Please feel free to share:
Having had a few days to think about the Lance Armstrong confession session there are some questions I would still like answered. Here are the top 5 questions that I would ask if given the chance.
1. Do you or do you not believe in the Athlete Biological Passport?
I’m no fan of the UCI but the introduction of the biological passport worked.
There were two statements from Lance that stood out for me around the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP, see this post for a little more detail). Armstrong suggested that after the introduction of the biological passport by the cycling governing body (UCI) in 2008 that the doping game changed. After this time it was no longer safe to use EPO or to blood dope. He stated when asked if he doped on his 2009 comeback:
The last time I crossed that line was 2005.
This statement is in direct contrast to the USADA report. After Armstrong decided to return to cycling USADA and WADA started to collect blood samples, 37 of which were collected between October 2008 and April 2012. These samples were processed for the ABP. The results of these samples have been scrutinised by an expert, Professor Christopher Gore at the Australian Institute of Sport. He concluded:
the approximate likelihood of Armstrong’s seven suppressed reticulocyte values during the 2009 and 2010 Tours de France occurring naturally was less than one in a million.
So, does it work or not Lance?
2. What drugs did you take?
I didn’t have access to anything anybody else didn’t
My cocktail was EPO, but not a lot, transfusions and testosterone.
I would like to ask which drugs exactly he took. This would allow us to judge whether the first quote above is correct or not.
What about Actovegin (calf blood extract not approved for use in the US)? This was found in his teams discarded rubbish during the 2000 tour who said it was for the use of diabetic staff. The drug is not currently banned by WADA but not licensed for use in the UK or USA. How about new variants of EPO as they came out (eg CERA, aranesp)? Hematide/Peginesatide or AICAR (both also rumoured to have been found in his teams possesion when not licensed for use)?
3. What happened with Don Catlin, Rasmus Damsgaard and independent blood testing?
4. Why is Dr Ferrari so good and so important to you?
In a purely scientific way I am intrigued by Dr Michele Ferarri. He has been described as ‘most notorious doping doctor’ and the ‘master of doping’ and once compared using EPO to drinking orange juice. Dr Ferrari has a notorious history in the sport, possibly as the person who introduced EPO into cycling in the early 1990’s. He is also now banned for life from any having any connection to any sport.
What was it that made him so good that you paid him over $1M in 10 years? Was he simply the most connected Dr, able to get what was needed to you at any time. I suspect he must have a very good understanding of drugs and they way they work and able to work out the ways to evade testing. Did he have any specialist equipment to experiment on or did he put samples through hospital labs for testing?
Also, why do you still hold out for him? I guess he knows everything.
I viewed Michele Ferrari as a good man and a smart guy and I still do.
5. Did you meet with any of the anti doping lab directors?
There was no secret meeting with the lab director
This question relates to the post here, which reported Lance as having met the head of the Swiss lab, Dr Martial Saugy. This meeting has been confirmed by Saugy, by USADA and the UCI, yet Armstrong denied this. He also seemed to double back on whether this positive test actually happened or not, it wasn’t clear.
If you did meet what did he tell you and how did it influence your doping practice? How did you alter the use of EPO after this and was this information what turned you towards blood doping? If you met with Saugy did you meet any other lab directors and have cosy chats with them?
My feelings on the interview
Any thoughts? What questions remain for you after these interviews? Feel free to comment below and subscribe for future updates!
It is a very interesting read Dr. Tom. I was not aware of few events that had taken place in the background in all these years he competed. But, I have to agree that it didn’t really match up to ‘no bars spared’ kind of interview. Having personally witnessed the way analytical tests work to detect doped drugs, I would have certainly gone into greater detail about the alleged meeting with Martial Saugy (any others??).
Thanks Yashashwini,
I think the general public would have been more shocked at his general bullying behavior than his doping. It has also been reported that he used to call the doping inspectors to report rivals!
Good read, as usual. So why did he do the interview…? I wonder how much of this is about redemption – and how much is about $$$. I suspect that he’s delusional about his advancing age and thinks that he can go on forever (maybe he can, with the Good Doctor Ferrari by his side). Maybe he wants to set up a new business such as a training academy, or chain of bike stores… and finding a backer won’t be easy until America has forgiven him. It’s hard to see what his agenda is right now… but he’s bound to have one.
Hi, the $$$ would seem to be one answer after he revealed that it has cost him at least $75 million in lost endorsement deals! I think the US iwll forgive him fairly easily to be honest. The key will be whether people think he hid behind the cancer charity or whether his charity work is enough to redeem him already? I suspect it will only be the hardcore cycling fans that remain angry with him in the long term.
Whether he will gain back enough trust from the business world to earn those big bucks again though is another issue.
Maybe now Ferrari is banned for life from sport he could go into anti ageing, if he is as good at that as cheating then he should earn a fortune!
Thanks again
Tom
$75 million days: don’t you just hate it when that happens!
I feel his pain, £7.50 days are bad enough… 😉
£7.50? That’s not even a couple of pints these days, let alone a 2000IU vial of EPO…
That’s really unprofessional of him. Probablt that’s what happens when you get into ‘creation of level playing field’ as per your whims and fancies
That’s funny, he was unprofessional at being a doper. The best comment I read on that topic was that by informing on others he was even cheating at cheating!
As to the ‘level playing field’, this is actually a really false argument. Some people respond extremely well to a certain drug, others may gain little effect from it. This is simply a ploy by dopers to try and diminish their responsibility and the impact of what they have done.
Tom
Nice synthesis Dr T!
I too watched the interviews to try and work out why he was doing them (I think the “did he/didn’t he” question had pretty much been answered well in advance) and my conclusion was that he was simply into damage limitation mode: admit as little as he really had to (the less harmless stuff – relatively speaking) and try to cover himself on the stuff that could really land him in le merde! To me it seemed that he was so sure of himself that the only bit I really believed was when he said that he had ‘no idea it was this big a deal’.
Regarding your five questions, two things stood out for me:
On Question 1: I wonder if the matter of legal prescription (i.e. the timeframe between when an act takes place and the deadline for any legal challenge relating to that act to be made) played a role in his admission of doping up to 2005 but not beyond? I’m not a legal expert (maybe someone reading is?), but I have seen suggestions that he can no longer be touched on pre-2005 actions, so this was a low-risk admission; but for 2009 and 2010….
On Question 5: I got the impression he was relying on semantics to get out of the question on whether or not he met Saugy. I’ve not checked the transcripts, but from memory I think he said there had been no “secret” meeting with the lab: that’s a clever way of saying that there was a meeting, but that it was not a secret one that anyone tried to hide. Yesterday’s comments from Verbruggen (former UCI President) kind of support this take on things, and in a way, support Armstrong’s statement (even if he did not himself admit the true nature of the alleged meeting).
Just a few thoughts!
Bonjour Le Cannibale,
I think you may be onto something with both of those answers. Some believe that if he confesses and names suppliers etc he may get his life ban reduced to 8 years. That would handily take us from 2005 to 2013, this year. All his results in the mean time would be stripped from him, rather like Alberto Contador’s. Contador was allowed to carry on racing until finally banned then retroactively stripped of his results.
Question 5 yes, just checked and he said ‘there was no secret meeting with the lab director’. OK, he either meant he didn’t meet him or it was a misleading answer as if to say ‘yes we met but everyone knew’. Well spotted!
I would be very surprised to see his ban reduced. And I still want him to answer Q5 fully!
Dr. Catlin & Dr.Damsgaard are both still active in antidoping, but where is the transparency regarding Lance Armstrong? From documents I read, it was more of a money issue. Yes, the doping control was time intensive but it was called off by the doctors.
Anti doping is also a business. Incidentally, Victor Conte, Don Catlin, & R. Daamsgard are involved (To some degree) with testing in boxing. Conte taking on the role of finger pointing. If the big guys didn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t catch Lance Armstrong & a felon is in charge of Intel/vigilence, then I think we need to know WHY it took so long to bring down Armstrong. Somebody needs to ask your question number 3. It’s a valid point.