For Coggan and Coyle

Les relevés laissent apparaître que le poids de Lance Armstrong est passé de
78,9 kg à 79,7 kg entre novembre 1992 et novembre 1999. Selon Ed Coyle, le
poids de forme du coureur, lorsqu'il est devenu champion du monde en 1993,
était de 75 kg. Interrogé sur son poids de course après son cancer lors de
la séance d'arbitrage avec SCA, Lance Armstrong explique : "J'aurais aimé
débuter le Tour à 72 kg ou 72,5. Faut pas rêver. Je n'ai probablement jamais
atteint ce chiffre. En général, quand j'affichais un petit 74 kg, j'étais
satisfait." Lors de ses Tours victorieux, l'Américain pesait donc seulement
un kilo de moins qu'avant son cancer.



Concernant l'évolution de ses capacités respiratoires, l'expert australien
relève que Lance Armstrong ne dispose pas d'une VO2 "exceptionnellement
élevée" comme l'affirme Ed Coyle. Selon le Journal de physiologie appliquée,
non seulement ses valeurs ne progressent pas, mais elles reculent, passant
de 81,2 en 1993 - année où il ne parvenait pas à terminer le Tour de
France - à 71,5 en 1999 - année de la première de ses sept victoires.
Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé des
produits dopants à un moment donné."

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,...-789918,0.html

B. Lafferty wrote:

Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé des
produits dopants à un moment donné."

DUMBASS,

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DOPING.

wrote:
B. Lafferty wrote:

Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé des
produits dopants à un moment donné."

DUMBASS,

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DOPING.

It's every bit as conclusive as the stuff Vayer had. With
analytical skills like that you'd never make it as a gym
teacher in France.

Bob Schwartz

wrote:
B. Lafferty wrote:

Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé des
produits dopants à un moment donné."

DUMBASS,

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DOPING.

Evidence is unnecessary. Only conviction (I mean conviction
in the religious-belief sense, although the other sense applies
as well) is necessary.

Did LANCE really weigh 79 kg when Coyle tested him? What a
fat ****! Although, it was in November, when he'd already have
been drinking beer and eating unweighed oatmeal for a couple
of months. I'm impressed that the SCA arbitration deposition
went so far as to interrogate LANCE's weight, although surely
they could have found some records (doctors' charts?) to
subpoena rather than relying on his imperfect recollections.
Everybody lies about their weight.

Ben
Who, me, body image problems?

"Bob Schwartz" wrote in message
...
wrote:
B. Lafferty wrote:

Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé
des
produits dopants à un moment donné."

DUMBASS,

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DOPING.

It's every bit as conclusive as the stuff Vayer had. With
analytical skills like that you'd never make it as a gym
teacher in France.

Bob Schwartz

The Myth:

If you look at my weight. My body weight in the Tour de France this year,
I'll be 20 pounds lighter that I was in 1996. That's significant weight when
you're talking about going over the Alps and the Pyrenees and things like
the Tour.--Lance Armstrong
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/the...one_armstrong/

Body weight: He was 20 pounds lighter after cancer, but with the same
strength. --Discovery Channel
http://school.discovery.com/lessonpl...anceArmstrong/


[CNN Interviewer] Fifteen pounds lighter and pain hearty from his medical
ordeal, Armstrong discovered he was stronger than before the illness. He won
the 1999 tour by excelling in his former Waterloo, the mountains. It is a
trade that has become his cycling signature.

ARMSTRONG: That's significant weight when you're talking about going over
the Alps and the Pyrenees and things like the tour.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/sm.12.html


America's Lance Armstrong was born in Austin, Texas on September 18, 1971.
He turned pro after the Olympics in 1992. His height is 5'10½" (179 cm) and
racing weight was 158-165 pounds (72-75 kg). ..........After the cancer,
however, his body dropped most of its muscle mass. Through training,
Armstrong further streamlined his body and rebuilt himself into a Tour de
France contender. His weight after the rebuild was 15 pounds (7 kg) less
than his racing weight prior to the cancer.--Cycling Hall of Fame
http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/rid...sp?rider_id=30

The cancer itself and the chemotherapy took away 15 to 20 pounds. Imagine
going out to your car stripping away everything but the engine and maybe the
seat. That's what happened to Lance.--Bill Strickland on PBS.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sport...rong_7-30.html

The Reality:

"J'aurais aimé débuter le Tour à 72 kg ou 72,5. Faut pas rêver. Je n'ai
probablement jamais
atteint ce chiffre. En général, quand j'affichais un petit 74 kg, j'étais
satisfait." --Lance Armstrong under oath.

Dr. Michael Ashenden has far better credentials than Antoine Vayer.
Interesting though that the both come to the same conclusion.

What I'd like to know is the source for the 71.5 VO2max in 1999. Presumably
it was contained in discovery materials provided by Armstrong's side during
the arbitration. With that VO2 there's clearly hope for all master fatties
to climb like Pantani--or Armstrong. :-)

After the cancer,
however, his body dropped most of its muscle mass.

IIRC, Coyle's paper showed that at least in the off-season Armstrong's
weight and % of which that was muscle vs. fat were the same after
cancer.

I'd conclude from that that the weight loss as Tour time approached was
the key and that whatever type of tissue that was loss had nothing to
do with his cancer. Pre-cancer (and early in the season post-cancer)
Armstrong appears to have simply competed at a much higher weight then
he did at the Tour. He certainly carried more fat and this whole idea
that cancer robbed him of his muscle mass seems to be a myth.

Finally, it seems to me that the idea that Armstrong didn't dope before
he got cancer and did afterwords which seems to be the basis for a lot
of the doubt over his Tour performances being natural is silly. He, in
all probability, was doping all along.

wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:

Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé des
produits dopants à un moment donné."

DUMBASS,

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DOPING.

Incorrect. It is circumstantial evidence. The weight of circumstantial
evidence of doping continues to grow.

B. Lafferty quoted:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,...-789918,0.html

Confidentiel.

Officiel.

Nothing in English yet? I think "officiel" will produce a smaller thud
than "confidentiel".

Here's some more newspaper coverage IRT Lance's body weight you might
enjoy:

http://www.statesman.com/search/cont...lancerun5.html

As the French say, "Ooo la la!"

(Note: Easily made into a desktop background!) --D-y

wrote in message
oups.com...
B. Lafferty quoted:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,...-789918,0.html

Confidentiel.

Officiel.

Nothing in English yet? I think "officiel" will produce a smaller thud
than "confidentiel".

With the new ruling from the British Law Lords as to libel, it will be
interesting to see if it does come out in English. How should we measure
thud? By Armstrong's legal fees incurred?

Here's some more newspaper coverage IRT Lance's body weight you might
enjoy:

http://www.statesman.com/search/cont...lancerun5.html

As the French say, "Ooo la la!"

Now Henry will be boking a flight to NYC to watch.


(Note: Easily made into a desktop background!) --D-y

B. Lafferty wrote:

With the new ruling from the British Law Lords as to libel, it will be
interesting to see if it does come out in English.

The obvious point is, the first tome didn't find a publisher in the
USA. I'd say there is a story there. It doesn't have anything to do, I
would think, with English law.

How should we measure
thud?

Assuming a publisher is found, by book sales, of course.

By Armstrong's legal fees incurred?

Well, if Lance's lawyers are on retainer, he probably did pretty well
on the $7.5 million from the last go-round when the first book,
foolishly as it turned out, was used as "evidence".

Now Henry will be boking a flight to NYC to watch.

You'll be driving, I take it? --D-y