# Armstrong's questionable blood values



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency studies Lance Armstrong's 2009 blood in attempt to convict him as cheater - NY Daily News

Part of USADA's case is Armstrong's wacky blood values. NY daily news does a good job of looking into this. 

What is missing are the complete test results from 2010. Here is a good one

Lance Armstrong 

Hematocrit percentage 44.2
Hemoglobin 15.1 g/dL
Reticulocyte percentage 0.62

That is a over 10% increase in HCT and a 50% decrease in Reticulocyte (new blood cells) When you slam a bag of blood your Hct shoots up and your body stops making new cells. 

Oh, that was right before the Tour of Flanders where lance suddenly found the form he had not show all season


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

One week. That's all it took for the hemoglobin level of the chap in this study to go from 36% to 43% when he went from Copenhagen to La Paz, Bolivia.

http://zuniv.net/pub/AdaptationJPP.pdf

The article you cited mentions that Lance went to Aspen--granted not as high-elevation as La Paz--between tests.

Hemoglobin ramps up rapidly then levels off upon going to altitude. However, after descending it tapers off gradually in a mostly linear fashion.

Point being--I think a lot of what is presumed by biopassport experts is hand waving.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

jorgy said:


> One week. That's all it took for the hemoglobin level of the chap in this study to go from 36% to 43% when he went from Copenhagen to La Paz, Bolivia.
> 
> http://zuniv.net/pub/AdaptationJPP.pdf
> 
> ...





jorgy said:


> Wait. You're a cycling expert, a doping expert, a medical expert and...a lawyer to boot?
> 
> You become less credible with every post you make.





jorgy said:


> Did you hold their hands when they gave their interviews?



Are you a hematologist?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Not to mention that these guys are looking for "normal" physiological responses in the creme de la creme of endurance athletes. 

I'm not impressed by the biological passport.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> Not to mention that these guys are looking for "normal" physiological responses in the creme de la creme of endurance athletes.
> 
> I'm not impressed by the biological passport.





jorgy said:


> Wait. You're a cycling expert, a doping expert, a medical expert and...a lawyer to boot?
> 
> You become less credible with every post you make.


Hematologist?


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

I THINK the article he sourced speaks to your question. I don't believe the OP is a hematologist either.
I'm sure this case will bring blood experts from everywhere.

Did you see LA has a congressman asking about funding of USADA and it's use of those funds in relation to this case. It's getting interesting.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Chris-X said:


> Hematologist?


I don't claim to be an expert. I don't need to be an expert to offer my opinion: The biological passport doesn't seem to be the best way to detect doping. My reason for believing this is in the post you quoted. 

It's completely fair for me to say that I am not impressed by X, Y, or Z. I need no expertise. 

Next, I'm not challenging the authority of posters, unless they use a "take my word for it" approach. That was jorgy who challenged falsetti. 

Now I can't speak for jorgy. But it seems that what he really challenged is falsetti's absolutist approach. Falsetti is claiming to know the absolute right and wrong on several issues. So it is fair for jorgy to challenge falsetti's purported expertise over the varied fields. Maybe I missed something in their exchange. I wasn't paying the most attention to their discussion. To be honest, I'm not sure why you included my quote with jorgy's quote. There's no need to drag me into their discussion. 

Chris X - Are you just trolling these threads or what? 

Even if you aren't trolling and this is your idea of a constructive exchange, tone it down with me. I get bored easily.


----------



## CHL (Jun 24, 2005)

Not that I would defend Lance Armstrong but we're three years removed from when these blood values were taken. If they were so suspicious, why did USADA fail to act in a more timely manner? Do the results of the Biological Passport have to be examined over a period of time extending over multiple years?

Also, how does it establish a base line or what would be considered normal for the individual since they're looking for outlying values. I'm not debating its merits, just trying to understand its process.

Thanks,
C.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The USADA didn't have the data, the UCI did.


----------



## erj549 (Jul 26, 2008)

I'm not a hematologist, but I play one on TV. I think the real issue here is that hematocrit went up substantially in the course of a week or two, while at the same time the reticulocyte percentage decreased substantially. My understanding of this is that you can't increase hematocrit without the production of new blood cells unless you're having old blood cells transfused. Does that sound right?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jorgy said:


> One week. That's all it took for the hemoglobin level of the chap in this study to go from 36% to 43% when he went from Copenhagen to La Paz, Bolivia.
> 
> http://zuniv.net/pub/AdaptationJPP.pdf
> 
> ...


Wrong again

Do you know what the Reticulocyte level is? It is the measurement of new blood cells. If the Hct increase was from going to altitude Lance's Recticulocyte level would have spiked up as he body worked to make new blood cells to increase his Hct.....Lance's *dropped* by 50%. Movement like that comes from infusing a bag of blood, not altitude.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

CHL said:


> Not that I would defend Lance Armstrong but we're three years removed from when these blood values were taken. If they were so suspicious, why did USADA fail to act in a more timely manner? Do the results of the Biological Passport have to be examined over a period of time extending over multiple years?
> 
> Also, how does it establish a base line or what would be considered normal for the individual since they're looking for outlying values. I'm not debating its merits, just trying to understand its process.
> 
> ...


Good question. 

Because the UCI did not share lance's Biopassort results with WADA for 2 years. The just got them January of this year.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

erj549 said:


> I'm not a hematologist, but I play one on TV. I think the real issue here is that hematocrit went up substantially in the course of a week or two, while at the same time the reticulocyte percentage decreased substantially. My understanding of this is that you can't increase hematocrit without the production of new blood cells unless you're having old blood cells transfused. Does that sound right?


That's the assumption. Problem is, there aren't a lot of data out there to test whether that assumption is valid. It's a reasonable assumption. But it's not uncommon in science for reasonable assumptions to be invalidated.

I haven't read the whole paper, but this review came out last year.

Here's an interesting statement from the abstract: 
_*Reticulocytes are also decreased after long periods of training and competitions, but their variation is not necessarily associated with that of Hb. *_


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

jorgy said:


> That's the assumption. Problem is, there aren't a lot of data out there to test whether that assumption is valid. It's a reasonable assumption. But it's not uncommon in science for reasonable assumptions to be invalidated.
> 
> I haven't read the whole paper, but this review came out last year.
> 
> ...


Well at least from the abstract they seem to be talking about both Hct and Retics decreasing. I think the key point here is Hct increased a good bit while retics decreased a good bit. Maybe there could be some explanation but I wouldn't think it would be altitude. 

After all how do you get more red blood cells while new red blood cells are decreasing. I've never read anything about altitude doing something like prolonging the life of RBCs.

Occam's razor would seem to dictate, given the situation, packing in a bunch of your old RBCs.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

The use of reticulocytes for detecting doping is still a subject of much study. It doesn't appear to be quite the done deal you think it is.

Stability of haematological parameters and its re... [Sports Med. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
There are some parameters that are highly stable, such as haemoglobin and erythrocytes (red blood cells [RBCs]), whereas others, (e.g. reticulocytes, mean RBC volume and haematocrit) appear less stable. Regardless of the methodology, the stability of haematological parameters is improved by sample refrigeration. The stability of all parameters is highly affected from high storage temperatures, whereas the stability of RBCs and haematocrit is affected by initial freezing followed by refrigeration. Transport and rotation of tubes do not substantially influence any haematological parameter except for reticulocytes.

There are some parameters that are highly stable, such as haemoglobin and RBCs; whereas others, such as reticulocytes, mean cell volume and haematocrit are more unstable. The stability of haematological parameters might be improved independently from the analytical methodology, by refrigeration of the specimens.


Reticulocytes in sports medicine. [Sports Med. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
The importance of reticulocytes in sports medicine derives from their sensitivity, the highest among haematology parameters, in identifying the bone marrow stimulation, especially when recombinant human erythropoietin is fraudulently used. Automated systems are also able to supply information on volume, density and the haemoglobin content of reticulocytes. Some of the related parameters are also used in algorithms for identifying abnormal stimulation of bone marrow as reticulocytes haematocrit. The pre-analytical variability of reticulocytes (transportation, storage, biological variability) should be taken into account in sports medicine also. Reticulocytes remain stable for almost 24 hours at 4 degrees C from blood drawing, they are affected by transportation, and biological variability is not high in general. It could be remarked, however, that the intra-individual variability is high when compared with other haematological parameters such as haemoglobin and haematocrit. The intervals of data reported in athletes are very similar to reference intervals characterizing the general population.The reticulocyte count shows some modifications after training and during the competition season. The variability induced by exercise cannot be overlooked since the so-called haematological passport, a personal athlete's document in which haemoglobin and other parameters are registered, may be introduced by sports federations. Exposure to naturally high altitude and 'living high-training low' programmes determined contentious results on reticulocytes. Simulated high altitude induced by intermittent hypobaric hypoxia does not modify reticulocytes, despite an increase in erythropoietin serum concentration. The variability among athletes competing in different sport disciplines is apparently limited. The knowledge of the behaviour of reticulocytes in training and competitions is crucial for defining their role in an antidoping control context. It is important for sport physicians and clinical pathologists to know the reticulocyte variability in the general population and in athletes, the pre-analytical warnings, the different methodologies for counting reticulocytes and the derived parameters automatically available, and, finally, the possible influence of training, competitions, type of sport and altitude.


Reticulocyte and haemoglobin profiles in e... [Int J Lab Hematol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
The World Anti-Doping Agency has implemented the Blood Passport in attempt to detect blood doping in athletes. The Blood Passport looks for uncommon changes overtime in reticulocytes percentage (Ret %), as a variable of the OFF-hr score, and haemoglobin concentration ([Hb]) reflecting potential doping violations. Few studies, however, have actually investigated the concurrent stability of Ret % and [Hb] in athletes over extended periods of time, none of which were measured in athletes who undergo strenuous and prolonged physical exercise.

Measurements of Ret % and [Hb] were assessed over the course of four competitive seasons in elite triathletes (10 males and seven female). Blood was obtained at the start of the season, precompetitive period, competitive period and at the end of the competitive period.

Differences (P<0.001) were observed in both [Hb] and Ret % between genders and there was a high variability between subjects. Neither males nor females exhibited differences in [Hb] across all periods within one season. Within gender, analysis revealed that Ret % varied significantly (P=0.0018) between periods only in female athletes.

We conclude that Ret % and [Hb] remain stable over four consecutive seasons in elite triathletes, confirming that both parameters are valid for antidoping purposes based on the Blood Passport. In addition, Ret % fluctuations within one season require further investigation in females.


Behaviour of reticulocyte counts and immat... [Int J Lab Hematol. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
The role of reticulocytes (Ret) in sports medicine became important when the count of immature erythrocytes has been introduced in protocols used and officially approved for antidoping purposes. The use of modern automated analysers, which allow the easy count and the description of characteristics of reticulocytes, increased the possible use of these parameters in sports medicine. We studied the behaviour of Ret and immature reticulocyte fraction (IRF) in top-level athletes practising rugby, ski, soccer and cyclism, throughout a competitive season. We aimed at increasing the knowledge of physiological characteristics of these sportsmen and supplying valuable suggestions to trainers and sports physicians. We observed a stability of Ret counts, also during training and competitions, although some modifications, namely decrease during competitions periods in cyclists, and in rugby and soccer players, occurred. No significant correlation was found between Ret count and Hb in each sport discipline. IRF values tend to be high in athletes owing to continuous bone marrow stimulation linked to haemolysis, typical of sports activities. We confirm the validity of the use of Ret counts for antidoping purposes and also for evaluating health status and iron metabolism of sportsmen.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well at least from the abstract they seem to be talking about both Hct and Retics decreasing. I think the key point here is Hct increased a good bit while retics decreased a good bit. Maybe there could be some explanation but I wouldn't think it would be altitude.
> 
> After all how do you get more red blood cells while new red blood cells are decreasing. I've never read anything about altitude doing something like prolonging the life of RBCs.
> 
> Occam's razor would seem to dictate, given the situation, packing in a bunch of your old RBCs.


There's more in my response to Falsetti above but this is an excerpt from one of the articles I found: *Exposure to naturally high altitude and 'living high-training low' programmes determined contentious results on reticulocytes.*

Now maybe, just maybe, Armstrong is so far out there in doping technology he's been advised to have a high-altitude base to provide a plausible explanation for his 'wacky' blood values.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Now I'll ask,*



jorgy said:


> One week. That's all it took for the hemoglobin level of the chap in this study to go from 36% to 43% when he went from Copenhagen to La Paz, Bolivia.
> 
> http://zuniv.net/pub/AdaptationJPP.pdf
> 
> ...





jorgy said:


> The use of reticulocytes for detecting doping is still a subject of much study. *It doesn't appear to be quite the done deal you think it is.*
> 
> Stability of haematological parameters and its re... [Sports Med. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
> There are some parameters that are highly stable, such as haemoglobin and erythrocytes (red blood cells [RBCs]), whereas others, (e.g. reticulocytes, mean RBC volume and haematocrit) appear less stable. Regardless of the methodology, the stability of haematological parameters is improved by sample refrigeration. The stability of all parameters is highly affected from high storage temperatures, whereas the stability of RBCs and haematocrit is affected by initial freezing followed by refrigeration. Transport and rotation of tubes do not substantially influence any haematological parameter except for reticulocytes.
> ...


what do you think now? What does "conclude" mean?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21707935

INTRODUCTION: 

*The World Anti-Doping Agency has implemented the Blood Passport in attempt to detect blood doping in athletes.* The Blood Passport looks for uncommon changes overtime in reticulocytes percentage (Ret %), as a variable of the OFF-hr score, and haemoglobin concentration ([Hb]) reflecting potential doping violations. *Few studies, however, have actually investigated the concurrent stability of Ret % and [Hb] in athletes over extended periods of time, none of which were measured in athletes who undergo strenuous and prolonged physical exercise.*


CONCLUSION: 

*We conclude that Ret % and [Hb] remain stable over four consecutive seasons in elite triathletes, confirming that both parameters are valid for antidoping purposes based on the Blood Passport.* In addition, Ret % fluctuations within one season require further investigation in females.

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

This came out in Dec of 2011. Most of the authors are the same ones you've cited in all of these studies so it seems they've been on the case.

I don't know of any of us here are hematologists??? Do you disagree with the conclusions of the latest research of this team of experts who've been researching this for a number of years?



jorgy said:


> Wait. You're a cycling expert, a doping expert, a medical expert and...a lawyer to boot?
> 
> *You become less credible with every post you make*.



http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-legal-scientific.html


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

jorgy said:


> There's more in my response to Falsetti above but this is an excerpt from one of the articles I found: *Exposure to naturally high altitude and 'living high-training low' programmes determined contentious results on reticulocytes.*
> 
> Now maybe, just maybe, Armstrong is so far out there in doping technology he's been advised to have a high-altitude base to provide a plausible explanation for his 'wacky' blood values.


Sure maybe there could be a natural explanation...Armstrong could be unusual, etc.

But again Occam's razor would be he's normal and was transfusing blood especially when you consider there appear to be a number of people who are going to testify they have first hand knowledge of him doing it, he paid a hematologist who is banned from cycling for his doping practices, etc.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jorgy said:


> The use of reticulocytes for detecting doping is still a subject of much study. It doesn't appear to be quite the done deal you think it is.
> 
> Stability of haematological parameters and its re... [Sports Med. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
> There are some parameters that are highly stable, such as haemoglobin and erythrocytes (red blood cells [RBCs]), whereas others, (e.g. reticulocytes, mean RBC volume and haematocrit) appear less stable. Regardless of the methodology, the stability of haematological parameters is improved by sample refrigeration. The stability of all parameters is highly affected from high storage temperatures, whereas the stability of RBCs and haematocrit is affected by initial freezing followed by refrigeration. Transport and rotation of tubes do not substantially influence any haematological parameter except for reticulocytes.
> ...


I applaud your ability to cut and paste but if you read those studies none of them support your theory that Armstrong going to Aspen resulted in a spike in Hct and a drop in Rect

Let us know when you find something applicable

Thanks


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> Not to mention that these guys are looking for* "normal" *physiological responses in the *creme de la creme *of endurance athletes.
> 
> *I'm not impressed by the biological passport*.


crème de la crème French [krɛm də la krɛm]
n
*the very best*
[literally: cream of the cream]


Elite e·lite/iˈlēt/

Noun:

1.A *group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or category*, esp. because of their power, *talent*, or wealth

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21707935

Reticulocyte and haemoglobin profiles in *elite triathletes* over four consecutive seasons

CONCLUSION: 

We conclude that Ret % and [Hb] remain stable over four consecutive seasons in *elite* triathletes, *confirming that both parameters are valid* for antidoping purposes based on the Blood Passport.

Are you disputing the conclusions of the experts?

At what point do you stop arguing?

Is the world flat?

Are you trolling or do you really think Armstrong is clean?


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Just trying to present balanced information. Crazy, I know. ut:



Chris-X said:


> what do you think now? What does "conclude" mean?
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21707935
> 
> ...


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

I don't deal much in hematology specifics, so maybe everyone can clue me in.

In what time frame do you expect reticulocyte counts to change? 

For example, if I go to elevation and train. I expect my reticulocyte count to go up, over a period of time (1-2 months), I expect a significant increase in my Hgb and Hct (expecting changes based on my level of hydration/plasma volume). Now, let's say I travel back to sea level. Obviously, my reticulocyte count will begin to decline as my body senses that my oxygen delivery is more than optimized with the increased inspired oxygen (at sea level). My body now begins to adjust and stop producing as many RBCs. How fast does my rectic count drop?

Basically, I'm asking for the time frame in which I could increase my Hgb/Hct, but still have a drop in my reticulocyte count. 

This is just me thinking about this from a physiologic standpoint. I'm not taking any sides.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> But again Occam's razor would be he's normal and was transfusing blood especially when you consider there appear to be a number of people who are going to testify they have first hand knowledge of him doing it, he paid a hematologist who is banned from cycling for his doping practices, etc.


Make no mistake, I think it is a lot more likely than not that Armstrong doped, although I am far less sure about doping during his comeback.

But few really know who testified and what they actually said. I've been mystified by how Tygart has handled things; it's almost as if he's trying to destroy USADA from within. The whole six months ban in exchange for testimony rumor didn't do the agency any favors. Neither did leaking the letter to the Washington Post even before it's sent to Armstong, et al. Nor using a clause in the code to not give the name of witnesses to Armstrong. And I do realize there is an incredible amount of spin from both sides.

To an outside observer the process seems very opaque, which is counter to how many Americans think justice should be obtained and served.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

jorgy said:


> Just trying to present balanced information. Crazy, I know. ut:





jorgy said:


> One week. That's all it took for the hemoglobin level of the chap in this study to go from 36% to 43% when he went from Copenhagen to La Paz, Bolivia.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Point being--I think a lot of what is presumed by biopassport experts is hand waving.





jorgy said:


> Wait. You're a cycling expert, a doping expert, a medical expert and...a lawyer to boot?
> 
> You become less credible with every post you make.





jorgy said:


> The use of reticulocytes for detecting doping is still a subject of much study. It doesn't appear to be quite the done deal you think it is..


But the studies you cite by the same authors of each of your cited studies say it is a "done deal" and the authors have come to this conclusion after studying the subject from before the introduction of the bio passport up till the present day.

We conclude that Ret % and [Hb] remain stable over four consecutive seasons in elite triathletes, confirming that both parameters are valid for antidoping purposes based on the Blood Passport



jorgy said:


> Did you hold their hands when they gave their interviews?


So you're questioning the credibility of another poster, mocking that poster, citing research that proves that posters point, and now when you have been shown to be wrong you are....



jorgy said:


> Just trying to present balanced information. Crazy, I know. ut:



Not for nothing, that is kind of ut::crazy: .

My question to you is, when do you stop making arguments?


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

SicBith said:


> Did you see LA has a congressman asking about funding of USADA and it's use of those funds in relation to this case. It's getting interesting.


No, I didn't see that. Gotta link?

I was thinking that something like this might happen at some point.

USADA is government funded (in large part).

LA dabbled in Texas politics. That means he had friends in the party of his choice. Safe to say he still does (going for an MTB with a former President can go a long ways). Those friends may have plans for LA that these USADA procedings could jeapordize. Solution: pressure USADA by threatening funding. The people at USADA probably like having a job. Keeping that job might be a bit more important than busting LA.

LA walks.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Samadhi said:


> No, I didn't see that. Gotta link?
> 
> I was thinking that something like this might happen at some point.
> 
> ...


He figured Armstrong should get something for the yellow jersey hanging on his office wall and he has to earn his cut of the 2013 Trek line. Don't let it be said he doesn't bring home the bacon although I'm sure he's eating a fair share of it.

http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/District/zip_code.htm

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/it...ce-of-drug-control-policy-about-lance-armstro

He forgot he had done this before. 

http://www.withoutthejuice.com/act-congress-stop-steroids/

http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/news03312004.htm


----------



## gobes (Sep 12, 2006)

jorgy said:


> But few really know who testified and what they actually said. I've been mystified by how Tygart has handled things; it's almost as if he's trying to destroy USADA from within. The whole six months ban in exchange for testimony rumor didn't do the agency any favors.


You think USADA leaked that??? More likely leaked by Bruyneel.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

jorgy said:


> *Make no mistake,]* I think it is a lot more likely than not that Armstrong doped, although I am far less sure about doping during his comeback.
> 
> But few really know who testified and what they actually said. I've been mystified by how Tygart has handled things; it's almost as if he's trying to destroy USADA from within. The whole six months ban in exchange for testimony rumor didn't do the agency any favors. Neither did leaking the letter to the Washington Post even before it's sent to Armstong, et al. Nor using a clause in the code to not give the name of witnesses to Armstrong. And I do realize there is an incredible amount of spin from both sides.
> 
> To an outside observer the process seems very opaque, which is counter to how many Americans think justice should be obtained and served.


You mean because you're doing everything you can to obfuscate?

After the USADA process is done Armstrong will have all the access to due process he wants.

He's currently suspended pending the outcome of the investigation and you know that.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

If I may interject, Aspen is at about 2400 meters, La Paz at about 3800 meters (more than 4000 meters at the airport). I've been to La Paz many times--there is no comparison between the demands on your circulatory system at those two elevations. Mean atmospheric pressure in La Paz is around 80-85% what it is in Aspen.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jorgy said:


> I've been mystified by how Tygart has handled things; it's almost as if he's trying to destroy USADA from within. The whole six months ban in exchange for testimony rumor didn't do the agency any favors. Neither did leaking the letter to the Washington Post even before it's sent to Armstong, et al. Nor using a clause in the code to not give the name of witnesses to Armstrong. And I do realize there is an incredible amount of spin from both sides.


Wrong again, on all counts.

Nobody has been given a 6 month ban. That was a story invented by Armstrong and denied by all involved. 

USADA did not leak any letter to the Washington Post, it came from Armstrong. USADA only released the letter after it had been delivered to Armstrong and HE had pushed the investigation into the public domain in a failed attempt to shape the narrative. 

Armstrong gets access to all evidence and is allowed to cross examine witnesses. He knows this but it does he prefers to lie as it helps his smoke and mirror campaign


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Who else thinks that USADA's budget is going to run out?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Local Hero said:


> Who else thinks that USADA's budget is going to run out?


Because trek called their relatively impotent Representative and he sent a sternly worded letter with no oversight authority? Yeah, I don't think they have budget worries.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

No. 

Because...how much of their $13,7mil budget have they spent so far and how much is left?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> No.
> 
> Because...how much of their $13,7mil budget have they spent so far and how much is left?


Taking some statements, Writing some letters. The big money is not yet spent. 

Hopefully Armstrong does not continue to waste taxpayer money and just takes the sanction


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Local Hero said:


> No.
> 
> Because...how much of their $13,7mil budget have they spent so far and how much is left?


I have no clue but presumably they're using largely staff resources that have already been budgeted. The idea they're going to somehow run out of cash midstream and throw up their hands seems more than a little far-fetched.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Taking some statements, Writing some letters. The big money is not yet spent.
> 
> Hopefully Armstrong does not continue to waste taxpayer money and just takes the sanction


I thought he had stopped fighting.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

david loving said:


> i thought he had stopped fighting.


lol!!!


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> U.S. Anti-Doping Agency studies Lance Armstrong's 2009 blood in attempt to convict him as cheater - NY Daily News
> 
> Part of USADA's case is Armstrong's wacky blood values. NY daily news does a good job of looking into this.
> 
> ...


I don't see a 50% decrease in retic from the dates you selected.

Also, I wouldn't get TOO hung up on a hct of 45.7. Although it's on the high side for Armstrong, it's still a completey normal value for the male population (despite the author's claim). Mine is over 45 and I'm no doper.

There are too many variables, analytical and preanalytical, to think there is a smoking gun in these numbers. I don't see any. If it were obvious it would be out already. There's not. 

On the day he had a hct of 45.7 his hgb was 16.0. On Aug 12 his hgb was 16.1, but his hct was 43.8. The difference is the MCV. HCT is a calculation between RBC and MCV. It's not unreasonable to think that if you take all kinds of results from varying labs that you are going to have variation. Heck, we have one machine that utilizes two probes for sample entry and the bias for each probe needs to be accounted for. That's on the same machine in the same lab with fresh samples from the floor. Imagine comparing samples in La to ones in Italy that were transported via airplane with some delay. 

Also, all those retic results are pretty low, or at least within the normal range. Heck, I think retic maturation is only a few short days. 

I also don't understand why they don't provide the RDW. That would be fun to throw into the mix


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)




----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

All Armstrong needs to cast doubt on this biological passport data is a few studies showing an alternate explanation for this variation. One such study has already been posted. 

He also needs a few experts who disagree. The experts will come. 


Don't believe that the USADA bio passport evidence will get destroyed? I'm not going to make any bets, but I've seen a guy on trial for a DUI with a .15 BAC get acquitted.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Local Hero said:


> All Armstrong needs to cast doubt on this biological passport data is a few studies showing an alternate explanation for this variation. One such study has already been posted.
> 
> He also needs a few experts who disagree. The experts will come.
> 
> ...


Were there 10+ guys who testified that they saw him getting ****-faced before he blew that .15 BAC?

Remember this is an arbitration process, not a bunch of rubes on a jury that are going to decide this, which is why Armstrong is trying like hell to avoid it.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Oh yeah? Well, I got a Senator. Nana nana boo boo!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/senator-mccain-backs-usada-investigation-into-armstrong


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

pretender said:


>


Without an accurate description of how fast reticulocyte count can change in response to variations in oxygen delivery, changes in variables are difficult to interpret.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

jspharmd said:


> Without an accurate description of how fast reticulocyte count can change in response to variations in oxygen delivery, changes in variables are difficult to interpret.


I think I read somewhere that EPO production increases when in a "hypoxic" environment within 3-4 days. Retics themselves finish maturation within 24-48 hours when in circulation, and mean life of an RBC is 180 days. 

Usually a "significant increase" in retic % is desired to show a proper response. There is nothing really significant in those results. Although, it's not a sign that he didn't dope, it's just not much to go on in those numbers.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Local Hero said:


> All Armstrong needs to cast doubt ...


Are you under the mistaken belief that the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt? The standard is preponderance of the evidence. Roughly speaking if it is more likely than not that the charges are true, the arbitrators wlil find against him.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> I don't see a 50% decrease in retic from the dates you selected.
> 
> Also, I wouldn't get TOO hung up on a hct of 45.7. Although it's on the high side for Armstrong, it's still a completey normal value for the male population (despite the author's claim). Mine is over 45 and I'm no doper.
> 
> ...


It appears you do not understand this topic. What is normal for a random person is not important. What matters is what is normal for Armstrong. 

Clearly Armstrong had a quick spike in Hct with a huge drop in Ret. No matter how you spin it that is what the figures show. Experts will show this likely came through a bag of blood..... especially when they have a witness that will say " on this day I saw Armstrong transfuse".


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears you do not understand this topic. What is normal for a random person is not important. What matters is what is normal for Armstrong.
> 
> Clearly Armstrong had a quick spike in Hct with a huge drop in Ret. No matter how you spin it that is what the figures show. Experts will show this likely came through a bag of blood..... especially when they have a witness that will say " on this day I saw Armstrong transfuse".


I'm well aware of abnormal normals. It's apparent you don't know how the tests are performed and what analytical and preanalytical variables are involved.

FYI, the variations you are describing would be known as delta checks.....abnormal fluctuations within the same patient within a certain amount of time. Do you know if Armstrong failed any?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Clearly Armstrong had a quick spike in Hct with a huge drop in Ret. No matter how you spin it that is what the figures show.


Specifically, the off-score jumps from ~75 in early 6/09 to 115-118 in mid 6/09. From 10/08-6/09 off-score was never above 100.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> I'm well aware of abnormal normals. It's apparent you don't know how the tests are performed and what analytical and preanalytical variables are involved.
> 
> FYI, the variations you are describing would be known as delta checks.....abnormal fluctuations within the same patient within a certain amount of time. Do you know if Armstrong failed any?


I am very aware of how the testing works, you clearly are not. 

Yes, Armstrong failed. That is why his abnormal blood values are part of his USADA sanction.


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

Bah stop defending with nonsense, can't stand this fanboys


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> U.S. Anti-Doping Agency studies Lance Armstrong's 2009 blood in attempt to convict him as cheater - NY Daily News
> 
> Part of USADA's case is Armstrong's wacky blood values. NY daily news does a good job of looking into this.
> 
> ...


Rheologic studies I have previously read shows that hematocrit values actually DROP by long and strenuous excercise, it doesn't increase. Though this might seem counter-productive with respect to increasing performance, it might be a protective measure to counter high viscosity of blood and thus increased work by the heart at rest. 
With that in mind, it seems logical that Armstrongs hematocrit would drop at the end of a hard Giro, and increase whilst resting. 
The split between hct increase and reticulocyte decrease is pointing towards blood bags, not debating that.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> All Armstrong needs to cast doubt on this biological passport data is a few studies showing an alternate explanation for this variation. One such study has already been posted.
> 
> He also needs a few experts who disagree. The experts will come.
> 
> ...


You clearly have absolutely no understanding that ALL scientific laws are provisional. Facile arguments made to laymen who have no comprehension of the previous sentence can work, but these specious arguments are 100% spurious and often intentionally so.

I intentionally made that sentence difficult to comprehend because IMHO as an attorney you need to know the difference between convincing an unsophisticated person what's true and real and knowing for yourself what is real. In laymen's terms I think you're starting to believe your own bs.

The issue isn't whether the bio passport evidence gets "destroyed" or not, thus breaking some imaginary chain of evidence in your head which then invalidates the whole case.

Scientifically everything is based on probabilities. Should the blood values alone lead to Armstrong being sanctioned? Probably not.

This evidence in conjunction with all of the other evidence leads to an irresistible conclusion that Armstrong is guilty.

Irresistible to those who are grounded in what it means to "prove" something.



Dwayne Barry said:


> Were there *10+ guys who testified* that they saw him getting ****-faced before he blew that .15 BAC?
> 
> Remember this is an *arbitration process, not a bunch of rubes on a jury *that are going to decide this, which is why Armstrong is trying like hell to avoid it.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am very aware of how the testing works, you clearly are not.
> 
> Yes, Armstrong failed. That is why his abnormal blood values are part of his USADA sanction.


Well then, why don't you tell me how the testing works? Clearly I've never analyzed blood before.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

88 rex said:


> Well then, why don't you tell me how the testing works? Clearly I've never analyzed blood before.


Since this is your field, and you may in fact be an expert regarding some of these issues, why not explain whether, these blood values either, add to, detract from, or are ambiguous regarding, a case against Armstrong.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Without reasoning, probabilities, rationalization and rhetoric what do the tests prove? anything conclusive? Please explain! I'm not a scientist, I'm just interested in pro cycling moving out of the pro-wrestling category.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

David Loving said:


> Without reasoning, probabilities, rationalization and rhetoric what do the tests prove? anything conclusive? Please explain! I'm not a scientist, I'm just interested in pro cycling moving out of the pro-wrestling category.


it is really rather simple. 

When you infuse a bag of blood your body sees that it does not need to produce any new red blood cells as it already has more then it needs. The causes the rct to drop while Hct increases. This is what happened with Lance right before the Tour of Flanders. His off score was 112. Normal is 85-90

If a rider was to go to altitude the body would try to adapt by producing new RBC thus leading to a spike in both. This is not what happened with Lance. The "Altitude" theory is just obfuscation.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Chris-X said:


> IMHO as an attorney you need to know the difference between convincing an unsophisticated person what's true and real and knowing for yourself what is real.


I never said that I'm an attorney. It's weird that you're acting like you know me. You don't know me. There's no need to badger me, ask my motivation, or act like you know me. We are not enemies and we are not friends. I'm just some guy on a message board who has a contrary point of view. 

I'm going to go ahead and put you on ignore.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> it is really rather simple.
> 
> When you infuse a bag of blood your body sees that it does not need to produce any new red blood cells as it already has more then it needs. The causes the rct to drop while Hct increases. This is what happened with Lance right before the Tour of Flanders. His off score was 112. Normal is 85-90
> 
> If a rider was to go to altitude the body would try to adapt by producing new RBC thus leading to a spike in both. This is not what happened with Lance. The "Altitude" theory is just obfuscation.


It's almost as if you know just enough to be somewhat dangerous with this info, but you really don't know how this stuff works. 

The Tour of Flanders is in early April. Armstrong threw an off-score of 112 in June of 2009. So we can clearly confirm that your claim about Flanders is FALSE. In fact, on April 3rd, 2010...the day before the Tour of Flanders, he had an off-score of 70.6. Oddly, this is also one of the dates he threw one of his highest retic% values at 1.3%. Off-scores in themselves are not set in stone nor do I think everyone is in agreement on how to interpret them. I read somewhere, don't recall where, that around 130 and higher is an indicator of doping. 

Did you read the pdf? Do you know what you're actually looking at or are you repeating talking points that you heard from somebody that they heard from somebody? 

I think it's pretty clear that he didn't "slam" a unit of cells. A whole unit might be a little more obvious. You've claimed in the past that they only do partial units, or a third of a unit. Generally 1 unit of PRBC's raises the hgb by 1, or roughly (very roughly) the hct by 3%. It would hardly be a spike with a partial unit, and it probably wouldn't do all that much to the retic, especially at such low levels. And retic production doesn't just "stop." You are always replacing cells for various reasons.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

David Loving said:


> Without reasoning, probabilities, rationalization and rhetoric what do the tests prove? anything conclusive? Please explain! I'm not a scientist, I'm just interested in pro cycling moving out of the pro-wrestling category.


Based off the pdf in that link, I'd say it would be pretty easy to present reasonable scenarios to counter any claim against Armstrong based on those numbers. Whatever the testimony from the claimed 10 riders says is probably going to be far more damning. Landis did a pretty good job explaining how he/they/everyone passed the bio-passport. Heck, he claims that before he got his own analyzer he was counting retics manually. It's pretty simple, yet somewhat inaccurate......and it's annoying to do.

This pdf, by itself is just meh. It would be interesting to see his epo numbers in correlation with these CBC's. It would also be nice to know where each sample was tested. It also would be nice to know what other riders numbers looked like on that same day just to compare whether it's analyzer or rider that's fluctuating. If I'm Armstrongs attorney's I'd want all the data....calibrations, correlations, QC, surveys, etc for each analyzer used. 

My personal thoughts are that he was more than likely doping during his long stretch of wins. His post retirement racing, I'm not so sure. 



Local Hero said:


> I'm going to go ahead and put you on ignore.


It's nice to not see those poasts. Go for it. :thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> I never said that I'm an attorney. It's weird that you're acting like you know me. You don't know me. There's no need to badger me, ask my motivation, or act like you know me. We are not enemies and we are not friends. I'm just some guy on a message board who has a contrary point of view.
> 
> I'm going to go ahead and put you on ignore.


I'm not acting like anything. Your posts lead me to believe you were an attorney and it appeared you wanted to convey that impression..

Contrary point of view? You're arguing that Armstrong is guilty yet it can be argued in some type of legalistic way he's not. That's the "substance" of your posts. 

I never asked your motivation either although I find it extraordinarily odd that people are arguing all kinds of technicalities to get an obviously guilty guy off?

WTF can be the motivation for that? 

I don't know you, I don't want to know you. You were the one who was dismissive and nasty initially with me and now you're playing this game about..."I'm going to ignore you"...Whatever.

You do whatever you have to do and I'll do what I have to do. I couldn't care one way or the other.



tricycletalent said:


> She gave you a covert compliment.
> 
> You explained in detail your pedigree, showing how proud you are of yourself, and how much you dig yourself, AND need to boast.
> 
> You're a douche.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> It's almost as if you know just enough to be somewhat dangerous with this info, but you really don't know how this stuff works.
> 
> The Tour of Flanders is in early April. Armstrong threw an off-score of 112 in June of 2009. So we can clearly confirm that your claim about Flanders is FALSE. In fact, on April 3rd, 2010...the day before the Tour of Flanders, he had an off-score of 70.6. Oddly, this is also one of the dates he threw one of his highest retic% values at 1.3%. Off-scores in themselves are not set in stone nor do I think everyone is in agreement on how to interpret them. I read somewhere, don't recall where, that around 130 and higher is an indicator of doping.
> 
> ...


When the NYDN received the figures Nate posted them first on his Twitter account. He wrote



> NYDN Sports I-Team ‏@NYDNSportsITeam
> Lance Armstrong 03/19/2010 sample: Hematocrit percentage 44.2...Hemoglobin 15.1 g/dL...Reticulocyte percentage 0.62


This is what I based what I wrote. 

I never wrote anything about slamming a "Unit of blood" or that Retic production "Stops" but if that helps you cloud then fact that Armstrong is a doper then please continue to pretend that USADA has nothing on him.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Based off the pdf in that link,* I'd say it would be pretty easy to present reasonable scenarios to counter any claim against Armstrong based on those numbers.* Whatever the testimony from the claimed 10 riders says is probably going to be far more damning. *Landis did a pretty good job explaining how he/they/everyone passed the bio-passport. * Heck, he claims that before he got his own analyzer he was counting retics manually. It's pretty simple, yet somewhat inaccurate......and it's annoying to do.
> 
> This pdf, by itself is just meh. * It would be interesting to see his epo numbers in correlation with these CBC's. *It would also be nice to know where each sample was tested. It also *would be nice to know what other riders numbers looked like on that same day* just to compare whether it's analyzer or rider that's fluctuating. If I'm Armstrongs attorney's I'd want all the data....calibrations, correlations, QC, surveys, etc for each analyzer used.
> :


What? It's almost as if you know just enough to be somewhat dangerous with this info, but you really don't know how this stuff works

These 13 results are not the only results for 2010. There are additional test results, more then 10 additional for 2010

How did Landis "pass the Biopassport"? It wasn't introduced until a year after Floyd tested positive

What are "EPO" numbers? 

You clearly do not understand the Biopassport. Again, it does not matter what other riders values do. UCI/WADA use the same machines with the same calibration sample from the manufacture. 

It appears Armstrong will use the same defense you are using, smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

88 rex said:


> It's nice to not see those poasts. Go for it. :thumbsup::thumbsup:


Yeah, which ones? :lol: God forbid your belief system got shaken by reading.. Remember, you were reduced to insulting me and got banned for it.

Do you think your expertise is on par with the people running the biological passport. They ARE introducing those comeback numbers to indicate blood manipulation.

Are you qualified to question their assessments?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

There's also the issue of his blood values from the Giro & Tour in the same year of his comeback. Giro behaves as is typical of a cyclist in a 3 week race, in the Tour it behaves atypical as if someone has transfused some blood a couple of times during a 3 week race.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> These 13 results are not the only results for 2010. There are additional test results, more then 10 additional for 2010.


Well, post the rest then and lets look at them too. Maybe there's something in there.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> How did Landis "pass the Biopassport"? It wasn't introduced until a year after Floyd tested positive


MA: Well, here I’d like to once again acknowledge Floyd Landis for enhancing my understanding of what and how pro riders dope. It was Floyd who told me how they had access to a transportable blood analyser that followed them around and allowed the riders to constantly monitor their reticulocyte levels. Whereas I’d anticipated some degree of self-monitoring, it had actually entered the peloton many years before I had ever imagined! So by the time the Passport came around in 2007-8, there was a lot of accrued knowledge about how to manipulate reticulocyte levels.

Behind the Scenes of the Contador CAS hearing with Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events




Doctor Falsetti said:


> What are "EPO" numbers?


The level of endogenous epo. Ya know, the actual hormone that stimulates RBC production. Not to be confused with exogenous epo.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> You clearly do not understand the Biopassport. Again, it does not matter what other riders values do. UCI/WADA use the same machines with the same calibration sample from the manufacture.
> 
> It appears Armstrong will use the same defense you are using, smoke and mirrors.


Whooopsie now.....sounds like Ashenden is somewhat taking into account analyzers and other riders. He's a smart guy. 

Do you know that WADA/UCI all use the same analyzers? Do you know which ones? It's not logical to think that samples collected in europe would be shipped to the US. Therefore each athlete's blood is being tested on numerous analyzers. I have two machines sitting side by side that are different models from the same manufacturer that utilize different types of lasers and different software that require different calibrations and yield somewhat different results from the other. On top of that, if you calibrate when the room is say 20 degrees celsius, if you have a heat fluctuation in a lab of a few degrees, it is enough to alter that laser just enough to give you some variation. 

Are you going to tell me I'm wrong again?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Well, post the rest then and lets look at them too. Maybe there's something in there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for proving my point. Your goal is obfuscation. 

Floyd did not fool the Biopassport. He was never in the Biopassport program

The EPO is a visual footprint test. I expect the gels will be shown in arbitration (if there is one) but there is not Hct style "EPO Number" assigned to them

There is a process for blood testing that the UCI and WADA follow. Many of the teams that have (Had) internal testing program follow the same guidelines as they found that taking them to local hospitals produced wide variations in results. You are welcome to pretend that there is a huge variation between tests but WADA will tell you it is .03% for their process. 

Armstrong blood values are indicative of manipulation. Add to this over dozen direct witnesses. Pictures. Couriers, and more. It all combines to overwhelming evidence of guilt. Smoke and mirrors work great for the general public but seldom with arbitrators.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for proving my point. Your goal is obfuscation.
> 
> Floyd did not fool the Biopassport. He was never in the Biopassport program
> 
> ...


You're not paying attention. I'm no obfuscating anything. I'm explaining how some of this stuff works, and what is more than likely to happen with these numbers. 

EPO.......do you even know what EPO is? Endogenous or exogenous and why each is important and it's physiological role? How about the correlation of epo in response to prolonged hypoxia and the effect on rbc production? I'm guessing all the science involved in this case is way over your head. You are scratching the surface and portraying it as if you actually know what's going on. I'm simply curious in the endogenous epo numbers. I like numbers and the more the better. Obviously, if exogenous epo is present then that is a different situation. I bet you don't even know what "gel" means or how that even works. 

The process for "blood testing" is pretty straight forward. A majority of the guidelines surrounding WADA are mostly legal issues and lots of paperwork. Chains of custody and such. There are serious legal implications on the line so there is a lot more paperwork and accountability on the line. That is a big part where WADA guidelines differ from everyday testing. 

I'm not pretending that there are huge variations. I'm simply stating that there is variation. Armstrong's numbers don't have wild variation, and thus it wouldn't take much to account for those variations. WADA has their own select facilities to do the testing so that they can minimize those fluctuations, you can never eliminate them. According to WADA's site, I think there are only 2 sites in the entire US. There are quite a few in Europe. I have no idea where you got .03% but post a link to that number if you have one. .03% of what process? You can't just throw around numbers without either links or at least displaying have knowledge on the topic.....and you have done neither. 

This isn't smoke and mirrors. These numbers are science. I don't know about couriers or the witnesses. That is something else and not on topic. I am discussing these numbers in your link that you apparently don't know how to interpret or understand how they are produced.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

88 rex said:


> Whooopsie now.....sounds like Ashenden is somewhat taking into account analyzers and other riders. He's a smart guy.


I forgot to include this in regards to Contador.

_
MA: His 2010 Tour data definitely attracted my attention. As described in the panel’s ruling, my testimony was that his reticulocytes were higher than I would have expected. Not just a single result, but every result during that race was equal or above the carefully collected results he'd provided to the Lausanne lab in 2006. 

At first I thought this could have been due to the analyser used during that Tour. If the analyser had been reporting results slightly high, that would have explained why Contador's values were higher than expected. However I cross-checked the results of other riders, and it was not due to the instrument.

My second thought was that perhaps this signature was just typical of how Contador's body responded to the competition of a major stage race. Again I was able to cross-check this with his other results during previous victories at major Tours, and that did not explain the 2010 Tour values either. In fact his 2010 Tour results were higher than any other value he'd provided during any of his previous major victories.

The inescapable conclusion was that his reticulocyte results were unusual for him. In fact, neither his own blood expert nor myself could conceive of any naturally-induced circumstance that could explain his elevated reticulocyte results during the Tour. I was surprised to read paragraph 359 of the ruling, which in fairness only refers to written submissions that had preceded my opportunity to address questions to Contador’s expert. However what that paragraph does not reflect, which the court transcript can establish, was that during the hearing itself I categorically asked Contador’s expert whether he had any natural explanation for Contador’s reticulocytes during the 2010 Tour, and he did not. Both of us also agreed that some forms of doping, for example a microdose EPO regime, could yield higher-than-expected reticulocytes.

_


And this one for a little more fun reading.


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

MA: The passport, we held a lot of hope that it would reveal autologous transfusion, the underlying theory is that if you re-infuse a bag of blood, then the concentration of red cells in circulation, the hemoglobin concentration, is going to be increased. And we should be able to spot the elevated values compared to what it was before the transfusion.

The unfortunate reality is that we've conducted a couple of studies in Denmark where we have replicated that practice in volunteers, and we were puzzled and disheartened to find that there just wasn't the increases in hemoglobin that we had expected. For some reason the body regulates differently between transfusions and EPO. With EPO your hemoglobin rises markedly. With transfusions it just doesn't seem to.

We don't fully understand why, we've got a few clues, but the bottom line is yes, transfusion is apparent in the blood passport approach, but the changes aren't usually substantial enough that in itself we will be able to impose a doping violation just on changes in the blood. We would probably need to supplement that with other sorts of evidence.
_


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> You're not paying attention.


You are confusing quantity of words with quality. No matter how much you cut and paste or tangents you go on it does not change the fact that Armstrong's values show evidence of manipulation. 

You can hope that Armstrong's fluctuations are the results of mistakes or variances but history shows WADA and the UCI's procedures have consistently stood up to legal challenges and the explainable, changes in Armstrong's profile are outside what WADA and the UCI have established as normal. 

You appear to agree with me that WADA does indeed have far tighter procedures then your local hospitals. It will be these tried and tested procedures, coupled with extensive witness testimony and supporting evidence, that will result in Armstrong being sanctioned.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are confusing quantity of words with quality. No matter how much you cut and paste or tangents you go on it does not change the fact that Armstrong's values show evidence of manipulation.
> 
> You can hope that Armstrong's fluctuations are the results of mistakes or variances but history shows WADA and the UCI's procedures have consistently stood up to legal challenges and the explainable, changes in Armstrong's profile are outside what WADA and the UCI have established as normal.
> 
> You appear to agree with me that WADA does indeed have far tighter procedures then your local hospitals. It will be these tried and tested procedures, coupled with extensive witness testimony and supporting evidence, that will result in Armstrong being sanctioned.


The only confusion on my part is trying to actually talk about the science of these numbers with someone who has absolutely no knowledge on the subject. I woud love to talk about these numbers, and there is still a lot to be learned about the whole topic. You can't come on here throwing out numbers without even being able to defend those numbers. You can't even defer to a link or a source because you don't have any. Repeatedly you have dodged all the science involved in my posts, and have accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about. Talking about the facts directly involved is not going on a tangent. Going on a tangent would be attempts to throw in "couriers" and "witnesses." That's a tangent to the topic we are discussing. 

What have the UCI and WADA considered normal and where in Armstrongs normal did he fail those numbers? And I don't mean "fail" as in just abnormal, but failed to the point of being strong evidence for doping. Why don't you look at the numbers again and tell me. This time try not to mix up your numbers and dates and please don't talk about Flanders again. 

NO, I do not agree with you about WADA labs. The procedures are not "far tighter," they just have to keep account of their sample due to legal purposes. I do not. If they don't then some lawyer will come along and claim the samples were tainted or they were unaccounted for between location x and y. Normal labs don't have these considerations because they are unreasonable on a daily basis. The actual performance of each analyzer would more than likely be adequate for each site. Throw in multiple sites and you increase variation. Each WADA site would be no better or worse than your avg lab hospital. Ideally you would want to run the samples on the same instrument the entire study....or better yet a panel of intsruments each time. This is unlikely and difficult to achieve. It would appear WADA has attempted to cut down that variation by minimizing the approved labs. This is a good thing for WADA, but still presents some diffuculties in comparing small changes between Los Angeles and Italy. Everything in Armstrong's numbers are small changes.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> The only confusion on my part is trying to actually talk about the science of these numbers with someone who has absolutely no knowledge on the subject. I woud love to talk about these numbers, and there is still a lot to be learned about the whole topic. You can't come on here throwing out numbers without even being able to defend those numbers. You can't even defer to a link or a source because you don't have any. Repeatedly you have dodged all the science involved in my posts, and have accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about. Talking about the facts directly involved is not going on a tangent. Going on a tangent would be attempts to throw in "couriers" and "witnesses." That's a tangent to the topic we are discussing.
> 
> What have the UCI and WADA considered normal and where in Armstrongs normal did he fail those numbers? And I don't mean "fail" as in just abnormal, but failed to the point of being strong evidence for doping. Why don't you look at the numbers again and tell me. This time try not to mix up your numbers and dates and please don't talk about Flanders again.
> 
> NO, I do not agree with you about WADA labs. The procedures are not "far tighter," they just have to keep account of their sample due to legal purposes. I do not. If they don't then some lawyer will come along and claim the samples were tainted or they were unaccounted for between location x and y. Normal labs don't have these considerations because they are unreasonable on a daily basis. The actual performance of each analyzer would more than likely be adequate for each site. Throw in multiple sites and you increase variation. Each WADA site would be no better or worse than your avg lab hospital. Ideally you would want to run the samples on the same instrument the entire study....or better yet a panel of intsruments each time. This is unlikely and difficult to achieve. It would appear WADA has attempted to cut down that variation by minimizing the approved labs. This is a good thing for WADA, but still presents some diffuculties in comparing small changes between Los Angeles and Italy. Everything in Armstrong's numbers are small changes.


You appear to be confused. I have given you numbers and the source. They are not small changes, which is why USADA is comfortable using them in their case. In your cut and paste efforts you tossed in a lot of Micheal Ashenden. Great guy, smart guy. He now works as a consultant to USADA. He is working on the Armstrong case. He agrees with me, that Armstrong's values are 



> “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”


Sorry, I am going to side with Ashenden on this one

You are welcome to pretend that WADA tests have huge variances but their consistent victories in court show you are incorrect. The UCI's consistent victories in Biopassport case only reinforce that fact. 

Let us know when you find evidence of the incompetent testing that led to Armstrong's blood values. I would be interested in seeing it.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

_Fully consistent with X including A and/or B_ 

...is vacuous.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

_A picture of a motorcycle with panniers_ 

...men have been sentenced to death for less damning evidence!


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You appear to be confused. I have given you numbers and the source. They are not small changes, which is why USADA is comfortable using them in their case. In your cut and paste efforts you tossed in a lot of Micheal Ashenden.


You gave me numbers, and I explained the numbers. Your ability to interpret the numbers is minimal. You can't just say the changes are not small without defining what is and isn't small. Do you know what a small change is? Can you elaborate on your numbers in your link from the pdf?

I only provide an occasional cut and paste to help you out. I understand this stuff. It's nice to have snippets from experts also explaining this stuff. I also provide you with a link so you can verify that I'm not making this up. 



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Sorry, I am going to side with Ashenden on this one


Where's your link to the comment? It's hard to agree or disagree with it because you don't have a link to the whole comment or what it is in regards too. I don't think it's too much to ask that you post links when you claim other people are saying something. You already screwed up the whole Flanders thing so your credibility in cut and pasting without links is suspect.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are welcome to pretend that WADA tests have huge variances


I'm not pretending and that's not what I said....I've explained it twice now. You are either being disingenuos or clueless. 



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Let us know when you find evidence of the incompetent testing that led to Armstrong's blood values. I would be interested in seeing it.


Again, not what I said and now you are being disingenous because you've really got nothing left. This is called desperation and you are over your head. I never ever said the testing was incompetent. Would you like to talk about the numbers and science or not?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> You gave me numbers, and I explained the numbers.


You did not. You talked about flying samples via airplane, variance of machines, then a bunch of cut and paste from a guy who is working for USADA on the Armstrong case and agrees with me



88 rex said:


> I'm not pretending and that's not what I said.


You wrote



88 rex said:


> I do not agree with you about WADA labs. The procedures are not "far tighter,".


I am more then willing to listen if you have a legit explanation for Armstrong's changes but so far you have not provided anything.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

88 rex gave a link to a study that showed such variation can occur naturally.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You did not. You talked about flying samples via airplane, variance of machines, then a bunch of cut and paste from a guy who is working for USADA on the Armstrong case and agrees with me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ummm.....claiming that a lab's abilites are no different than another labs is not a sign of incompetance. It's recognition of variables. Are you implying that there is no variation from lab to lab, even amongst WADA approved labs? 

Which changes would you like to know about? The biggest hurdle here is trying to explain to you how these things are run. Once you figure that part out, then you'll have a clearer picture of what I'm talking about when refering to preanalytical and analytical error. Don't confuse the word "error" with incompentence. It's just part of the system. It can't be elminated. 

So.....answer the simple questions. What change specifically bothers you? 

Also, provide your link to Ashendens statement.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> 88 rex gave a link to a study that showed such variation can occur naturally.


This is getting a little abusrd. I'm still waiting for a link to a claim about a ".03% variation" from WADA. What does that even mean?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Ummm.....claiming that a lab's abilites are no different than another labs is not a sign of incompetance. It's recognition of variables. Are you implying that there is no variation from lab to lab, even amongst WADA approved labs?
> 
> Which changes would you like to know about? The biggest hurdle here is trying to explain to you how these things are run. Once you figure that part out, then you'll have a clearer picture of what I'm talking about when refering to preanalytical and analytical error. Don't confuse the word "error" with incompentence. It's just part of the system. It can't be elminated.
> 
> ...


That is not what I wrote. 

I said there are variables but they are not as much as you would find in a normal testing environment at your local hospital. This process has been vetted repeatedly with hundreds of sanctions in multiple sports. Multiple experts, including the former head of the UCI Biopassport committee, are on USADA's side. 

You have yet to provide anything that supports your claim that Armstrong's fluctuation where caused by the testing process. Let us know when you have some.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I said there are variables but they are not as much as you would find in a normal testing environment at your local hospital.


Which variables would you expect to see differently?


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

I know how much links just bother you (maybe it's the facts?) but here's a little link about hgb variability on POCT (point of care testing analyzers). An actual POC device was probably not used on Lance.....although it would be interesting if it were.....but the methodologies are similar to a bench top analyzer. 

http://www.masimo.com/pdf/SpHb/LAB5447A.pdf

Just as an FYI, a ballpark QA check is to make sure your hematocrit is hgb x 3 +/- 2% (some say 3%)


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> I know how much links just bother you (maybe it's the facts?) but here's a little link about hgb variability on POCT (point of care testing analyzers). An actual POC device was probably not used on Lance.....although it would be interesting if it were.....but the methodologies are similar to a bench top analyzer.
> 
> http://www.masimo.com/pdf/SpHb/LAB5447A.pdf
> 
> Just as an FYI, a ballpark QA check is to make sure your hematocrit is hgb x 3 +/- 2% (some say 3%)


Now you are just getting silly. 

If you want to support your theory that WADA testing has variances that can cause Armstrong's fluctuations why don't you tear apart their process? This link you provided only reinforces that you do not know the process. 

Your link talks about fluctuations caused by Type, Site, Time, and Body position. It appears you are unaware that UCI and WADA blood testing for values is always in the morning, with the subject laid flat, with the sample taken out of the arm.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Now you are just getting silly.
> 
> If you want to support your theory that WADA testing has variances that can cause Armstrong's fluctuations why don't you tear apart their process? This link you provided only reinforces that you do not know the process.
> 
> Your link talks about fluctuations caused by Type, Site, Time, and Body position. It appears you are unaware that UCI and WADA blood testing for values is always in the morning, with the subject laid flat, with the sample taken out of the arm.


Is it really too much to ask for a link to anything you claim?

Again, are you implying that WADA testing does NOT have variations and variables? It's not my theory, heck it's not even a theory. It's just a fact of testing. Everytime I mention pre-analytical and analytical variation (or errors), do you know what that means? The actual process is only one part of the puzzle. Armstrong doesn't have huge variations in his numbers. Do you see a huge variation? If so, please point it out. 

You do realize that WADA doesn't have magical machines, right?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Is it really too much to ask for a link to anything you claim?
> 
> Again, are you implying that WADA testing does NOT have variations and variables? It's not my theory, heck it's not even a theory. It's just a fact of testing. Everytime I mention pre-analytical and analytical variation (or errors), do you know what that means? The actual process is only one part of the puzzle. Armstrong doesn't have huge variations in his numbers. Do you see a huge variation? If so, please point it out.
> 
> You do realize that WADA doesn't have magical machines, right?


Are you joking? I wrote 



> I said there are variables but they are not as much as you would find in a normal testing environment at your local hospital. This process has been vetted repeatedly with hundreds of sanctions in multiple sports. Multiple experts, including the former head of the UCI Biopassport committee, are on USADA's side.


You are claiming the experts are wrong yet are unable to provide any information why. You have done a great job of proving you have no idea of WADA's process. 

Before you dump more unrelated stuff please give USADA a call, ask them to walk you through their process. (719) 785-2000 ask for Annie Skinner. She is kinda busy these days but she will can give you some good guidance on how WADA has reduced the variance of their testing though standardization procedures and equipment........then come back here and tell us why they are all wrong and you are right


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Gasp! You mean to tell me WADA uses "normal" hospitals too. 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3230/is_7_37/ai_n14862904/

_"A primary focus of our WADA (World AntiDoping Agency) ISO 17025-accredited antidoping laboratory," says Neil Robinson, PhD, laboratory supervisor based at the Laboratoire Suisse d'Analyse du Dopage in Lausanne, Switzerland, "is to reduce the risk of serious complications associated with blood doping among athletes. With the evidence of illegal doping leading to an athlete's ban from competitive sports, it is absolutely critical that the diagnostic tools meet a scientific standard of technical superiority and accuracy." *The laboratory is part of the Legal Medicine department of the University of Lausanne and routinely performs urine and blood antidoping tests. As the laboratory is attached to the main University Hospital of the Canton de Vaud (CHUV, Lausanne), all other testing areas, such as endocrinology, microbiology, parasitology, and other clinical laboratory disciplines, are covered*_

This is helpful.  I'm very familiar with this analyzer. It's a good one, and I've done correlations on it's bigger brother, and I've used the same exact one many years ago. It may even find it's way back into my lab one day, who knows. 

This serves no purpose to you, but I think it's interesting. If anything it's pretty clear that there is nothing "special" about the actual testing process, and I wouldn't expect there to be. Same old analyzers that all deal with the same issues. 


_Reference

1. Lasne F, de Ceaurriz J. Recombinant erythropoietin in urine. Nature. 2000;405:635.

By Ian Giles, MD

Ian Giles, MD, is director of scientific affairs for Sysmex America Inc. in Mundelein, IL. The diagnostic instrument for the UCI testing was a Sysmex Model XE-2100 automated hematology analyzer. The Model XT-2000i, also used for this testing, is smaller and more transportable. Both use fluorescent flow cytometry and advanced cell-counting methods, coupled with polymethine dyes, to offer a complete blood count and fully automated reticulocyte results._


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are claiming the experts are wrong yet are unable to provide any information why.


Which experts in regards to your OP link do I think are wrong?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Gasp! You mean to tell me WADA uses "normal" hospitals too.
> 
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3230/is_7_37/ai_n14862904/
> 
> ...


*

Again with the cut and paste that does nothing to support your claims

Laboratoire Suisse d'Analyse du Dopage is far from a "normal hospital". It has been a IOC accredited lab since 1991 and doing work for the UCI for over 20 years. In fact for many years it was referred to as the "UCI Lab" 

The "de Ceaurriz: reference in your cut and paste is Jacques de Ceaurriz. Former head of the LNDD and co-inventor of the test for EPO 

You will not the machine they mention is rather (in)Famous. They point out that is "is smaller and more transportable" As I mentioned earlier much of the values testing is done on site, not in the lab. Reducing the transportation issued you raised earlier. 

You have done a good job of proving yourself wrong.*


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Which experts in regards to your OP link do I think are wrong?


Are you for real? 

You many not have heard but USADA has charge Armstrong with doping. They said that his samples were "fully consistent with blood ma*nipu*la*tion including EPO use and/or blood transfusions."

Micheal Ashenden has been working as a consultant on the case for WADA ever since leaving the UCI.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Again with the cut and paste that does nothing to support your claims
> 
> Laboratoire Suisse d'Analyse du Dopage is far from a "normal hospital". It has been a IOC accredited lab since 1991 and doing work for the UCI for over 20 years. In fact for many years it was referred to as the "UCI Lab"
> 
> ...


Well, snap. Somebody better get me straight! You mean they have an (in)Famous machine! That must be some piece of Sysmex engineering then. Do you think it's a one of kind? Probably made specifically for them, huh. 

You sure do reduce the transportation issue, but you unfortunately introduce small variations due to transport of an anlyzer. It also means your claim that........ "It appears you are unaware that UCI and WADA blood testing for values is always in the morning, with the subject laid flat, with the sample taken out of the arm. "...........is wrong. Maybe you should give WADA a call and inform them to stop testing athletes after races because it is no longer morning.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Are you for real?
> 
> You many not have heard but USADA has charge Armstrong with doping. They said that his samples were "fully consistent with blood ma*nipu*la*tion including EPO use and/or blood transfusions."
> 
> Micheal Ashenden has been working as a consultant on the case for WADA ever since leaving the UCI.


Of course they did. They wouldn't say "sorta, kinda, probably did dope." All chips in. They also apparently have testimony, and possibly (hopefullly) other data not presented in that PDF. If ALL THEY HAD were those values in the PDF, then it would be a big fat waste of time. 

It's going to be a battle of experts for sure.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> It also means your claim that........ "It appears you are unaware that UCI and WADA blood testing for values is always in the morning, with the subject laid flat, with the sample taken out of the arm. "...........is wrong. Maybe you should give WADA a call and inform them to stop testing athletes after races because it is no longer morning.


At this point it is clear you are just trolling for a response.

WADA does urine tests after races, not blood. A few years back they explored doing late night and afternoon blood tests but knew they would have challenges in court because the results were too variable. Now they just use them when looking for a specific substance

Have fun with your next unrelated cut and paste


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Have fun with your next unrelated cut and paste



:lol:

Still no links to any of your claims.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> At this point it is clear you are just trolling for a response.
> 
> WADA does urine tests after races, not blood. A few years back they explored doing late night and afternoon blood tests but knew they would have challenges in court because the results were too variable. Now they just use them when looking for a specific substance
> 
> Have fun with your next unrelated cut and paste


Really? The true sign when an arguement/debate is over is to call someone names. I guess when you've got nothing left, simple name calling is the last resort. The neg rep is hillarious and reported to the mods.


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

While I do not agree with most of what 88rex is posting I have to say that you (Doctor Falsetti) don't do yourself any favors by demanding things from him that you won't post and then dismissing anything he posts out of hand. You would make a better case if you would do the things you want others to do and stick to the post and not the poster.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Rundfahrt said:


> While I do not agree with most of what 88rex is posting I have to say that you (Doctor Falsetti) don't do yourself any favors by demanding things from him that you won't post and then dismissing anything he posts out of hand. You would make a better case if you would do the things you want others to do and stick to the post and not the poster.
> 
> Just my opinion.


I see the same from 88Rex. 

He claims that Armstrong's fluctuation can been caused by WADA's testing but provides zero evidence that supports this. He is basing his assumptions on the process of a local hospital, not WADA/UCI. 

Transport, position, time of day, location, etc. are all taken into effect. WADA and the UCI have consistently won any challenges to their testing. The experts who pioneered the field are on the side of WADA.

If someone is going to claim testing variances resulted in fluctuation it would be good to supply something that supports this, not unrelated cut and pastes


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I see the same from 88Rex.
> 
> He claims that Armstrong's fluctuation can been caused by WADA's testing but provides zero evidence that supports this. He is basing his assumptions on the process of a local hospital, not WADA/UCI.
> 
> ...


I saw him posting links that at least somewhat back up what you are asking in to prove. I saw you refusing to even consider anything he is posting. I don't see youdo anything you are demanding from him. My comment was solely about what you are doing. As I said i disagree with most of what he is posting, but the burden is on you to dispel whathe is saying and do it in a manner that is what you demand from others to dispel what you say. You come off like someone who refuses to listen to another opinion and is angry that someone questions you on your forum when you act like this. When you respond to my comment about you by saying "he does it to" and then only talking about him it looks like you are avoiding the reality of what I am saying. Take it or leave it.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I see the same from 88Rex.
> 
> He claims that Armstrong's fluctuation can been caused by WADA's testing but provides zero evidence that supports this. He is basing his assumptions on the process of a local hospital, not WADA/UCI.
> 
> ...


WADA's accreditation and somewhat difficulties on a worldwide basis. 

http://archive.playtrue.wada-ama.org/en/issues/2011-01/cover-story/WADA-Accredited-Laboratories/

WADA's own document on how the actual testing process should proceed. All very sound and very basic. 
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...m/WADP-IS-Laboratories/WADA_TD2010_BAR_EN.pdf

Read Annex E. I did your legwork to find WADA's protocol for collection. They basically say you are wrong. They can collect from whatever site they want, typically the arm though since it makes the most sense. Do not have to be lying flat. I really don't care about this because this isn't really the big point of variance. You grabbed onto that bit of info from the link I provided that compared 5 analyzers side by side. It talked about performance variance.....as well as physiological differences. The point was performance variance for the given analyzers.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...2/WADA_IST_2012_redlined_from_Jan_2009_EN.pdf

Anytime you don't provide a link your information is almost always false. Provide your links.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Rundfahrt said:


> I have to say that you (Doctor Falsetti) don't do yourself any favors by demanding things from him that you won't post and then dismissing anything he posts out of hand. You would make a better case if you would do the things you want others to do and stick to the post and not the poster.
> 
> Just my opinion.


I see this as well. 

While none of us have seen bulk of the evidence against Armstrong, some posters take the USADA allegations and parrot them as if they were gospel. When cornered, they hide behind a "USADA has experts. They wouldn't lie. Are you an expert?" type of argument. 

Ultimately, the blood values and biopassport evidence will be heavily debated by experts. Experts will explain this analytic evidence. The panel will get a good education in the biology and variation in such metrics. Hopefully we'll all get a better understanding as well, as it seems that only 88 Rex has any real understanding here. 

While the ultimate outcome is yet to be seen, we can rest assured that Armstrong's experts will do their best to provide natural explanations for the variation in blood values. Much to the dismay of Armstrong's detractors (AKA cancer lovers), without a positive test it will be difficult to prove doping. 

I have a feeling that USADA's case will simply evaporate.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> WADA's accreditation and somewhat difficulties on a worldwide basis.
> 
> WADA Accredited Laboratories - World Anti-Doping Agency
> 
> ...


Thanks for the links, but how do they support your position that the WADA/UCI testing process is what resulted in Armstrong fluctuation? You have backed off your claim of transport, site, position, etc. What seems to be left if the machines themselves. 

I have been in the room multiple times when they are setting up to test riders. Watched as they use a test sample from the manufacture to calibrate the machine. Are you saying they are doing the the calibration wrong? What specifically is wrong with WADA's process that causes Armstrong hct to spike and Rect to fall? 

Why are the experts wrong? Ashenden has been researching variance for almost a decade
http://ajcp.ascpjournals.org/content/121/6/816.full.pdf

Would he be working for WADA if he was not confident in the evidence?


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> I Much to the dismay of Armstrong's detractors* (AKA cancer lovers)*...



Riiiiiiight. Because the only logical conclusion to make about someone who dares to even question Armstrong's legitimacy is that he/she must certainly *LOVE* cancer. What other logical explanation could there be?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)




----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Big-foot said:


> Riiiiiiight. Because the only logical conclusion to make about someone who dares to even question Armstrong's legitimacy must certainly *LOVE* cancer. What other logical explanation could there be?


I'm pretty sure he was being facetious.

The claim that Lance haters lover cancer is no more ridiculous than the claim that those who question the biopassport or USADA's actions are "fanbois."


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jorgy said:


> I'm pretty sure he was being facetious.
> 
> The claim that Lance haters lover cancer is no more ridiculous than the claim that those who question the biopassport or USADA's actions are "fanbois."


really? Someone ignoring the obvious because they have an emotional attachment to a famous person is the same as saying someone loves a disease that kills millions of people?


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

Where is a good face palm picture when you need one.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> I have a feeling that USADA's case will simply evaporate.


So are you saying Armstrong will settle or not contest the charges?"


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for the links, but how do they support your position that the WADA/UCI testing process is what resulted in Armstrong fluctuation? You have backed off your claim of transport, site, position, etc. What seems to be left if the machines themselves.
> 
> I have been in the room multiple times when they are setting up to test riders. Watched as they use a test sample from the manufacture to calibrate the machine. Are you saying they are doing the the calibration wrong? What specifically is wrong with WADA's process that causes Armstrong hct to spike and Rect to fall?
> 
> ...


C'mon, really. I did not back off my claim of transport. It is stil valid. Even WADA acknowledges that challenge in the link I provided. It is a variable. I never brought site and position into the mix, you did from a link I provided which wasn't even the point of the link. 

My main point all along is the variability in testing, or performance of the "machines." I've been in the room multiple times with surgeons but that doesn't make me a surgeon, nor do I know what they are cutting but I know how to cut. I'm in the lab just about everyday. It's what I do. There is potential for fluctuations, even calibration to calibration. You don't just plug a sample in and "presto" calibration. 

Let's play with control numbers for fun. Instrument A has a mean of 17.0 for a high control and we'll say 1 SD is 0.35 to keep it on the tight side. I run my control and get a 16.4. Valid answer. It's within 2 SD of the mean. Next day I decide to run it on a different analyzer. Same control, but different analyzer. The mean on this analyzer is 17.3 with the same SD of 0.35 due to it being a slightly different model. We'll just say it's the XT2000i. I run the control and get 17.7. Valid answer. Same specimen and all extremely possible. If you tested in Italy and then flew to Los Angeles, this is a very very real possibility. 

That is simple variability and a very quick shift of hgb at 1.2, and it's all realistic. It would not take much to make a panel of non-experts see this, especially after blasting (confusing) them with tons and tons of science babble.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

It's actually a joke on Armstrong. Listen to his hubris: 
Lance Armstrong & Paul Kimmage verbal battle at TOC - YouTube

Armstrong juijitsu's Kimmage's question into an attack on cancer research. Aspiring White House Press Secretaries should take note. 




Armstrong beat cancer. Armstrong won the tour seven times. Armstrong sees himself as the embodiment of fighting cancer. Again, hubris. (Maybe that's why so many people hate on him.) 



The funny thing is...Armstrong is not alone in this thinking. His very name is associated with cancer research. Many people--the majority of people who know anything about Armstrong--know three things about him: He beat cancer, he won bike races in France, and he fights cancer. 

This video sums it up: Don't Try Lance For Steroids - Bomani & Jones, Episode 26 - YouTube


Yes, "Cancer Lovers" is tongue in cheek. But like many things said in jest, there is some semblance of truth.


----------

