# Expert Analysis of Armstrong 09/10 blood values



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Down the Backstretch: It's All About Blood

Robin Parisotto helped develop the test for EPO. He sat on the UCI Biopassport committee. He looked at Armstrong's 2009/2010 blood values



> To suggest that a 23% increase in Hemoglobin and a 50% decrease in reticulocytes was the result of time spent at altitude is stretching the bounds of the known and documented physiological responses to altitude exposure. For example, the Ashenden et al study in 2003 demonstrated that in no less than 7 study groups either at natural or simulated altitudes (above 2600 metres – about 8500 feet) that even after 4 weeks of exposure the increase in Hb was, at best, muted.





> Whatever way you cut it, Armstrong's blood values are undoubtedly indicative of blood manipulation.





> If this profile had been submitted to me for review by me as a member of the Passport Panel(biological passports which are used by the UCI, cycling's governing body, and the IAAF), it would have been assessed as an anti-doping rule violation particularly in view of the timing of the disturbances leading into the 2009 Tour.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Nice find :thumbsup:


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Quick question: According to that article, the blood values indicate a blood draw during the Giro d'Italia and re-infusion 19 days prior to le tour when Armstrong was at altitude?

Is it good science to compare blood values at the end of a stage race with those at the end of an altitude sojourn?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Down the Backstretch: It's All About Blood
> 
> Robin Parisotto helped develop the test for EPO. He sat on the UCI Biopassport committee. He looked at Armstrong's 2009/2010 blood values


I don't doubt it for a second.......

How about starting a thread relating to Contador's blood values, and some of the trace chemicals they found in his samples?

Hasn't Evans been tied to Ferrari?

I'd like to know more about these 2 cases!!! Anyone else?

How about it? Can you post some info on those 2?

Oh right.... Its not LA, and well... Contador and Evans are liked, so they deserve a pass.... And well its popular to want to see LA go down, as opposed to being truly concerned with equality in sport..... So lets just look the other way!! :thumbsup:


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

slegros said:


> I don't doubt it for a second.......
> 
> *How about starting a thread relating to Contador's blood values, and some of the trace chemicals they found in his samples?*
> :


It's a free forum, go for it.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

kiwisimon said:


> It's a free forum, go for it.


Falsetti is the man in the know..... He'd do a far better job than me..... 

Plus an added bonus is that if he posted it, he would also shout down anyone with a dissenting opinion in a Rush Limbaugh-esque fashion. And that's always entertaining.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

slegros said:


> I don't doubt it for a second.......
> 
> How about starting a thread relating to Contador's blood values, and some of the trace chemicals they found in his samples?
> 
> ...


Stage 3 reached, only 2 more to go.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

slegros said:


> Falsetti is the man in the know..... He'd do a far better job than me.....
> .


You won't get better if you don't try.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

Silence from the Anti(christ)??


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

slegros said:


> I don't doubt it for a second.......
> 
> How about starting a thread relating to Contador's blood values, and some of the trace chemicals they found in his samples?
> 
> ...


How did Contador get a pass? He WAS banned from competition after all...

You're just proving that it's NOT about the process, it's about your buddy's head under the axe.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> How did Contador get a pass? He WAS banned from competition after all...
> 
> You're just proving that it's NOT about the process, it's about your buddy's head under the axe.


LA my buddy? LOL!! To the best of my knowledge I've never been out to Austin for beer or even met the guy! LOL! ;-)

For the record I am very much anti-doping and certainly hope that LA and crew get whats's coming to them after all the effort that has been put in. I never liked what LA and postal brought to cycling in terms of the specialization on the TDF alone... One of the saddest things I have ever seen in cycling is the '91 tour. LeMond did everything he could against opponents who in hindsight were almost certainly doped. I almost respect him more for that gutsy ride than any of his wins.....

That said my concerns here were laid out in another post which I'll cut and paste:

But at issue is the concept of fairness in sport, and the concept that all athletes deserve to be treated equally.

Lets take the example of a current rider: Alberto Contador

-Sanctioned for having used Clenbuterol
-Suspected of blood doping. (Didn't they find traces of chemicals used in blood bags in his samples?)

In the name of equality does the UCI and WADA now use the template set by the FDA and USADA to launch a multi-million dollar, multi-year investigation of Contador's past with the aim of vacating all of his grand tour wins? Offer Vino and others plea deals to testify against him?

Evans has been linked to Ferrari? Him next?

There has been some suspicion around Wiggins......

The mere suggestion of this in Contador's case would seem absurd. Yet in the LA case some are calling for more.....

I'm all for penalizing dopers.* But I also believe the standards have to be uniformly applied without prejudice in order to ensure the very standards of fairness that the rules themselves were put in place to protect.* As such IMO the FDA and USADA could be setting a dangerous precedent here.

*In my opinion the LA case stopped being solely about clean sport some time ago. LA has a big ego and stepped on a lot of toes for sure. This now to me appears to be as much about giving LA his comeuppance, and serving him a slice of humble pie as it is about catching someone for their doping offenses (perhaps more?). I find that, along with the hordes on the sidelines attempting to veil their personal dislike of LA behind the mantel of clean sport who are cheering it on, both hypocritical and distasteful.*


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

slegros said:


> LA my buddy? LOL!! To the best of my knowledge I've never been out to Austin for beer or even met the guy! LOL! ;-)
> 
> For the record I am very much anti-doping and certainly hope that LA and crew get whats's coming to them after all the effort that has been put in. I never liked what LA and postal brought to cycling in terms of the specialization on the TDF alone... One of the saddest things I have ever seen in cycling is the '91 tour. LeMond did everything he could against opponents who in hindsight were almost certainly doped. I almost respect him more for that gutsy ride than any of his wins.....
> 
> ...


I never understand this argument. It's as though Lance is the first doper to be sanctioned - he isn't. Plenty of riders from that era and more recently have been sanctioned, and many got the (laughable) 2 year ban. Lance had that offer and declined it - hence the merry dance that's now going on. 

Lance isn't the first sanctioned athlete, he isn't being singled out, it is not a witch hunt.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

roddjbrown said:


> I never understand this argument. It's as though Lance is the first doper to be sanctioned - he isn't. Plenty of riders from that era and more recently have been sanctioned, and many got the (laughable) 2 year ban. Lance had that offer and declined it - hence the merry dance that's now going on.
> 
> Lance isn't the first sanctioned athlete, he isn't being singled out, it is not a witch hunt.


This pretty much sums it up. I don't need to add much more except:

Slegros, if you truly WERE interested in cleaning up the sport, you'd be thrilled that this case has actually come to fruition. Removing a whole slew of the old guard, the cancers in the sport is nothing short of marvelous.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

slegros said:


> LA my buddy? LOL!! To the best of my knowledge I've never been out to Austin for beer or even met the guy! LOL! ;-)
> 
> For the record I am very much anti-doping and certainly hope that LA and crew get whats's coming to them after all the effort that has been put in. I never liked what LA and postal brought to cycling in terms of the specialization on the TDF alone... One of the saddest things I have ever seen in cycling is the '91 tour. LeMond did everything he could against opponents who in hindsight were almost certainly doped. I almost respect him more for that gutsy ride than any of his wins.....
> 
> ...


But what would you have the USADA do? Expand their nets to catch all the fish? They can't. They only have jurisdiction over US athletes and US based teams. So are you now saying that since they can't catch'em all they should do nothing? Let the big fish they already have, off the hook?
The evidence will be handed over to the UCI. How they handle it is another story for another day.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> This pretty much sums it up. I don't need to add much more except:
> 
> Slegros, if you truly WERE interested in cleaning up the sport, you'd be thrilled that this case has actually come to fruition. Removing a whole slew of the old guard, the cancers in the sport is nothing short of marvelous.


I am thrilled!!! 

But it hasn't come to fruition yet.... Lets not get ahead of ourselves. One step at a time.... I sincerely hope that after all of this USADA and the FDA have done everything by the book so as not allow any legal loophole. To have done so after all this would be a COLOSSAL waste and make a farce of the process....

And you're right, hopefully it goes a long way to routing out many deep-seated problems in cycling 

BUT..... Please refer to my above post, especially the highlighted sections, to see where my concerns lie..... I think anyone that cares about fairness in sport, and athlete's rights should be concerned with the way this process has unfolded.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

roddjbrown said:


> I never understand this argument. It's as though Lance is the first doper to be sanctioned - he isn't. Plenty of riders from that era and more recently have been sanctioned, and many got the (laughable) 2 year ban. Lance had that offer and declined it - hence the merry dance that's now going on.
> 
> Lance isn't the first sanctioned athlete, he isn't being singled out, it is not a witch hunt.


No he isn't the first doper to be sanctioned.

You are right, Lance got the offer and declined, he gets what he gets.

But.... He is the first and only doper to have been the subject of multiple multi-year investigations, likely costing in the tens of millions of dollars, the sum total of which have spanned over a decade.

Please refer to my above post again to see where my concerns with that fact lie.....


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

slegros said:


> But.... He is the first and only doper to have been the subject of multiple multi-year investigations, likely costing in the tens of millions of dollars, the sum total of which have spanned over a decade.


The Fuentes case is still ongoing. Valverde was caught in a comparison with 2009 sample to the 2006 blood confiscated from Fuentes. 
how long did the Freiburg case run?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

MG537 said:


> But what would you have the USADA do? Expand their nets to catch all the fish? They can't. They only have jurisdiction over US athletes and US based teams. So are you now saying that since they can't catch'em all they should do nothing? Let the big fish they already have, off the hook?
> The evidence will be handed over to the UCI. How they handle it is another story for another day.



I agree that USADA basically had no choice but follow up after the FDA turned over the case.

WADA, USADA and all anti-doping agencies in my opinion have an obligation to apply the standards uniformly and without prejudice. Lady justice wears a blindfold for a reason.

It was with the FDA and Novitzky where the focus stopped being about the FDA mandate and blurred into something else entirely. If it was solely about enforcing the FDA mandate, do you think that the FDA would have prioritized going after a semi-retired athlete no longer competing in his primary sport for the alleged trafficking of PEDs into a foreign country nearly a decade ago? Or do you think the fact that athlete's name was Lance Armstrong just might have had something to do with that..... ;-)


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

den bakker said:


> The Fuentes case is still ongoing. Valverde was caught in a comparison with 2009 sample to the 2006 blood confiscated from Fuentes.
> how long did the Freiburg case run?



Yeah, but come on..... We both know both of those cases have had nowhere near the budgets, resources and manpower put into them that the LA/Postal case has...... Not even close... And thats just the FDA/USADA version.... There was also the SCA thing, then the French tried for years.....


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

kiwisimon said:


> You won't get better if you don't try.


Not a chance man! ;-)

I'm on my knees bowing "I'm not worthy!! I'm not worthy!!!" ;-)

All in fun! ;-)


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

slegros said:


> Yeah, but come on..... We both know both of those cases have had nowhere near the budgets, resources and manpower put into them that the LA/Postal case has...... Not even close... And thats just the FDA/USADA version.... There was also the SCA thing, then the French tried for years.....


no I don't know the full budget and manpower for the fuentes case. please enlighten me. Because you know this right?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

MG537 said:


> But what would you have the USADA do? Expand their nets to catch all the fish? They can't. They only have jurisdiction over US athletes and US based teams. So are you now saying that since they can't catch'em all they should do nothing? Let the big fish they already have, off the hook?
> The evidence will be handed over to the UCI. How they handle it is another story for another day.


Stop making sense.  :thumbsup:


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

den bakker said:


> no I don't know the full budget and manpower for the fuentes case. please enlighten me. Because you know this right?


No I don't. But I also don't know the figures on the FDA/USADA case either because they have never been released. Most estimates I have seen put it in the tens of millions... My impression, and its only that, is that the Fuentes case was smaller than the LA case in cost and scope.

Do you believe the Fuentes case has cost more than the FDA/USADA case? If anyone has any hard figures......

Again, I'm talking about the pursuit of athletes... To quote:

But.... He is the first and only doper to have been the subject of multiple multi-year investigations, likely costing in the tens of millions of dollars, the sum total of which have spanned over a decade.

Was Fuentes an athlete? Or was the pursuit of LA unprecedented in cycling for an ATHLETE?

We can get into semantics all you like, The fact stands that no rider has been pursued for doping violations in a manner that even comes close to that of LA....


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

slegros said:


> Do you believe the Fuentes case has cost more than the FDA/USADA case? If anyone has any hard figures......


it's your claim so why should I run around making estimates and quantify your statements. 

But let's just for the fun out it say it turns out the whole Fuentes case ends up costing 1/3 of the USADA case. why is that suddenly some magic treshold. Was the fuentes case a witch hunt because it was one of the large Spanish cases? Is Valverde really just the victim of personal vendettas?

edited: is Ferrari an athlete?


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

According to USADA, in an article published earlier this week in a a French Newspaper, they received nothing from the feds (though they were supposed to) and have gathered all the evidence on their own.

There were 2 different investigations here. 

First - The federal investigation looked to see if any federal laws had been broken regarding fraud. For some reason, that investigation never completed and was called off. I will not speculate as why, though I have some pretty good suspicions.

Second - The USADA investigation started initially after Landis came clean, and gethered a lot of momentum after Hamilton did. 

Two different and _independent _investigations, only partly running concurrently. That's why it seems it's taken so long. If you want to argue the money angle, the fed investigation certainly cost a large amount, and it was called off before they finished. Had the investigation been allowed to reach conclusion, no one knows what the outcome would have been. It is conceivable that the fines levied would have more than covered the cost.

Incidentally, _IF _they are guilty, cleaning up the sport will have been worth it. It'll potentially save many up and coming youngsters from having to do this to themselves.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

den bakker said:


> it's your claim so why should I run around making estimates and quantify your statements.
> 
> But let's just for the fun out it say it turns out the whole Fuentes case ends up costing 1/3 of the USADA case. why is that suddenly some magic treshold. Was the fuentes case a witch hunt because it was one of the large Spanish cases? Is Valverde really just the victim of personal vendettas?
> 
> edited: is Ferrari an athlete?


Ferrari isn't an athlete, neither is Fuentes...

My point was (and still is) no cyclist in the history of cycling has been pursued for doping violations to the same degree as LA.

To Quote... Again....

But.... He is the first and only doper to have been the subject of multiple multi-year investigations, likely costing in the tens of millions of dollars, the sum total of which have spanned over a decade.

Are you implying that the degree to which Valverde was pursued even comes close to that of Lance Armstrong?

Valverde wasn't even linked to the investigation until 2007 and they banned him in 2010 on a DNA match after all the hearings and appeals..... 3 years start to finish.

Armstrong had already been though both the SCA thing and the French investigation by 2007. The allegations continued after that. This FDA/USADA thing is what 1 1/2, 2 years old, and will likely end up the courts for god knows how much longer..... 

The 2 don't even compare.....


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

slegros said:


> Ferrari isn't an athlete, neither is Fuentes...
> 
> My point was (and still is) no cyclist in the history of cycling has been pursued for doping violations to the same degree as LA.
> 
> ...


except they both cheated. But apparently at some point authorities should just drop the ball and walk home. Especially if someone else has investigated you for different violations, then you should just be ignored. 
Got it.

another edit: at some point it would be nice if you figured out there are other people in this case than Armstrong.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

den bakker said:


> except they both cheated. But apparently at some point authorities should just drop the ball and walk home. Especially if someone else has investigated you for different violations, then you should just be ignored.
> Got it.



Absolutely not!!!

Again, as I have said all along:

I'm all for penalizing dopers. But I also believe the standards have to be uniformly applied without prejudice in order to ensure the very standards of fairness that the rules themselves were put in place to protect. As such IMO the FDA and USADA could be setting a dangerous precedent here.

IMO, the standards have not been uniformly applied without prejudice in the case of LA.

Again as I previously stated:

In my opinion the LA case stopped being solely about clean sport some time ago. LA has a big ego and stepped on a lot of toes for sure. This now to me appears to be as much about giving LA his comeuppance, and serving him a slice of humble pie as it is about catching someone for their doping offenses (perhaps more?). I find that, along with the hordes on the sidelines attempting to veil their personal dislike of LA behind the mantel of clean sport who are cheering it on, both hypocritical and distasteful.

Yet again, I'll give a hypothetical:

But at issue is the concept of fairness in sport, and the concept that all athletes deserve to be treated equally.

Lets take the example of a current rider: Alberto Contador

-Sanctioned for having used Clenbuterol
-Suspected of blood doping. (Didn't they find traces of chemicals used in blood bags in his samples?)

In the name of equality does the UCI and WADA now use the template set by the FDA and USADA to launch a multi-million dollar, multi-year investigation of Contador's past with the aim of vacating all of his grand tour wins? Offer Vino and others plea deals to testify against him?


So by your very logic above we should now use the template set by the FDA and USADA to launch a multi-million dollar, multi-year investigation of Contador's past with the aim of vacating all of his grand tour wins....

Got it!:thumbsup:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

slegros said:


> Absolutely not!!!
> 
> 
> Lets take the example of a current rider: Alberto Contador
> ...


contador got two years for that offense for fck sake. it does not sum up, caught in a race with cocaine, clenbuterol and amphetamine does not give 3 violations. 
Let go of the straw, you will feel better.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

den bakker said:


> contador got two years for that offense for fck sake. it does not sum up, caught in a race with cocaine, clenbuterol and amphetamine does not give 3 violations.
> Let go of the straw, you will feel better.


So Contador is less guilty than Lance? Lance was never officially busted for a blown test like Contador was!! Lets vacate al of LA's results but not AC's?

What about Hincapie? He was on postal and probably rode more tour miles doped than Lance simply due to having ridden more tours! No multi-million dollar, multi-year investigation into GH aimed at vacating all of his past results? Right..... Because he's LESS guilty of having ridden doped than Lance......


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

slegros said:


> So Contador is less guilty than Lance? Lance was never officially busted for a blown test like Contador was!!
> 
> What about Hincapie? he was on postal and probably rode more tour miles doped than Lance? No multi-million dollar, multi-yer investigation into GH aimed at vacating all of his past results? Right..... Because he's LESS guilty of having ridden doped than Lance......


the charges in the two cases were obviously different, sorry you cannot see the difference between being caught in one race and the claims they have proof for systematic doping over many years. I really am sorry. 
now, if plasticizers are a valid charge for doping, which it is not currently, and it is found in old samples from Contador it is obviously a different story than today. 
and with that I am done.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

den bakker said:


> the charges in the two cases were obviously different, sorry you cannot see the difference between being caught in one race and the claims they have proof for systematic doping over many years. I really am sorry.
> now, if plasticizers are a valid charge for doping, which it is not currently, and it is found in old samples from Contador it is obviously a different story than today.
> and with that I am done.


If you don't think for one second that either GH or AC doped systematically for years I've got another one you'll believe:

500 clean tests is proof LA rode clean!

You know what better yet!!! We DON'T have proof in the cases of GH and AC!! So.... Lets start a multi-year, multi-million dollar investigation aimed at getting proof, just like was done in the case of LA...

Fair?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

slegros said:


> If you don't think for one second that either GH or AC doped systematically for years ...


see I never said anything of that kind but it's clear you will just make sh!t up as this goes along to validate your preconceived notions.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

den bakker said:


> see I never said anything of that kind but it's clear you will just make sh!t up as this goes along to validate your preconceived notions.



Because there is no proof in the cases of GH and AC, but serious suspicion, should a multi-year, multi-million dollar investigation aimed at getting proof and vacating all past results, just like was done in the case of LA, now be started in each of their cases?

That would be fair...... It treats all 3 equally...... There was only suspicion in the case of LA when the investigations started..... I mean thats the point of an investigation right? To get proof?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Big dumptruck full of crazy.......


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

slegros said:


> Because there is no proof in the cases of GH and AC, but serious suspicion, should a multi-year, multi-million dollar investigation aimed at getting proof and vacating all past results, just like was done in the case of LA, now be started in each of their cases?
> 
> That would be fair...... It treats all 3 equally...... There was only suspicion in the case of LA when the investigations started..... I mean thats the point of an investigation right? To get proof?


The same* may have happened to GH but he opted to cooperate, which is the same thing LA could have done.

Well something similar since I doubt there's going to be any evidence he was playing a role in organizing the whole thing. As far as AC I don't think USADA would have any jurisdiction over him unless they could demonstrate he was part of the conspiracy. I suppose they could share info. with the Spanish equivalent of the USADA, if they have anything on him, and they could choose to proceed or not.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

slegros said:


> 500 clean tests is proof LA rode clean!



So...I hate to break this to you...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

slegros said:


> I am thrilled!!!
> 
> But it hasn't come to fruition yet.... Lets not get ahead of ourselves. One step at a time.... I sincerely hope that after all of this USADA and the FDA have done everything by the book so as not allow any legal loophole. To have done so after all this would be a COLOSSAL waste and make a farce of the process....
> 
> ...


Athletes rights? You mean the ones set forth in the charter they agreed to, and that a federal justice ruled had been upheld already? 

You can't deal with the fact that the usada followed their procedures correctly and got what they were looking for. And it happens to be your hero, apparently. Otherwise you wouldn't be indignant towards the usada, especially after they have sanctioned plenty if athletes in the past.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> Athletes rights? You mean the ones set forth in the charter they agreed to, and that a federal justice ruled had been upheld already?
> 
> You can't deal with the fact that the usada followed their procedures correctly and got what they were looking for. And it happens to be your hero, apparently. Otherwise you wouldn't be indignant towards the usada, especially after they have sanctioned plenty if athletes in the past.



Please re-read my previous post. I'm no LA fan, and I have said nothing that would indicate that I'm indignant towards USADA. I hope they do sanction LA!! I just hope that its done right....


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

roddjbrown said:


> So...I hate to break this to you...


Dang, beat me to it. 

Now we know this guy is a product if the pr machine without a shadow of a doubt. Only the fanboys still quote that obviously false sentiment.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

slegros said:


> Please re-read my previous post. I'm no LA fan, and I have said nothing that would indicate that I'm indignant towards USADA. I hope they do sanction LA!! I just hope they do it right....


Right? They had no choice but to investigate after the end of the federal investigation. Based on the evidence they then collated they charged Armstrong. He declined the arbitration process and he was therefore sanctioned. What in that was wrong by USADA?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

roddjbrown said:


> Right? They had no choice but to investigate after the end of the federal investigation. Based on the evidence they then collated they charged Armstrong. He declined the arbitration process and he was therefore sanctioned. What in that was wrong by USADA?


USADA did nothing wrong! You're right! I said as much in another post on this thread!! After the FDA passed on the case, they did their job!! I never stated otherwise! I just hope what they pass on to the UCI is unassailable after all this.

Read my previous posts, and you'll see where my concerns lie......


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

slegros said:


> USADA did nothing wrong! You're right! I said as much in another post on this thread!! After the FDA passed on the case, they did their job!! I never stated otherwise! I just hope what they pass on to the UCI is unassailable after all this.
> 
> Read my previous posts, and you'll see where my concerns lie......


I read your posts - thankfully my timesheet for today was already charged. You did say that you hoped USADA did it right - implying you have a concern that they didn't - whilst also saying they did nothing wrong. Confusing.

Yes, I get it, it should be fair for all athletes. However you agree that USADA have complied with their remit. So what you're saying is surely that a federal investigation should be carried out on any suspicious riders. That investigation was launched over a suspicion of defrauding a government organsation so unless there's a suspicion over Contador (who you keep mentioning) having done that then the process *is* equally matched no?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

roddjbrown said:


> I read your posts - thankfully my timesheet for today was already charged.
> 
> Yes, I get it, it should be fair for all athletes. However you agree that USADA have complied with their remit. So what you're saying a federal investigation should be carried out on suspicious riders. That investigation was launched over a suspicion of defrauding a government organsation so unless there's a suspicion over Contador (who you keep mentioning) having done that then the process *is* equally matched no?


No, not exactly.

My concern lies with the belief that the FDA investigation was not entirely motivated by a desire to uphold the FDA's mandate, and that a governmental agency's resources may have been directed towards LA and crew for reasons other than a desire to best enforce the mandate of that governmental agency.

As I stated elsewhere:

If it was solely about enforcing the FDA mandate, do you think that the FDA would have prioritized going after a semi-retired athlete no longer competing in his primary sport for the alleged trafficking of PEDs into a foreign country nearly a decade ago?

I can't help but think that no, if the athlete in question had not been LA, the FDA would not have prioritized such a case.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> Dang, beat me to it.
> 
> Now we know this guy is a product if the pr machine without a shadow of a doubt. Only the fanboys still quote that obviously false sentiment.


I doesn't matter that I used it as an example of an obvious lie? Or do you need the context explained?


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Good article DF.. Good find and interesting read.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

slegros said:


> No, not exactly.
> 
> My concern lies with the belief that the FDA investigation was not entirely motivated by a desire to uphold the FDA's mandate, and that a governmental agency's resources may have been directed towards LA and crew for reasons other than a desire to best enforce the mandate of that governmental agency.
> 
> ...


Yes, but you also stated elsewhere that you were hoping the USADA would do it right so I'm understandably confused. LA is being sanctioned by USADA, not the FDA, so what does a previous investigation that didn't result in charges have to do with the current one that did?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Quick question: According to that article, the blood values indicate a blood draw during the Giro d'Italia and re-infusion 19 days prior to le tour when Armstrong was at altitude?
> 
> Is it good science to compare blood values at the end of a stage race with those at the end of an altitude sojourn?


Anyone?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

roddjbrown said:


> Yes, but you also stated elsewhere that you were hoping the USADA would do it right so I'm understandably confused. LA is being sanctioned by USADA, not the FDA, so what does a previous investigation that didn't result in charges have to do with the current one that did?


I'm concerned that the conduct of the FDA may set a potentially bad precedent.

As I stated:

It was with the FDA and Novitzky where the focus stopped being about the FDA mandate and blurred into something else entirely. If it was solely about enforcing the FDA mandate, do you think that the FDA would have prioritized going after a semi-retired athlete no longer competing in his primary sport for the alleged trafficking of PEDs into a foreign country nearly a decade ago?

It concerns me that this process may have redirected the resources of not one but 2 government agencies in an effort to selectively prosecute one athlete and his associates for personal/political purposes. (Which is different from saying they don't deserve to be prosecuted!) I say 2 agencies because I think it unlikely that the USADA investigation would have arose spontaneously without having first been handed the case by the FDA.

Is this going to be the new norm? Stretching governmental agencies to the limit of their mandates to selectively pursue certain individuals for political gain? I really hope not...

Who has the right to select the athletes who get pursued in a process like this? If you have 10 violators, just pick the one you think will bring you the most political gain and forget the rest? That has basically been Novitzky's M.O.... It just doesn't sit well with me.

This is why I stated:

I also believe the standards have to be uniformly applied without prejudice in order to ensure the very standards of fairness that the rules themselves were put in place to protect.

In that sense I believe agencies like USADA are in a far better position to apply the standards without prejudice. Which in essence they did here - they got the case and did their job. But in another sense they were unable to apply their standards without prejudice because the FDA effectively left them no choice.

I'm no LA fan.... But I also don't believe the FDA investigation was solely motivated by a desire to clean up cycling, and that bothers me.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Keep in mind the federal investigation was started as a whistleblower lawsuit by Landis.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

slegros said:


> I'm concerned that the conduct of the FDA may set a potentially bad precedent.
> 
> As I stated:
> 
> ...


Right, but can you provide another instance where a non doping based governmental organisation would be involved? I'm not sure what precedent you're concerned would be repeated


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

All that aside, would anyone like to discuss the science? 

Specifically why compare the low numbers at the end of a stage race with high numbers at the end of a sojourn at altitude? 

According to that article, it is suggest that Armstrong drew blood at the end of a the Giro and infused it 19 days prior to the tdf, when he was in Aspen. Does that make sense?


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

slegros said:


> Lets take the example of a current rider: Alberto Contador


Let's not!
As discussed previously, USADA only has authority over US athletes having signed the code and/or US based teams.
When Contador got busted he was riding for Astana, Swiss based I believe. Contador is also Spanish.
The reason you keep on hearing about Hincapie, Zabriskie, Vaughters, Hamilton and Landis in this case, is because they're American. 
The reason you will never hear the names Ulrich, Pantani and even Contador, mentioned is because they're not and they weren't riding for American based teams.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

roddjbrown said:


> Right, but can you provide another instance where a non doping based governmental organisation would be involved? I'm not sure what precedent you're concerned would be repeated


Balco... That was using the IRS to go selectively go after athletes for sporting violations. Which precedent? As I stated above: the redirection of resources of government agencies not primarily concerned with sport in an effort to SELECTIVELY prosecute athletes for personal/political purposes.

Again:
Who has the right to select the athletes who get pursued in a process like this? If you have 10 violators, just pick the one you think will bring you the most political gain and forget the rest? That has basically been Novitzky's M.O.... It just doesn't sit well with me.

Doping and doping related issues IMO need to be handled by the proper anti-doping agencies and governing bodies to ensure as I stated: *that the standards are uniformly applied without prejudice in order to ensure and maintain the very standards of fairness that the rules of the sports themselves were put in place to protect.* If handled by the anti-doping agencies and sporting bodies the rights of the athletes and integrity of the process can better be maintained.

I don't dispute for one second that LA deserves whatever is coming to him, but I am concerned the he was selectively targeted by this process, and that the process was able to be initiated essentially by one individual re-directing government agencies not primarily concerned with sporting violations. Its this selective nature of Novitzky's process which for me raises concerns, as it violates the very concept of fairness that sporting rules exist for.

For example LA could not have been prosecuted if he wasn't American, and would probably not been prosecuted if were not high profile. In this case I believe selective prosecution of an athlete based on both their nationality and public profile goes against the uniform application of sporting standards in what is an international sport.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Someone left the babble machine on. 

We need to give out an award for the most amount of nonsense in one post


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

MG537 said:


> Let's not!
> As discussed previously, USADA only has authority over US athletes having signed the code and/or US based teams.
> When Contador got busted he was riding for Astana, Swiss based I believe. Contador is also Spanish.
> The reason you keep on hearing about Hincapie, Zabriskie, Vaughters, Hamilton and Landis in this case, is because they're American.
> The reason you will never hear the names Ulrich, Pantani and even Contador, mentioned is because they're not and they weren't riding for American based teams.


I cited Contador as an hypothetical example of selectively prosecuting an athlete based upon their status.

Do you think athletes should be selectively prosecuted based upon their public profile? Selectively prosecuted based on their nationality or the nationality of their teams? 

Or do you believe as I do that the standards have to be uniformly applied without prejudice in order to ensure the very standards of fairness that the rules themselves were put in place to protect?


----------



## eidolon (Jun 21, 2012)

What part of post 53 did you not understand?


----------



## King Arthur (Nov 13, 2009)

JoelS said:


> According to USADA, in an article published earlier this week in a a French Newspaper, they received nothing from the feds (though they were supposed to) and have gathered all the evidence on their own.
> 
> There were 2 different investigations here.
> 
> ...


If you read Tyler Hamilton's memoir, it will render an explaination for the federal not proceeding forward.:cryin:


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

slegros said:


> ... Selectively prosecuted based on their nationality or the nationality of their teams?


This has got to be the funniest thing I've read here in a long time. You realize it was exactly because different countries' sports federations were applying anti-doping measures inconsistently that WADA was created, and the WADA charter led directly to USADA. Despite your continued insistence on ignoring the evidence, what we have now is much closer to a uniform process than we've ever had before.

And I still don't understand your Contador hypothetical. Evidence was presented to Contador's national authority, they investigated, the case was prosecuted, and he was suspended. What's your point?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

asgelle said:


> This has got to be the funniest thing I've read here in a long time. You realize it was exactly because different countries' sports federations were applying anti-doping measures inconsistently that WADA was created, and the WADA charter led directly to USADA. Despite your continued insistence on ignoring the evidence, what we have now is much closer to a uniform process than we've ever had before.
> 
> And I still don't understand your Contador hypothetical. Evidence was presented to Contador's national authority, they investigated, the case was prosecuted, and he was suspended. What's your point?


Are you not reading my posts?

Thats exactly my point!!! That's what SHOULD be done!!! I'm not for ignoring the evidence at all (evidently you haven't been reading my posts) I'm for making sure its done right so there are no loopholes. To have all this get to the point where it falls apart on a legal technicality would be a colossal waste. Do it right! I'm for persevering the integrity of the process.....

As I stated elsewhere:

I believe that that the standards need to be uniformly applied without prejudice in order to ensure and maintain the very standards of fairness that the rules of the sports themselves were put in place to protect. If handled by the anti-doping agencies and sporting bodies the rights of the athletes and integrity of the process can better be maintained.

Could the FDA have selectively gone after LA if he wasn't American? If it was solely about enforcing the FDA mandate, do you think that the FDA would have prioritized going after a semi-retired athlete no longer competing in his primary sport for the alleged trafficking of PEDs into a foreign country nearly a decade ago? Or do you think the fact LA was a big fish had something to do with that?

Go after AC now simply because he's the big fish while ignoring other suspected dopers?

Again:
Do you think athletes should be selectively prosecuted based upon their public profile? Selectively prosecuted based on their nationality or the nationality of their teams? 

Or do you believe as I do that the standards have to be uniformly applied without prejudice in order to ensure the very standards of fairness that the rules themselves were put in place to protect?


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Neither the FDA nor USADA would have jurisdiction over Armstrong if he wasn't American. Obviously USADA can't investigate Contador. The national authorities are supposed to follow WADA code, and, in the case of criminal proceedings, that has to be done under the law of the nation in which the cyclist resides and/or in which the alleged crime took place.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

slegros said:


> Thats exactly my point!!! That's what SHOULD be done!!!


This is why I'm confused. You admit that what SHOULD be done is exactly what came to pass but insist that somehow the system failed.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

slegros said:


> I believe that that the standards need to be uniformly applied without prejudice in order to ensure and maintain the very standards of fairness that the rules of the sports themselves were put in place to protect.


I'm getting tired of this. Give us one (1) example where USADA did not apply the anti-doping code uniformly.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

asgelle said:


> This is why I'm confused. You admit that what SHOULD be done is exactly what came to pass but insist that somehow the system failed.


No, it quite obviously wasn't what happened.

Again:

Could the FDA have selectively gone after LA if he wasn't American? If it was solely about enforcing the FDA mandate, do you think that the FDA would have prioritized going after a semi-retired athlete no longer competing in his primary sport for the alleged trafficking of PEDs into a foreign country nearly a decade ago? Or do you think the fact LA was a big fish had something to do with that?

The FDA investigation could not have taken place if LA was not American, and would not have taken place if LA was not a high profile athlete. USADA did nothing to LA for 7 years until they were compelled to by the turnover of the FDA case, and its unlikely they would have spontaneously stated an investigation of their own without the FDA case. USADA would have been unable to proceed if LA was not American.

It was clearly an example of an athlete being selectively prosecuted based upon both their nationality and public profile.

Again:
Do you think athletes should be selectively prosecuted based upon their public profile? Selectively prosecuted based on their nationality or the nationality of their teams? 

Or do you believe as I do that the standards have to be uniformly applied without prejudice in order to ensure the very standards of fairness that the rules themselves were put in place to protect?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

asgelle said:


> I'm getting tired of this. Give us one (1) example where USADA did not apply the anti-doping code uniformly.


Go back and read my posts before you make assumptions. 

I covered my opinion on USADA quite clearly. I stated they did their job as expected once the FDA turned over the case. They followed up on what they received from the FDA and by all accounts seen to have to a good job with that.

My concerns were with the FDA side of things which have been explained ad-nauseum. Go back and read my previous posts.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Christ almighty, enough with the "selectively went after" BS. People are "selectively gone after" all the time: they go after mob bosses selectively compared to the small fish, they prosecute CEOs for corporate scandals as opposed to the small guys....

Armstrong was sanctioned for being guilty of a rules violation. Was he "selectively gone after" by USADA? Maybe so, but frankly, it doesn't matter: they were provided information by several sources about Armstrong. They are obligated to explore it.

Enough of your BS about how unfair the process is. The PROCESS is fine. Move your angst to the informants who ratted upon your prince.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

slegros said:


> My concerns were with the FDA side of things which have been explained ad-nauseum. Go back and read my previous posts.


Now you're talking nonsense. Is your objection that FDA/DOJ investigated Armstrong and took no action? Landis' qui tam case required DOJ to investigate (there was nothing selective about it). DOJ did and brought no charges. What less could they have done?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> Christ almighty, enough with the "selectively went after" BS. People are "selectively gone after" all the time: they go after mob bosses selectively compared to the small fish, they prosecute CEOs for corporate scandals as opposed to the small guys....
> 
> Armstrong was sanctioned for being guilty of a rules violation. Was he "selectively gone after" by USADA? Maybe so, but frankly, it doesn't matter: they were provided information by several sources about Armstrong. They are obligated to explore it.
> 
> Enough of your BS about how unfair the process is. The PROCESS is fine. Move your angst to the informants who ratted upon your prince.



Got it!!

You think its ok to selectively prosecuted athletes based upon their public profile and/or based on their nationality or the nationality of their teams.....

Go back and read what I said about USADA.... I think they did a good job. They did what they were supposed to do after the FDA turned over the case.

The problem for me was with the FDA side of the case..... 

For the record? I hope LA burns.... So you can drop the 'my buddy' 'prince' 'my friend' crap...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

slegros said:


> Got it!!
> 
> You think its ok to selectively prosecuted athletes based upon their public profile and/or based on their nationality or the nationality of their teams.....
> 
> ...


The FDA has NOTHING to do with USADA, so I don't know why you're even arguing the point. So if you REALLY have an issue with the FDA case, give it a rest, just like the federal government did. 

And yes, I think it's absolutely fine to selectively prosecute someone if they are the key to dragging a bunch of slimeballs out of the sport. I find it even easier to accept when there's overwhelming evidence provided by several sources that instigate the investigation.

Other nations' ADAs don't even enter the equation because they have federal criminal statutes against doping as well as differing ADA procedures on doping cases. So why bring them up for any reason other than to provide a red herring?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

All right, I brought up substantive points on the blood values. Nobody cares. ..


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> All that aside, would anyone like to discuss the science?
> 
> Specifically why compare the low numbers at the end of a stage race with high numbers at the end of a sojourn at altitude?
> 
> According to that article, it is suggest that Armstrong drew blood at the end of a the Giro and infused it 19 days prior to the tdf, when he was in Aspen. Does that make sense?


It's a comparison of the percentage increase of hemoglobin vs. expected reticulocyte count that SHOULD accompany such a rise. Those two parameters do not meet expectations.

It has less to do with timing (end of stage race vs altitude) as it does the physiology of how the body (usually) deals with hypoxia or significant exercise.

Happy now? It's explained in the original link.


----------



## superjesus (Jul 26, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Someone left the babble machine on.
> 
> We need to give out an award for the most amount of nonsense in one post


You realize we'd be giving out a new award every couple of hours, right? :thumbsup:


----------



## JChasse (Sep 16, 2005)

Wait...

Does anybody think any of these heavy hitters were racing clean? Why are we even wasting time arguing about the details of their blood chemistry at this point?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> It's a comparison of the percentage increase of hemoglobin vs. expected reticulocyte count that SHOULD accompany such a rise. Those two parameters do not meet expectations.
> 
> It has less to do with timing (end of stage race vs altitude) as it does the physiology of how the body (usually) deals with hypoxia or significant exercise.
> 
> Happy now?


Not really. Nobody explained why Armstrong would draw blood at the end of a stage race and re-infuse it 19 days prior to le tour.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> snipped


Instead of clogging every thread with meaningless babble about crazy, unrelated theories could you please try to stay on topic? 

Armstrong's wacky blood values is the topic. 

Here is Ferrari saying Armstrong's natural Hct is 45-46
Ferrari Clip #4 - "You must be careful." by djcoyle on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

Add that his off season baseline in 09/10 was 38-40


----------



## toymanator (Dec 14, 2010)

Another interesting post from a random public blog on the internet. I am curious once the evidence comes out what Doctor Falsetti will do with his life. We all know what Lance will do, he will keep doing what he's doing. But what is in it for Doctor Falsetti? Will personal vindication allow him the peace necessary to retire? Or will he find his next victim, and flood the board with random non reviewed blogs? 

This is the sad state of cycling, he probably could find his next victim. I hope this doesn't come across as a personal attack on Doctor Falsetti, I actually enjoy what he brings to the forum. It is more just a jestful way of pointing out that there are many who have been waiting for official evidence for a while. But what do we do with it once it is "over." Does anyone else think that once the evidence comes out, we will all say "well that is what we have suspected for a long time, we already knew that" we may think about it for an evening. Then the majority of us will wake up the next morning and say "who cares" it doesn't affect us personally and will "move on" from something that we were never actually involved with.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Not really. Nobody explained why Armstrong would draw blood at the end of a stage race and re-infuse it 19 days prior to le tour.


He withdrew red cells 4 days before the start of the Giro (which he had used as a training race, saying explicitly that he was not going to shoot for a placing.) He likely had used EPO and other means to build his hemoglobin (red cells) to a higher than normal level before withdrawing some of it, bringing himself to "normal" again. Rode the Giro, then reinfused prior to the Tour, along with EPO microdosing to attempt to mask the reticulocyte numbers. 

Apparently he didn't get a good enough doc this time around to beat it.


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

double post


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

toymanator said:


> Another interesting post from a random public blog on the internet. I am curious once the evidence comes out what Doctor Falsetti will do with his life. We all know what Lance will do, he will keep doing what he's doing. But what is in it for Doctor Falsetti? Will personal vindication allow him the peace necessary to retire? Or will he find his next victim, and flood the board with random non reviewed blogs?
> 
> This is the sad state of cycling, he probably could find his next victim. I hope this doesn't come across as a personal attack on Doctor Falsetti, I actually enjoy what he brings to the forum. It is more just a jestful way of pointing out that there are many who have been waiting for official evidence for a while. But what do we do with it once it is "over." Does anyone else think that once the evidence comes out, we will all say "well that is what we have suspected for a long time, we already knew that" we may think about it for an evening. Then the majority of us will wake up the next morning and say "who cares" it doesn't affect us personally and will "move on" from something that we were never actually involved with.


It's not about the Doc.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderator's Note*



toymanator said:


> This is the sad state of cycling, he probably could find his next victim. I hope this doesn't come across as a personal attack on Doctor Falsetti, I actually enjoy what he brings to the forum. I


It does, knock it off.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Add that his off season baseline in 09/10 was 38-40


That's interesting. My HCT has been in that range for a couple of years and my doctor was concerned enough over it to consider putting me on medication for it (I also have low RBC values). She also advanced my colonoscopy because she was concerned that there was a tumor causing bleeding.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mpre53 said:


> That's interesting. My HCT has been in that range for a couple of years and my doctor was concerned enough over it to consider putting me on medication for it (I also have low RBC values). She also advanced my colonoscopy because she was concerned that there was a tumor causing bleeding.


Interesting. Have to wonder if there were other elements for you then just Hct?

It is interesting to note that riders who are able to ride well with a low natural Hct also benefited the most from oxygen vector doping.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

slegros said:


> Go back and read my posts before you make assumptions.
> 
> I covered my opinion on USADA quite clearly. I stated they did their job as expected once the FDA turned over the case. They followed up on what they received from the FDA and by all accounts seen to have to a good job with that.
> 
> My concerns were with the FDA side of things which have been explained ad-nauseum. Go back and read my previous posts.


So...the previous posts that were concerned that USADA wouldn't apply procedures properly? Those are the ones saying that you're just worried about the FDA and not USADA? 

Please, copy and paste again. It saves me reading more than the first two lines of each post


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Interesting. Have to wonder if there were other elements for you then just Hct?
> 
> It is interesting to note that riders who are able to ride well with a low natural Hct also benefited the most from oxygen vector doping.


She referred me to an endrocrinologist who thought that it might be due to low testosterone. I wasn't that keen on being on medication for the rest of my life (I was told that testosterone supplemental meds are a lifetime therapy) when I feel just fine. I don't race, and I'm not concerned over it negatively affecting my riding.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Blood tests indicate doping, expert says - SFGate



> Armstrong was recklessly using banned doping methods in an effort to win the Tour de France one more time.





> "Suppressed red blood cell production is a classic signature associated with blood doping," he wrote. "The body reacts to the presence of excess red cells in circulation by suppressing the bone marrow's production of new cells."





> Ashenden said that during the race, Armstrong's blood did not become thinner as the three-week event dragged on, belying the normal wear and tear of extreme exercise. Instead, his blood remained packed with oxygen-carrying cells.





> "The absence of a natural decline in blood concentration during a three-week race is also consistent with blood doping,"





> in his career's twilight, Armstrong might not have been careful enough. Allowing testers to collect telltale signs of blood transfusions "fails the so-called doping IQ test,"


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I'm back, having cleared my head with a weekend of good hard riding. I'm struck reading this by the selective prosecution argument. In fact, prosecution and testing in general have become much less selective over time. 

Back in the day, only the top overall GC contenders and the stage winner were tested for anything in a stage race. If you were off the podium, you could pretty much take whatever you wanted, and you never heard of domestiques getting popped because they were never tested. Now, testing is becoming more random and, one can hope, more effective, especially if out of competition testing is done as intended (i.e., with no warnings). 

If LA has been truly singled out, why have 22 other cycling-related people been sanctioned by USADA in the past two years, including many that very few of us have heard of? It's not an argument that passes the laugh test.

List of USADA sanctions.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

MG537 said:


> Let's not!
> 
> The reason you keep on hearing about Hincapie, Zabriskie, Vaughters, Hamilton and Landis in this case, is because they're American.
> The reason you will never hear the names Ulrich, Pantani and even Contador, mentioned is because they're not and they weren't riding for American based teams.


Well, Pantani is no longer in a position to answer anyone's charges regardless of jurisdiction. I'm surprised that Slegros didn't have him lined up in his bag of red herrings and irrelevances.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Let me start off by saying that I'm no doctor. 

So when there is talk of RBCs and reticulytes and the ratio and what we should expect to see I freely admit that I am not an expert. Can someone who has some real knowledge on this explain something? 

In light of this: 

_"Suppressed red blood cell production is a classic signature associated with blood doping," he wrote. "The body reacts to the presence of excess red cells in circulation by suppressing the bone marrow's production of new cells."_


If Armstrong withdrew blood with a certain reticulocyte/RBC ratio and that blood was spun out and immediately frozen, wouldn't it maintain the same ratio when re-infused? 

In other words, when we say that the presence of too many old RBCs and not enough reticulocytes is indicative of doping, why does the infusion consist primarily of the older cells? Do reticulocytes mature while frozen? 

Or is it that an infused unit of blood so effectively alters the body that reticulocyte production shuts down completely? And only microdosed EPO can balance it, thus leading to the "Armstrong was sloppy" line of reasoning?


(For those spectating, reticulocytes are immature RBCs (red blood cells). We have certain expectations for these ratios and other blood levels as the body changes from external and internal stresses.)


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

Fireform said:


> List of USADA sanctions.


That is quite list, and it includes Paralympics participants. That is depressing.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

sir duke said:


> Well, Pantani is no longer in a position to answer anyone's charges regardless of jurisdiction. I'm surprised that Slegros didn't have him lined up in his bag of red herrings and irrelevances.



Hey! Just cause he's dead doesn't mean he can't be done for a non-analytical positive, and have all his results vacated!


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Let me start off by saying that I'm no doctor.
> 
> So when there is talk of RBCs and reticulytes and the ratio and what we should expect to see I freely admit that I am not an expert. Can someone who has some real knowledge on this explain something?
> 
> ...


A unit that is spun down would contain only red cells once separated because of the significant difference in size and cellular weight; most of the weight in an erythrocyte is hemoglobin, while retics are immature and don't contain near as much (if I recall my lab di classes correctly.) They may not be this exacting in retrieving red cells though, so there could be retics in the infused unit.

However, even if there were, the maturation time for a retic is quite short: 3ish days. So if you infused a unit, sure you'll get a slight bump with the retics, but you'll also shut down retic production due to the increase in red cells. 

Look at it this way: your body maintains your hemoglobin at a certain percentage (yes, it can be raised and lowered naturally.) Let's say for argument's sake say 15g/dl is your baseline. If you come along and infuse red cells, raise your hemoglobin to 17g/dl, your body will start to say "we've got more than we need here, we don't need to produce any new cells (hemoglobin.)" It shuts down retic production, any that were infused mature in 3ish days, and now you've got high hemoglobin but low retic counts.

That's the reason for microdosing EPO: it stimulates retic production in the presence of physiologically higher than normal hemoglobin.

Like I said, it's been a long time since lab di, but that would be my basic understanding.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-file-was-ever-sent-to-any-of-us-experts.aspx

*



It was obvious to an expert eye that his published values during the 2009 Tour were not typical, but until and unless the file was sent to the experts it was completely outside our control,” he told VeloNation. “All that I could do was raise my concern at what I had seen published as Armstrong's values at one of our passport meetings. 

“They listened, but I never heard anything more about it.

Click to expand...

*


> “There are two damning features present in Armstrong's blood values during the 2009 Tour de France,” he said, referring to the published figures. “First, his haemoglobin values did not decline by the 10 percent or so that is typically found during three week stage races.* In the Pellizotti case, the publicly available CAS decision shows that the CAS found that this characteristic demonstrated the use of blood doping practices. *
> 
> “Second, his reticulocyte levels were below the average of the rest of his reported results. Both of those are consistent with the use of blood transfusions.”





> unravelling the past helps clean up sport today, as we’ve seen by the banning of several conspirators linked to Armstrong who were still preying on current athletes.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

"Preying on current athletes" WTF 'you can't cheat an honest man' _Fields.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

A WC Fields quote! Enjoy the rep. :thumbsup:


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> A unit that is spun down would contain only red cells once separated because of the significant difference in size and cellular weight; most of the weight in an erythrocyte is hemoglobin, while retics are immature and don't contain near as much (if I recall my lab di classes correctly.) They may not be this exacting in retrieving red cells though, so there could be retics in the infused unit.
> 
> However, even if there were, the maturation time for a retic is quite short: 3ish days. So if you infused a unit, sure you'll get a slight bump with the retics, but you'll also shut down retic production due to the increase in red cells.
> 
> ...


Yes, I have a feeling that it is more to do with a bio feedback loop than the weight of the blood cells. 

A centrifuge readily separates blood cells from the plasma and buffy coat, but I can't find anything that shows a significant difference in weight of immature and mature blood cells. 










If there were a significant difference in weight of the immature and mature cells, why not re infuse only immature cells? This isn't to say that you are wrong; maybe this is unfeasible for other reasons (such as a low proportion of immature to mature making the procedure not viable).


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Yes, I have a feeling that it is more to do with a bio feedback loop than the weight of the blood cells.
> 
> A centrifuge readily separates blood cells from the plasma and buffy coat, but I can't find anything that shows a significant difference in weight of immature and mature blood cells.
> 
> ...


Rect are a small portion of your overall volume, 1-3%. This percentage would increase in spun blood......which would infer that slamming a bag of blood could result in a short term boost in rect 

Storage does a lot of damage to blood cells. I wonder if Rect are effected more by storage?


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

It's funny how, as usual, when someone brings an interesting point in the defense of Lance, immediatly he gets bashed by everyone. I'm replying to your post in the same mindset as robdamanii. 

In my opinion, the current backlash against Armstrong is completely personal, completely a witch hunt, and completely okay with me. 

It's obvious to pretty much anyone who doesn't have a blinding emotional involvement in the topic (hint hint) that Armstrong is being singled out and pursued with far more resources and drive than pretty much any other athlete has been in recent US (world) history. Everyone has been trying to bring him down for years, and a truckload of money has been spent at it, rather than busting the likes of Beloki, Escartin, etc. 
That's because Armstrong is a symbol of everything that is wrong with cycling, and he doesn't keep quiet about it. He took advantage of his popularity to exploit and corrupt the system, and to rise to stardom, destroying anything that came in his path. He dominated the peloton for 7 years, and was never humble for it. So you naturally have to expect that anything coming up against him will be exploited to a lot more degree than anyone else. That, and his fall would do a lot for the image of cycling, and for the mental state within the sport. 

The complete haters will say that he's being treated like the average pro cyclist, same due process, blahblahblah. That's BS. But since he is a symbol for far more than an average Tour winner, bringing him down is a lot more important than bringing down an average tour winner. IMO, the issue of it being "personal" is a non-issue: it is personal, but it doesn't matter. It's about making an example, and showing everyone else that you can't get away with it. And I'm fine with that.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

He's not being pursued with more resources, he's fighting back with more resources. Big difference.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Yes, I have a feeling that it is more to do with a bio feedback loop than the weight of the blood cells.
> 
> A centrifuge readily separates blood cells from the plasma and buffy coat, but I can't find anything that shows a significant difference in weight of immature and mature blood cells.
> 
> ...


Retics are only about 2-3% of total blood volume. Again, I'm not sure if they end up as part of the red cell population, buffy coat, or their own specific layer after centrifuge. I can understand that a different cellular weight would make them their own layer, but at 2-3% maybe not. I'm only guessing on that one based upon the percentage of Hb in each cell.

Along those same lines, it would be pretty difficult to infuse only retics.

As for the biofeedback loop, you've got it about right. When there's too much Hb/too many red cells, the body won't produce more. That's why infusing will knock down the retic %.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

BS. As Slegros said, where's the investigation into Hincapie ? Danielson ? Zabriskie ? He IS being singled out. Between L'equipe, the SCA, the Feds, USADA, and other journalists, he's been attacked more than just about any cyclist in history. 
Where did you see other countries pursuing their riders with such diligence ? I'm French, we always talk about how the French are supposed to be more stringent with their riders, but as I recall we had no trouble letting guys like Jalabert race obviously doped like crazy and then become national selector with no questions asked. 
This huge investigation into him, IMO, stems from the fact that he is such an arrogant douche. The Armstrong case is long past doping, it is now about taking down the man, Armstrong, and what he represents. Few people actually care about the doping anymore, they care more about the behavior he exhibited, and still exhibits. 

He's fighting back with more resources because he's got a lot more money than anyone else. If you're rich, you're going to use the money, no ? Even Landis and Floyd ruined themselves trying to put up a good show.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

All of the guys you name were pursued, they just chose to cooperate when USADA came after them. Lance didn't. It was his choice. The one making all the noise is Lance. 

Dozens of cyclists have been sanctioned by USADA without the slightest public notice. I happen to know one of them personally. The difference is Lance has a lot more money to make noise with.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Beloki pursued ? Escartin ?
The simple fact that the guys at Garmin were given preferential treatment for cooperating (i.e. ratting out on Lance) shows that it is personal against Armstrong and not about the doping. I could go on for miles about Garmin, because they're the ones who ended up benefitting the most from this fiasco. They all pretend like they're this clean, repented team, when really they barely saved their a** and if they could, they would all (if they haven't already) jump back on the dope. I can't stand Vaughters, Millar, and the rest. 

Dozens of cyclists have been sanctioned by USADA. Dozens of athletes from various sports have been sanctioned by USADA. They do a good job, apart from their ineptitude with regards to PR (the Armstrong file handling, the dope test with cyclocross in Florida), which doesn't affect their effectiveness. I think their tests are a joke but that's a function of how much more advanced dopers are compared to testers, and how profoundly corrupted the sport is, so I can't fault them for that. Even at my level (Cat 1), I'm pretty sure some of the semi-pro amateurs are on something. A couple got caught a few years ago. 
The point about it being personal against Armstrong is that everyone is out to get him, and throwing everything they can at him instead of someone else. It's not restricted to USADA, who to their credit are doing their best to stay impartial and even offered him to cooperate, but extends to everyone connected to the sport. Which as I said I'm fine with, because he really deserves it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

moskowe said:


> BS. As Slegros said, where's the investigation into Hincapie ? Danielson ? Zabriskie ? He IS being singled out. Between L'equipe, the SCA, the Feds, USADA, and other journalists, he's been attacked more than just about any cyclist in history.
> Where did you see other countries pursuing their riders with such diligence ? I'm French, we always talk about how the French are supposed to be more stringent with their riders, but as I recall we had no trouble letting guys like Jalabert race obviously doped like crazy and then become national selector with no questions asked.
> This huge investigation into him, IMO, stems from the fact that he is such an arrogant douche. The Armstrong case is long past doping, it is now about taking down the man, Armstrong, and what he represents. Few people actually care about the doping anymore, they care more about the behavior he exhibited, and still exhibits.
> 
> He's fighting back with more resources because he's got a lot more money than anyone else. If you're rich, you're going to use the money, no ? Even Landis and Floyd ruined themselves trying to put up a good show.


You are confused. Tommy D, Dave Z, Hincapie, all cooperated. Lance chose not to. It is that simple.

Armstrong has not been pursued. His doping was ignored by the UCI and USAC for over a decade. 

Should USADA have ignored the mountain of evidence? Really? 

Did you see what Germany did to Ullrich? CONI with Basso, Scarponi, Diluccca, ?

Stop with the talking points


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Maybe you should read my other post. 
You can justify your pretenses of "fair treatment" all you want, it isn't. The simple fact that a half dozen riders get preferred treatment for ratting out on just one shows that the one in question is being targeted pretty heavily. There's a difference between cooperating for a reduced sentence and cooperating for...no sentence at all. 
Armstrong's doping has not been ignored by the cycling world for a decade, multiple personalities and entities have stood up to accuse him, which is why I said it is part of a global dynamic, not just USADA. You should also point out the part of my posts where I said USADA shouldn't have intervened once they had the evidence.

You cannot ignore the fact that Armstrong is being singled out. He just is. That doesn't make what he did less reprehensible, that doesn't make his punishment less deserved. But it will raise a lot of questions from the non-initiated as to why others aren't being treated the same way, and why his domestiques got a free pass after doping for 10 years. I'll say it again, I think it's unacceptable that those Garmin riders are allowed to walk away from it. Not to start the debate again, but if you made every confessed/caught rider ineligible for national team, olympics, and any future team position, you'd already do a lot of good. That's a different topic though.

For me, I hope that the experience overcoming the Armstrong hurdle and exposing it to the general public will give USADA credibility, and perhaps through change give the UCI the means to improve doping control on the pro circuit, which is arguably still pretty abysmal. 
The whole Armstrong story has degenerated into a circus of terrible PR, which hurts cycling and makes us the laughingstock of other sports. Between Fabiani and his tobacco rants, the UCI ruling on Landis, Tygart's awkward promotion of his report which simply invites further stupidity from the other side, it's tiring to see every day another ridiculous development in the story. Thankfully the affair seems to be reaching its end, and after that we can all crawl back into our holes and watch Pistolero win another "clean" Tour...


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

moskowe said:


> Maybe you should read my other post.
> You can justify your pretenses of "fair treatment" all you want, it isn't. The simple fact that a half dozen riders get preferred treatment for ratting out on just one shows that the one in question is being targeted pretty heavily. There's a difference between cooperating for a reduced sentence and cooperating for...no sentence at all.
> Armstrong's doping has not been ignored by the cycling world for a decade, multiple personalities and entities have stood up to accuse him, which is why I said it is part of a global dynamic, not just USADA. You should also point out the part of my posts where I said USADA shouldn't have intervened once they had the evidence.
> 
> ...


You seem to forget that LA is the only one to last this long with his lies.



The only reason he looks like he's being singled out or targeted is because he's lasted this long. Everyone else has either admitted right away or after a time period. But they slowly fell like flys; one by one. 

Expect LA.

It is believed that LA had help covering up his actions one way or another. Inside the organization as well as outside. That goes a long way at attempting to maintain one's innocence.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

That's true. At any rate it's a unique case, and I really want the information to finally be out there. I'm not on the same time zone as the US so every morning I rush to cyclingnews to see... nothing. 

I still think a lot of the parties involved are in it for the revenge, or for the glory of "bringing down Armstrong," rather than the facts themselves. Certainly it makes them at least as motivated, so it's not necessarily a bad thing


----------

