than mockery. Do you think if you used ebonics on your exams or your applications, that you would have even been accepted to school?



Balderick said:


> Despite this, I can spell. I do, like many people, make typos from time to time. I do not exercise the same care to typos when posting on a forum as I would, say, in a Court pleading.


Spare me the pedantics. You were the one who was serious about saying I'm vulnerable to a very serious charge of defamation because of what I've written on these forums. It was probably the most important word in the whole post and the whole point of the post(even though your legal opinion is completely incorrect) and you misspelled the word, not accidentally hit the wrong key.




Balderick said:


> There might be debate about which jurisdiction has the more liberal laws concerning defamation. There are public interest defences here as well..


As we've seen many times on these forums and elsewhere, people will debate untenable positions all the time, so what?

At any rate Pharmstrong isn't suing anyone because of what's being written here, nor could he win any such lawsuit.





Balderick said:


> You are correct - I am not American. Amercians do have some interesting adaptions of the Queen's English: "tires" for "tyres", "color" for "colour" etc etc..


Well we all get the idea. Anyway, Americans started this whole thing over here to get away from the idea of a Queen.





Balderick said:


> Getting a bit steamed up there.


Maybe exasperated at the different angles the Pharmstrong apologists will utilize.



Balderick said:


> Not too hard for you, is it?


I must say I am kind of surprised by your secretions of silliness.



Balderick said:


> Are you saying that you hold an honest opinion,


Yes



Balderick said:


> based on proper material,


Yeah, LeMonde is a credible source. Walsh is a credible source. Franky and Betsey Andreu are credible sources. I heard Greg LeMond's tape of Stacey McIlvaine. Steven Swart is a credible source.



Balderick said:


> that Armstrong is a doper and that is an issue of public interest


 Pharmstrong* is* a doper and newspapers and periodicals around the world report on this $hit because it *is* a matter of public interest. What if the guy decides to run for public office. Does the fact he's a fraud have any bearing on the way voters decide?




Balderick said:


> If so, you would have to prove that,


:lol: I have to prove it or what?


Clearly your legal opinion is incorrect as Pharmstrong has been getting hammered on these forums for years with nary a peep from Tim Herman.



Balderick said:


> and I am not sure reading an unspecified book would be regarded "proper material".


It's not just one book.:lol: 



 Balderick said:


> Or are you asserting that Lance is a doper as a statement of fact? if so then Lance probably would have to prove he is not a doper.


It is my opinion based on the facts.




Balderick said:


> Seriously? Prejudices against what?


This is what I wrote. If you would follow the thread I wouldn't have to point this stuff out to you. You wrote the following in a previous post.

_Originally Posted by Balderick
L'Equipe and other media outlets often give their journalists indeminities for the defamatory statements they make, and then use the litigation that follows as another opportunity to legitimately report on the proceedings and so prolong the pain. it is a game, and they sell a shipload of papers from the stories they publish. _

and I responded this way.

_First of all, if this practice could be shown to be true, I'd imagine these media outlets would be opening themselves to potentially ruinous exposure to compensatory and punitive damages. Yes, they can take out insurance for the whole outlet in the event of a lawsuit, but to encourage journalists to commit libel and then "prolong the pain" as you put it, is absolute bs, and betrays your prejudices. I don't know if you've noticed but many newspapers are closing down as it is, and L'Equipe and LeMonde are not tabloids as the Pharmstrong defenders like to portray them._

Your prejudice is that you believe Pharmstrong's bs regarding the operations of the newspapers which have accused him of doping. It's very clear by your above quote, with the assumption that LeMonde is making intentional defamatory statements about Pharmstrong and then profiting off the resulting legal issues. This is known as complete bs, and you have no problem defaming the authors of those stories without a shred of evidence.





Balderick said:


> Yes, I am prejudiced against people, like you, using these forums to slander other people. RBR provides a useful means of communicating with other cyclists, but when (not if) those who operate forums like RBR start getting sued over comments published (and yes, there are some defences available to those who publish forums) then the future of RBR and other forums becomes an issue.


Laughable legal opinion. Tell pharmstrong to make my day and sue me. You don't think his attorney's monitor this stuff? They can't sue and wouldn't if they could because it would be a pyrrhic victory for them if and that's the hugest if in the world, if they won. Google Washington City Paper and Tim Herman (Pharmstrongs lawyer), so you can see the b!tch slap Betsey Andreu put on him on a public forum just like this one.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/01/16/barnum-bailey-davis/



Balderick said:


> Do you read case law? Do you watch TV or read newspapers? There are ample examples where what I describe has occurred.


Cite one similiar case in the U.S..




Balderick said:


> I had not noticed that newspapers are closing down. Which newspapers are closing down? Perhaps my part of the world is not as badly affected by the current economic "crisis" as the part of the world where you live.


Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Some others.

http://www.beaupre.com/blog/index.cfm/2008/11/14/The-great-newspaper-massacre-of-2008

Americans are generally idiots and don't read. That's why Pharmstrong can get away with his BS here.





Balderick said:


> I am an Australian - note the spelling is not Austra*i*lian.


Sorry, misspelled, always get that wrong, however I wasn't accusing you of being Austrailian, like you were accusing me of "defemation" of Armstrong.



Balderick said:


> I do not know if Dr Ashenden is Australian or not,


he is.






Balderick said:


> How is it "funny"?


Odd might have been a better choice of words.





Balderick said:


> How would he establish jurisdiction to sue Walsh in the US. As I understand it, and please correct me if I am incorrect, Walsh's books have not been published in the US.


Your understanding is incorrect. _From Lance to Landis_ was published in the U.S. by Random House of New York.



Balderick said:


> I suspect there might be a very good reason why the book was published outside the US..


Hold on, see above.



Balderick said:


> I also understand, and again correct me if I am wrong, that Lance did commence proceedings in the country that Walsh's books were originally published in...


Yeah, he has a way of commencing things, but not following through. Kinda like the Catlin thing.



Balderick said:


> 5'9.5" - Do you need to measure it to the half inch?...


No, personally I don't give a $hit. It's just to emphasize the point that I'm being exact and that my height is less than Pharmstrongs PR height of 5'10" to 5'11" which is bs. That even at 5'9.5", I'm going to be looking down at his lying a$$, and that this fraud can't even tell the truth about his height.



Balderick said:


> Must be nice to be such a tall person.


It's neither good nor bad. Maybe less than avg. height but now that I think about it, I think a lot of the height self reporting is exaggerated or outright lying. People two inches shorter that I am (Not LA) are saying they're 5'11". It's just ridiculous.



Balderick said:


> You want to laugh off your donkey?


Huh???? 





Balderick said:


> No. I have no idea who Tim Herman is.


He's Pharmstrong's Austin based attorney.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Balderick said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

And I again ask...

If you know he's a cheat, why does it matter if he admits it? You're already smarter than everyone else because you read a book. 

Doesn't it make you proud to be a crusader for a pointless cause?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> And I again ask...
> 
> If you know he's a cheat, why does it matter if he admits it? You're already smarter than everyone else because you read a book.
> 
> Doesn't it make you proud to be a crusader for a pointless cause?


Pointless in your eyes. In the eyes of people who actually care about cycling, and sport in general, it is a big deal.


----------



## r_mutt (Aug 8, 2007)

l.a. confidential was not published in the usa, but from lance to landis has.


----------



## Balderick (Jul 11, 2006)

r_mutt said:


> l.a. confidential was not published in the usa, but from lance to landis has.


Ah - I knew there was something Walsh contributed to that was not published in the US. 

One would have to ask *why* LAC was not published in the US, which you would think would be an interested and therefore significant market given the high profile Lance has in the US. The logical conclusion would be that the risk of publishing in the US was too great - so either the publishers knew it was defamatory (_Is that spelt correctly? I do not know!!! Help Lookrider, I need your help!)_ and were unwilling to take that risk, or the publishers thought that even thought they thought it was not defamatory (_that word I can't spell again - my fragile ego can't take any more of Lookrider's insightful observations _- I_ think he must be some kind of mindreader in addition to being an Attorney at Law and a scientist_) the costs involved in defending a defamation claim were so high that it was not commercially prudent to publish the book in the US.


----------



## Balderick (Jul 11, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> And in relation to LA Confidential, Lance and his legal team also tried to circumvent the publication, and tried to have an insertion of denial into each book. The Judge found in favour of the book,s authors, because under French libel law, no libel is committed if the allegations are made in good faith or if they turn out to be true. The Court ordered Lance to pay costs and fined him 1800 Euro for wasting the court's time, for what it considered an abuse of the legal process.


So, you are saying that the French Court FOUND that the allegations were true, or that they were made in good faith? I'd like to read the actual decision of the Court to see what the recise determination was, and the factual basis for making it. I am not interested in press reports of that decision, or the views of those who are strongly for or against Lance about the meaning of the decision.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*You like to assume and speculate!*



Balderick said:


> Ah - I knew there was something Walsh contributed to that was not published in the US.
> 
> One would have to ask *why* LAC was not published in the US, which you would think would be an interested and therefore significant market given the high profile Lance has in the US. The logical conclusion would be that the risk of publishing in the US was too great - so either the publishers knew it was defamatory (_Is that spelt correctly? I do not know!!! Help Lookrider, I need your help!)_.


The greater concern than your spelling abilities are your powers of logic and reason. Why don't you use google rather than your strategy of making assumptions and building conclusions on assumptions you have no proof of.




Balderick said:


> and were unwilling to take that risk, or the publishers thought that even thought they thought it was not defamatory (_that word I can't spell again - my fragile ego can't take any more of Lookrider's insightful observations _- I_ think he must be some kind of mindreader in addition to being an Attorney at Law and a scientist_) the costs involved in defending a defamation claim were so high that it was not commercially prudent to publish the book in the US.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Ballester

LA Confidentiel was published in 2004. From Lance to Landis was published in the U.S. in 2007. I'm not aware of any lawsuits that have been filed against anyone in connection with the publication of the latter book. Maybe you could inform us all as to what had changed in those 3 years that the publishers deemed the information, contained in the latter book, fit for an American audience.

Please don't dream stuff up. Stick to the facts and not your imagination. 

Thanks.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Balderick said:


> Ah - I knew there was something Walsh contributed to that was not published in the US.
> 
> One would have to ask *why* LAC was not published in the US, which you would think would be an interested and therefore significant market given the high profile Lance has in the US. The logical conclusion would be that the risk of publishing in the US was too great - so either the publishers knew it was defamatory (_Is that spelt correctly? I do not know!!! Help Lookrider, I need your help!)_ and were unwilling to take that risk, or the publishers thought that even thought they thought it was not defamatory (_that word I can't spell again - my fragile ego can't take any more of Lookrider's insightful observations _- I_ think he must be some kind of mindreader in addition to being an Attorney at Law and a scientist_) the costs involved in defending a defamation claim were so high that it was not commercially prudent to publish the book in the US.


In 2004, when LAC was published, the landscape in relation to doping was different to that of 2007, when FLTL was published. The cases of Floyd and Tyler and more and more evidence against Lance did this.
Secondly, ask anyone who has read BOTH books, including myself, and FLTL covers all the details of LAC, but also covers the hospital room in more detail, as well as the IM conversation. FLTL is essentially a more damning book to Lance. It was published without an ounce of trouble.
And finally, have you read EITHER of these two books?
If not, I do not feel you're qualified to comment on them, even allowing for the fact that you're a solicitor.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Balderick said:


> Ah - I knew there was something Walsh contributed to that was not published in the US.
> 
> One would have to ask *why* LAC was not published in the US, which you would think would be an interested and therefore significant market given the high profile Lance has in the US. The logical conclusion would be that the risk of publishing in the US was too great - so either the publishers knew it was defamatory (_Is that spelt correctly? I do not know!!! Help Lookrider, I need your help!)_ and were unwilling to take that risk, or the publishers thought that even thought they thought it was not defamatory (_that word I can't spell again - my fragile ego can't take any more of Lookrider's insightful observations _- I_ think he must be some kind of mindreader in addition to being an Attorney at Law and a scientist_) the costs involved in defending a defamation claim were so high that it was not commercially prudent to publish the book in the US.


BTW, I'm waiting for you to elaborate on your main point, that critics of Pharmstrong on these forums are in danger of being sued for defamation.

Since you are a solicitor, it might be helpful if you cited one case, (more if you're able:lol: :wink: ) that would back up your contention that RBR is in danger of being shut down because of attacks on Pharmstrong's character. 

Good Luck.....


----------



## Balderick (Jul 11, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> In 2004, when LAC was published, the landscape in relation to doping was different to that of 2007, when FLTL was published. The cases of Floyd and Tyler and more and more evidence against Lance did this.
> Secondly, ask anyone who has read BOTH books, including myself, and FLTL covers all the details of LAC, but also covers the hospital room in more detail, as well as the IM conversation. FLTL is essentially a more damning book to Lance. It was published without an ounce of trouble.
> And finally, have you read EITHER of these two books?
> If not, I do not feel you're qualified to comment on them, even allowing for the fact that you're a solicitor.


Thanks. 

On your first point, that makes sense. If there is, as you claim, more evidence in the second book then the chances of defending a defo action in respect of the second book would be greater, and so any commercial risk of publishing less. 

I have not read either of Walsh's books. Why? I am not sure how reading a book written by a journalist gets me any closer to the true facts. I am not sure how asking someone who has read the books helps me either, no disrespect.


----------



## Balderick (Jul 11, 2006)

> The greater concern than your spelling abilities are your powers of logic and reason. Why don't you use google rather than your strategy of making assumptions and building conclusions on assumptions you have no proof of.


Oh no - not only am I hopless at spelling, a key skillset for my profession, but now the other essential skillsets, being logic and reason, are in doubt too. Yes, I should use Google, and it seems Wiki, to answer all the things I don't know in life.




> LA Confidentiel was published in 2004. From Lance to Landis was published in the U.S. in 2007. I'm not aware of any lawsuits that have been filed against anyone in connection with the publication of the latter book. Maybe you could inform us all as to what had changed in those 3 years that the publishers deemed the information, contained in the latter book, fit for an American audience.


Digger28 has put forward, notably in a positive way, some facts (as understood by that person) that might provide the answer. 



> Stick to the facts and not your imagination.


That is my point. Facts are different to opinions. You hold an opinion but dress that up as fact to give it greater importance. I respect your right to have an opinion. Just don;t tell the world it is a fact when it ain't.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Balderick said:


> I have not read either of Walsh's books. Why? I am not sure how reading a book written by a journalist gets me any closer to the true facts. I am not sure how asking someone who has read the books helps me either, no disrespect.


Firstly, do you not think it unfair to be commenting on books you have not even read? If you came on here and said yeah I read the book in question, and then provided specific examples of where you felt the book could be construed as defamatory, we could have the starting point of a rational debate. And if you're not willing to read up on the topic, how do you expect to educate yourself? I've read both Lance books for god sake, then I read everything else, and formulated my opinion.
Over 90% of the people who castigate Walsh, have not even read his work, from the books in question, to his work with the Sunday Times.
And for the record he is a multi award winning journalist who has followed the sport for nearly 30 years. If you are not going to take on board his opinion, without outright derision, then forget it.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Balderick said:


> Why? I am not sure how reading a book written by a journalist gets me any closer to the true facts.


Do you prefer to get your info exclusively from Livestrong press releases?
:idea:


----------



## r_mutt (Aug 8, 2007)

this is pointless if you haven't read the book (s). 

between the book, the ashenden interview, it's pretty damning evidence. end of story.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Balderick said:


> Oh no - not only am I hopless at spelling, a key skillset for my profession, but now the other essential skillsets, being logic and reason, are in doubt too.


Despite spelling being a key skillset for your profession, you previously had this to say:

_Originally Posted by Balderick
Spelling was not part of the courses of study for the undergraduate or post graduate law degrees I hold, nor was it a part of any entry requirement set by the Supreme Court._

I do believe that many of us here recognize that at an undergraduate and graduate level, spelling is not a course unto itself, but I appreciate the clarification. I assume you're trolling by dropping "hopless" in your post.



Balderick said:


> Yes, I should use Google, and it seems Wiki, to answer all the things I don't know in life..


Well, you should be aware of what you don't know, and the resources you mention above, are tools you could use to gain at least some familiarity with subjects you clearly have almost no knowledge of. You can build from there rather than just creating narratives out of whole cloth.





Balderick said:


> Digger28 has put forward, notably in a positive way, some facts (as understood by that person) that might provide the answer.


Yeah, Digger's a positive guy but that may change if you start to intimate that he's "mentally deficient."

_Originally Posted by Balderick
It is a very bold, or mentally deficient person, who makes bold statements like "Lance is a doper" or "Lance is a fraud". If he were so minded, how would these people who are so willing to post their opinions on forums establish crticial defences to defemation like truth? Imagine trying to convince a court that "well, what I said was true because I read it on RBR" or "I think he is a doper because some person said so in an interview"._


Because you have such confidence in your legal expertise as opposed to my opinions based on known facts in the Pharmstrong matter, I'm assuming you don't think I'm bold here.



Balderick said:


> That is my point. Facts are different to opinions. You hold an opinion but dress that up as fact to give it greater importance. I respect your right to have an opinion. Just don;t tell the world it is a fact when it ain't.


You have no idea what's in the books so you don't know whether there is fact or opinion. There are many, many, facts in the books. You do realize that circumstantial evidence can be a very powerful indicator of guilt? Walsh does an amazing job using known facts to create an irresistable argument as to Pharmstrong's guilt.

Let me show you what I mean with some facts basically all cycling fans know. 

Armstrong was extremely mediocre at the TdF, 3 DNF's and one 36th place prior to working with notorious Dr. Ferrari. He's a very average Time Trialist. Then all of a sudden he returns from his 10/96 cancer, places 4th in the Vuelta in the late summer of '98. He shows up at the '99 Tour and is completely untouchable in the TT's and the mountains.

Armstrong gave many reasons for his improvement, such as his supposed weight loss and Walsh attacks those reasons one after another.

What many cycling fans didn't know, or believed from Pharmstrong's lies; that contrary to the propaganda of Pharmstrong's PR machine, LA did not lose the, at least 10lbs and in some cases 20lbs, he claimed to have lost post cancer, it may have been *2 lbs at most.* Walsh uses sworn statements from LA himself and published records from physiologist Ed Coyle to completely obliterate the idea that Pharmstrong lost anything more than 1 kg. *These are facts.*

You wouldn't know about these things because you're above reading the books.

Pharmstrong had been working with Ferrari from the winter of '95/'96. It hadn't even been revealed to the public that LA used Ferrari until about 2001 and LA was evasive in that admission in an interview with Walsh. Even people like Vaughters didn't know of the association until they left Postal. 

Between the two books there are about 600 pages of unchallenged *facts* that add up to a gigantic circumstantial case against Pharmstrong.

As a solicitor, I'm sure you're aware that people get lengthy prison sentences based soley on circumstantial evidence all the time.:idea:


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Balderick said:


> It is a very bold, or mentally deficient person, who makes bold statements like "Lance is a doper" or "Lance is a fraud".


If you haven't followed the sport for long, or if your main sources are cyclingnews, velonews and Livestrong, then this would be a bold statement. But then again this is simply sporting propoganda. I choose to arm myself with as much information as possible first.
And any (sane) person with any semblance of balance or common sense, having seen the relevevant material, listened to the interviews on both sides, could not come away thinking Lance is not a doper and not a fraud. Be it five years, a year or ten years, the truth about him will come out, and people like Greg Lemond, David Walsh, Frankie and Betsy will be vindicated, universally.


----------

