In case that image doesn’t reproduce well, here it is again:
“A great person once said that history is written by the victor. The one who is smart and cunning, who wins and has the money, who is extremely powerful and has a throng of followers around them, who can literally decide your fate if you turn your back on them…these are the people who have the muscle to bend a true story to their liking and ultimately to their advantage.
It’s all too easy to be star-struck watching the hundreds of video clips of Lance Armstrong on Youtube. Yeah, it looks all so cool and inspiring, no doubt. And its easy to buy a bunch of books written by him and his lieutenants and believe what he invariably asks you to slurp in. And it’s easier going with the fan following based around him and his brand and do exactly what they’re all doing.
But it’s difficult to go out against the tide and exercise some independent critical thinking skills to challenge the root of the system. We’re often times lazy to explore or plainly just narrow minded to accept the other half of the story. When we believe in something, we fix it in our world view and build castles around it to protect it. But if castles are built on loose foundation, like the story of the man who built his house on mud, it will topple sooner or later. When it crashes down, that will be a mind-blowing experience.
So what is the other half of the story for those of you who haven’t heard at all? Join in this post as I amass together a few facts, figures and audio clips that are absolutely critical if you are to have a “balanced knowledge” of the persona of Lance Armstrong. Some of these I collected over from some who were bold enough to only share, talk and write. By all means, this is a re-pollination of facts but done so as to never let people forget the past. So get yourself a cup of tea or coffee and focus for a while from the ‘other side of the grass’…” More
“…What becomes evident from the composite prediction is that a rise in Retic between the end of the Giro and 6/16 may have been missed. The low Retic at 6/16 may be consistent with the fall after an initial peak. Similarly, the low point at 1 week after altitude exposure may be consistent with the low point after altitude exposure. Overal, assuming that the Retic did in fact trend up before falling you end up with a somewhat akward but plausible fit.
The explanation becomes less convincing when the Retic stays flat after reaching its low. The Retic does show a recovery, but it comes a week later than expected and is followed by another drop. In the end, altitude could be used to account for the initial drop in Retic, but it is not a solid explanation for a persistent low normal Retic.
Taking into account training status, the effect of a Grand Tour, and altitude exposure the analysis fails to fully explain the persistently low normal retic from 6/16 through the Tour. While other factors may be at play they probably have less of an impact. There is also the possibility of a synergistic effect, but it would be difficult to find data that supports this argument while excluding the possibility of manipulation at the same time…”
According to Local Cyclist:
“Yes the Tour Hgb is explainable. In fact, the Hgb may have behaved in a completely consistent manner… the the expected volume expansion did in fact take place. It simply started before the second grand tour and reached a physiologic limit before the end of the race. The clue to this possibility is listening to the Retic…”
Watch this space for a link to the full, upcoming article.
UPDATED (Sept. 15): Part 3 Now Available!
“One of Denmark’s leading blood researchers believe that Lance Armstrong’s blood values from the Tour de France looks suspicious and indicate blood doping…”
Updated5 (Sept. 8): Andy Shen gets Jaekob Moerkeberg, the original source quoted in the article, to go on record (in the absence of coverage by anyone else, including Cyclingnews.com, which has lost my respect completely).
Updated4 (Sept. 5): Rasmus Damsgaard, who attempted to defend Armstrong to VeloNews on behalf of the Astana team (who pay him to run the Astana internal anti-doping program), has already had HIS ethics and independence called into question once.
Updated3 (Sept. 4): Robust discussion of this continues here. Blasé response from Astana team and L.A.’s people finally appears here in VeloNews. NO Coverage yet in Cyclingnews.com.
Learn about trying to interpret the Bio Passport here.
Updated2 (Sept. 3): Is this going to be a total non-story in the MSM because of fears of being blackballed by LA, Inc. or otherwise put onto some media hit-list like in the days of Postal, when journo’s deemed unsympathetic to the cause were denied access to the team following any less-than-worshipful coverage?
Updated1: I’ll let Velocity Nation do the heavy lifting and contact the same ppl I would contact to get their extremely qualified opinions on this speculative matter…where’s the VeloNews or CyclingNews posts on this, though?