Sorry if this has been posted already.

But has anyone noticed the magic change in Hematocrit values in Lance's published numbers:

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-armstrong/...-2009/#comments

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-armstrong/...livestrong-com/

Check the value for 2/4/09. It was down corrected from 45.8 to 43.1.

Sorry if this has been posted already.

But has anyone noticed the magic change in Hematocrit values in Lance's published numbers:

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-armstrong/...-2009/#comments

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-armstrong/...livestrong-com/

Check the value for 2/4/09. It was down corrected from 45.8 to 43.1.

...What I notice is his hematocrit ranges from 38-42, around the range of most normal unassisted endurance athletes, or menstruating women of childbearing years who may need the occasional iron pill to offset blood loss.

Wow - to comment on the above quote, " People tend to forget that the man was a pro-triathlete at 16 years of age. It takes talent and genetic advantage at that age to compete in the most grueling one-day sport known to man!" Lance was a pro triathlete when the pool of triathletes was tiny and no he never competed in the most grueling one-day event, all his tri's where 1-2hr races. Why the jump to cycling, probably because his run splits would barely qualify him to be a pro triathlete today. It's amazing how naive the age-group side of the sport can be. Why no one even questions how Lance's cancer progressed so fast in the first place or was detected at any routine physical throughout the season. 1) Steroid use and HGH will accelerate tumor growth at a very rapid rate 2) His HCG was always in line (never his urine in the test tube) until he was finally diagnosed in Oct and his HCG count was through the roof (that doesn't happen overnight). I'm a pro triathlete who races around the world in a sport with 1/10th the money of cycling. The stories I could tell you of doping from last year alone would make you drop your jaw, but then again ignorance is bliss. I'll give you one little tidbit - It's very easy to have an HCT of 50-54 and make it look like 41-43 with plasma expanders - yes, plasma expanders that will not show up on any test or fancy chart. As for HGB, If you take epo for 2-3 weeks HGB will shoot up to 20-21 range then drop back down to normal levels while you maintain a nice elevated HCT of 50+ (or 41 with the right expanders). But oh no wouldn't the epo show up in a test!!! Back in the 90's 2-3 companies produce 1st generation epo, now there's 30-40 variants (more every month) made in 3rd world countries (India / Thailand) with an altered structure that will not appear on an classic epo test. Watch the tour and be amazed, but know that the athletes are YES still one step ahead.

Why no one even questions how Lance's cancer progressed so fast in the first place or was detected at any routine physical throughout the season.

I think this has been posted and commented on like several thousand times.

But the question has never been answered.

The fact is Armstrong has modified about 30% of his numbers since his first post, but no explanation why. During a period of rest and little training his Hct was 38. During a period of heavy training and racing it was almost 17% higher.

The reason for him changing his numbers is pretty obvious.

Temporary amnesia then?

Dave.

But the question has never been answered.

The fact is Armstrong has modified about 30% of his numbers since his first post, but no explanation why. During a period of rest and little training his Hct was 38. During a period of heavy training and racing it was almost 17% higher.

The reason for him changing his numbers is pretty obvious.

This guy (cycling12) knows his onions
edit: from the second link. yeah I know it was ages ago but still...

I've never heard of plasma expanders being discussed, that can make a high HCT appear lower.

Does anyone know anything else about this?

I remember in Terminator when he went into the gun shop and asked for a Plasma rifle. I'm not sure it's use is common as a masking agent, but who knows.

I would use caution in making delcaratory statements for which there is no evidence. I do not recall Indurain (and I'm not too sure about Jalabert, either): 1) Confessing to EPO use, 2) Being caught by a doping control, or 3) being arrested (or some other governmental action) for using EPO. Adjust your post accordingly. Provide cites if you are going to make such a claim (unless otherwise patently obvious, i.e., Landis, Hamilton, etc.).

Jalabert gets a pass because he is a nice guy.

I can't seem to get a handle on the word "class" when it comes to cycling. The stronger you are the less class you have? Jalabert prefers Indurain because it appeared he could beat him, apparently. Indurain was doped to the gills with EPO during that time, same as Jalabert. Maybe Jalabert is pissed that Riis didn't have him on the latest stuff later in his career.

My main memory of Jalabert is him and Zulle getting their a$$ handed to them when it was 2:1 vs Bartoli I believe in the 97 LBL.

They were on ONCE at the time. Jalabert gets a pass because he is a nice guy.

besides the fact that you are an attorney, what evidence do you have for your claim that jalabert was "doped to the gills"?

In deference to Steve, the evidence is circumstantial so I retract that strong statement. I do not "know" this with concrete proof such as an AAF.

Circumstantially, he and Indurain excelled in an era where EPO use was rampant and no test existed. Jalabert rode for Saiz. If you think either was clean during this era then more power to you. Got some beachfront property in Montana to sell you.

I remember him beating LA in PN (when LA targeted PN) I think in 95 or 96 or both, a time when LA was under the tutelage of Ferrari and would have coincided with the famous hospital room alleged admission, which I am sure you believe as gospel. So, try not to twist yourself up alot while contemplating this.

BTW, I'm not an attorney but I have recently slept in a Holiday Inn Express.

In deference to Steve, the evidence is circumstantial so I retract that strong statement. I do not "know" this with concrete proof such as an AAF.

Circumstantially, he and Indurain excelled in an era where EPO use was rampant and no test existed. Jalabert rode for Saiz. If you think either was clean during this era then more power to you. Got some beachfront property in Montana to sell you.

I remember him beating LA in PN (when LA targeted PN) I think in 95 or 96 or both, a time when LA was under the tutelage of Ferrari and would have coincided with the famous hospital room alleged admission, which I am sure you believe as gospel. So, try not to twist yourself up alot while contemplating this.

BTW, I'm not an attorney but I have recently slept in a Holiday Inn Express.

Once again, and truly the last time, the subject is Lance's numbers.

This year, Lance was #22...

So how can such a variation like 39-48 be explained? Is this an outlandish variation to occur naturally?

What do you think?

What do you think?

I need to work on my cadence!

Dave.

I still would like an answer from ChrisE. he told us several times that he believes Armstrong doped but he still has asked the question...so I would like to hear his opinion. Why is he asking the question?

I don't know, that is why I asked the question. From your answer, it would seem not. On the link his numbers show a variation of 39-46, yet they are touted as showing him clean. I seem to remember some CSC numbers last year with wide variations that were basically shrugged off.

So, that being the case why isn't more being made of this? Is this wide variation being a cause for more targetted testing of him?

in what time frame did the 39-48 swing occur? i can swing mine by 6-7 points in a week, depending on how i eat, but i'm doing chemo so my numbers are skewed.

So how can such a variation like 39-48 be explained? Is this an outlandish variation to occur naturally?

So if your numbers are skewed they don't apply here. And BTW, I wholeheartedly wish you well. That offtopic I, and anyone, can afford.

Still waiting for ChisE to answer simple questions that seemed he has answered himself by believing Armstrong blood doped.

Lance said that he can raise his Hct "From 38 to 48.5 using an Oxygen Tent" this is an exact quote from a Larry King Live interview.

Unfortunately there has never been a test that has show that this is remotely close to being possible.

I am curious if it is not normal why it didn't get more scrutiny.

It's probably a simple answer....

That's just a plain hogg wash based on your posting record. You protested incessantly (and there is an irrefutable record in this forum that I will dig out if you deny it) that Armstrong is tested unfairly, that a doctor who Armstrong refused to be tested by, would be also refused by you. This statement also flatly ignores the twitters Armstrong spreads that he suffers all this ADA testing. You sound like you never heard of Armstrong? Did you? I find this question - why he didn't get more scrutiny - as suspicious (and false to be honest) as your earlier questions about Armstrong's hematologic variations being mystery to you while you believe Armstrong blood doped. When others attempted to bring to you factual basic of Armstrong's potential blood doping tests you flatly denied them...Suddenly you get genuanly interested in it?

If you have an academic question, it would be understandable, but it does not look that way when it was attempeted by others, and you refused flatly.

So, are you now changing your belief that Armstrong was ever blood doped?

Or you were asking a question you knew/suspected an answer to?

Wow. Let's take this one at a time.

I don't recall writing LA was tested unfairly. Maybe I did....the context would be nice to know. I doubt it was "incessantly". I could care less what he twitters about his testing frequency....the more the better I say.

I do recall, and I remember you either deleted the posts or went apeshyt over them when I questioned you, about the testing doctor issue. I believe it had to do with Daamsgaard maybe, and the hospital he used to take samples?? Anyway, I would also like to know that context. Extrapolating a belief I have about somebody taking a blood sample from me into what you posted above is one of the funnier things I have read in awhile.

I don't recall saying anything about his blood values before this thread, or getting lectured by others about them. I could be wrong, but that is not really in my wheelhouse so I kinda doubt it. I never used them to defend LA.

So, even though I am not denying them (except the blood value to defend LA), the subjects at the time would be nice to know so your post can be properly responded to. So, with that in mind can you dig those up so we can discuss? This is going way off topic so I am surprised you offered to do that on this thread about LA's numbers. We can PM, and when you catch me redhanded in a lie you can post for all to see. Deal?

As I stated in the other post, I never dive into the numbers. Now I had a question....the question is can these variations be explained naturally, thus the reason they don't draw more scrutiny. Does that question really deserve what ever it is you are trying to dish out?

Oh, and hog is spelled with one g.

Now I had a question....the question is can these variations be explained naturally, thus the reason they don't draw more scrutiny

deleted ad hominems

Wow. Let's take this one at a time.

I don't recall writing LA was tested unfairly. Maybe I did....the context would be nice to know. I doubt it was "incessantly". I could care less what he twitters about his testing frequency....the more the better I say.

I do recall, and I remember you either deleted the posts or went apeshyt over them when I questioned you, about the testing doctor issue. I believe it had to do with Daamsgaard maybe, and the hospital he used to take samples?? Anyway, I would also like to know that context. Extrapolating a belief I have about somebody taking a blood sample from me into what you posted above is one of the funnier things I have read in awhile.

I don't recall saying anything about his blood values before this thread, or getting lectured by others about them. I could be wrong, but that is not really in my wheelhouse so I kinda doubt it. I never used them to defend LA.

So, even though I am not denying them (except the blood value to defend LA), the subjects at the time would be nice to know so your post can be properly responded to. So, with that in mind can you dig those up so we can discuss? This is going way off topic so I am surprised you offered to do that on this thread about LA's numbers. We can PM, and when you catch me redhanded in a lie you can post for all to see. Deal?

As I stated in the other post, I never dive into the numbers. Now I had a question....the question is can these variations be explained naturally, thus the reason they don't draw more scrutiny. Does that question really deserve what ever it is you are trying to dish out?

Oh, and hog is spelled with one g.

got it one g ..... I spell mine with two n's.
http://www.team-saxobank.com/pdf/CSC_Saxo_...d_AD_report.pdf
http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=11226