Lance Armstrong's Story a Case Study in Human Psychology

It is quite fascinating isn't it, that when we step away for a second from the intricacies of this epic doping saga connected to Lance Armstrong, you find larger underlying questions about behavioral psychology - the way we humans operate, why we behave in certain ways and why we choose to believe or not believe in things we come across especially when some form of philanthropy is involved. 

I was driven to this post because I was struck by the curious 30% increase in funds going to the Lance Armstrong foundation right after the news came out that USADA wiped his Tour de France wins from the books.

Bear with me for a few minutes here and I hope this will lead to some interesting discussion of a more psychological nature.


Ethical People Can Do Unethical Things

There is a fundamental assumption that unethical people do unethical things but that's not always true. Ethical people can do unethical things because they repeatedly fool themselves about the real implications of their transgressions. Slipping into this unethical state is driven by many many factors. In the early races of the 90's, Lance and his team probably knew there was no way to stay in competition and produce the numbers their sponsors were looking for other than to partake in doping. So they doped too.

The real transition came the instant when Lance decided to become the driver of the doping rather than just a participating rider. He allegedly became the self-appointed leader of the Omerta. What led to this behavior? You could say a self confidence he gained from winning races, the fact that he was an American in a long time to hold the Yellow Jersey, maybe the friends he made in the peloton who were also doping that he had to stay friends with. A lot of theories are out there. Forgive me for speculating.

Whats most interesting is the cognitive blind spot people as his fans have towards unethical behavior given that the same person has done a lot of good, both for the sport and for those suffering from cancer. For fans, LA is a symbol and they feel empathy so they want to help his cause out. I can't find any other way to explain why financial contributions to the LAF cancer fund have suddenly jumped 30% in the last few days.

It begs the question : are people actually worried about cancer patients suffering. Or are they worried about Lance Armstrong's financial troubles that come ahead? Are people running out, suddenly contributing to make a statement that they support their hero or are they really concerned where their money is going to and what for? Are the contributions a show of arrogance from his fans that his legitimacy is still valid? You'll never know. But it brings out a great opportunity to talk about psychology. 

Relational Dynamics of Philanthropy

It is quite popular now for a decently successful sports star to fall into the web of philanthropy. You win something big, make lots of money and then the next day, you come out in a press conference or through a PR ad showing you're contributing to rid the human race from their most excruciating plight. 

There's a reason why this works in today's world. When you're a sports star and you start something philanthropic that people can instantly relate with, either because you know what they want or you have gone through similar things as they have, you've a winning idea. You've now latched on to their minds and hearts very tightly. 

Lance Armstrong was made into the quintessential American hero that appealed to our tastes - a firm, strong minded and brash Texan taking on the storm of cancer, emerging from it victorious and then in a gutsy move, snatching seven Tour de France wins. A feat no one has ever accomplished. That's the celebrated version. The nuances of that journey that his closest allies, enemies and independent journalists knew about has little place in these accounts.

Between each year of his Tour de France victories, he was doing things at home that continued making him a larger than life figure. He grew in popularity. The few who accused him of doping was not a big concern but rather an inconvenient nuisance that he had to brush off every once in a while. The stories of a few smaller riders from the peloton who couldn't stand to make a successful living because of his harassment was swept under the rug because they were insignificant, they didn't "make" the news - hence discarded.

People around the world flocked to hear from him. They bought his books, attended his talk shows, bought the Livestrong bands. Through him, it gave everyone a deep sense of "doing good" too and a sense of identity. I suppose nothing is worse than being a mere ectoplasm in society and living your life being of no value to anyone else.

More so, for the many in the hospital beds who identified with him, it had everything to do with the disease that he called arms against. Cancer has been an all consuming presence in our lives. Some books out there say the first documented cases of cancer go back all the way to 1000 BC. Its a deadly disease that has managed to co inhabit with the human race. In spite of all human efforts to get rid of this disease, the interesting bit is that latest data show cancer deaths have budged little from the 1950's. 

If Lance had won just once or twice, the average Joe wouldn't shy away from calling it a random act of nature. There's nothing spectacular in "a" win. But seven times ? That packs a punch. Its not a cheesy story by any standard. There's nothing to say against that. Its powerful. People found credibility in that. Businessmen found a whole lot of marketability in that. They wanted Lance because you're a loser if you can't have the cash cow on your side.

Popular media has always concentrated on the benefactor of philanthropy. The people who receive aid, and care are documented proclaiming how they would done much worse weren't it for the the great Philanthropist's deeds. Some couldn't care less what a Texan was doing with his bicycle in a wind tunnel to perfect himself for a race in France. They were receiving indirect monetary benefits, without going through the embarrassment of begging for help because they were dying. 

Now if you have lots of money and a great PR team, you can make anything out of anything these days. Most importantly, if you can make a claim a patent on the idea of a "war against cancer", which I think is quite fascinating because "war against cancer" began to go mainstream when the "war against terror" was the buzzword in political circles. Hundreds of other non-profit cancer funds operate in this country, providing care to patients and support of research but that's hardly important to the media. Media wants glitz, glitter, flair, finesse, celebrity status. They didn't fight the "war against cancer" that Lance did.

On the other side of this dynamic is the Philanthropist. The theory is fascinating that the the Foundation must have given him just immense power over ordinary human beings. A feeling of invincibility. A confidence that you don't get just winning a bicycle race. Never mind all the shady stuff he was doing with his teammates on U.S Postal team. The masses were on his side and they can be his pawns in a public court. The anti-cancer movement was card he could play anytime, any day, anyway he wants. So far, almost every press conference Lance has initiated in response to doping allegations has had a non-trivial coverage given to cancer. 

Here's what I think. More than a few times, deep somewhere, Lance must have felt guilty of the things he had done to himself and his teammates. But when there are signs that a lot of people are happier with him back home with his anti-cancer propaganda, that good deed must have become greater than the bad deed in his own mind. Let the sleeping dogs lie, why worry about what you've done in the past when you're doing a whole lot of good now? Perhaps this served to clear his conscience so he could rest his inner demons and go to sleep in peace every night. We may never know...

Humans as Reductionists

It is fascinating that the idea of cancer and cycling has become so intertwined in Lance Armstrong's world that there appears to be no room for an alternative. How is this possible? Today, there is a such a strong mass following for Lance that going against the grain to challenge him on his legitimacy comes looking merely as a criticism against his anti-cancer evangelism.  

You reduce one idea -  the question of taking drugs, to another - anti-cancer movement. Since you now have more options to berate someone for going against the anti-cancer movement, instead of debating him on the drugs issue, then you've just found a channel, a strategy to defeat the other person's argument as a whole using the cancer card. This reduction can be compared to what they call "Straw man" information fallacy. Its a fallacious way to argue but its alarming that a lot of people don't think about this. Its too simplistic and irrational.

When Does A Good Deed Become Greater Than a Bad Deed?

For sake of discussion, say that in the future, if there comes out of this ugly world a truly great hypothetical philanthropist, an individual who lives purely for the masses, who supports fighting some of the biggest problems of our times but later was found to operate the biggest global scamming operation, when do you decide that the good committed is lesser than the bad committed?

It is quite interesting to me that with the right amount of external input to the human being, their minds can be so programmed that they do not understand when to separate one independent variable, in this case being the idea someone did wrong in another time and place, from another independent variable, that someone did good in a second time and place.

I suspect there will be remain a stark division in the sporting world on Lance Armstrong's rise to success. There will be the believers, there will be the heretics. Lance's anti-cancer movement and his statistically spectacular athletic talents will continue to seduce. Others will talk about data and court proceedings and witness testimonies and continue to hate him for who he was. Another group stand somewhere in the middle of this messy issue.

Perhaps this whole doping question will be deemed so significant that future presidential candidates would be asked what they believe in - whether Lance Armstrong was a liar and cheat, or won his competitions fairly. If you can extract a person's operation of thinking based on tough questions such as these, perhaps we'll be to tell something deep and subtle about them as a human being that would be hard to gain otherwise.

*  *  *

The End of An Era

Many of us have been told today that the extraordinarily long doping saga of Lance Armstrong has just come to an end. That he has given up the fight before the fight is over.  I have been vehemently opposed to this idea of fairy tale story right after I started sniffing the dirt under the proverbial rock. The writing was clear on the wall many times along and I blogged a few posts here for which I received nothing but hatemail and negative comments.    It feels a little good to know that all the extra time to pour into months worth of news articles and research has actually been worthwhile. On the other hand, its a sad day for cycling. Maybe even a sad day for honest and ethical entrepreneurship. 

A few hours, maybe even days ago, Lance Armstrong, apparently a doer of public good and an all-American sports hero, was legally on the ropes. He was cornered and had just a few tiny bites on the apple left. For years he had invested so much in legal maneuvering that to me, it came out more like he had dirty secrets to hide. Ultimately, I, like other people in the media had tried him in my own mind and convicted him as a fraud given the data I was supplied, as much as those who didn't know any of the facts behind this decade old case will have declared him a legitimate sporting hero. But to each his own. Ultimately, there is a point beyond which you should never take your position on any argument to martyrdom. Its not so healthy is it?

One wonders what he will tell his family, friends. What his kids will think of him? Or those millions of people who have converged their hopes on his Foundation to fight a killer epidemic. Feelings may not be easy to describe right now. 

Like some have reminded me, maybe we can never rewrite history. What has happened, including all those 7 wins, can never change. But Lance was that one leaf from a dirty era of cycling that reminded us of a win-at-all costs approach to sports. To renew this tree, that leaf needs to fall, the tree could be cut down and finished off with a cleansing fire. Plenty of other seeds are being sown on the ground that will form the future of American cycling. 

The last thing he could do before he leaves would be to be honest to the world and say "Sorry". Everyone, including both his fans and his detractors, need an apology. The same follows for all the others who followed suit on his command and resorted to cheating.

Related Posts : 

Interview with Journalist Paul Kimmage After Lance Quits Doping Case
Interview with USADA CEO Travis Tygart on Decision to Strip Armstrong of Titles

Testimonies In The Lance Armstrong Doping Crisis

Cycling - Worst Olympic Doping Offender?

This morning, I managed to read an article on the Guardian. The authors took WADA supplied data on 26 Olympic sports and concluded that cycling is the worst offender in terms of indications of substance use in investigated samples over an 8 year period. The dataset had Year, Sport, Samples, Total Findings (positive) and %Findings as parameters.

I took the same data and made some quick plots. Make what you want of it.

% Findings - If you plot some of the most popular Olympic sports, baseball/softball looks worse in terms of % findings in samples.The other thing you can note is that many of these sports are seeing reduced findings over the years, including cycling. No such assessment can be made of Football (soccer for you Americans), Weightlifting or Athletics. 

% Findings in samples investigated, where 'findings' are defined as an Adverse Analytical Finding or an Atypical Finding. Both are defined in the article.

Findings vs Samples Taken : For cycling, you can see that the number of samples taken has steadily increased over the years. After 2008, the number of findings however decrease.

Similarly, here's one done for Football, Tennis, Athletics, Weightlifting and Baseball. Except for baseball/softball and weightlifting, the other sports have all seen increasing samples taken until 2008, then they have taken a dip. Why this common trend?

I didn't have time to plot the other sports out. 

The bottomline is that things look quite uncertain here and I'm not ready to call cycling the worst offender for getting caught with adverse findings. But a couple of points - 

1) For one, yes, Football takes a lot of samples. If these are all in-competition samples, then the picture misses out on a large number of out-of-competition samples which have the capability of catching more "surprise" findings. 

2) As far as stringency of tests, nothing from this data tells us how strictly doping controls are implemented. What are thing things looked for in the samples? Which sport looks out for more 'banned substances' than other sports? Which countries are lax, which countries give a damn. Do they follow a single standard? Do we know?

3) Finally is the classic conundrum of false positives. All this data we have only describes that certain findings were found in the samples. Who's to say they weren't later disputed and then turned out to be "false positives"? What we need to know is the probability that an individual who has really cheated can be reliably tested to be positive in a laboratory test. All this testing is useless if you don't have a reliable test. Another parameter I would have liked to see in the dataset was False Positives but its not there.

So as usual, the world isn't so simple, atleast for me. 

Modern Bicycles and Cycling Speeds : Any Measurable Relation?

Its not about the bike. Or is it?

Without a shadow of doubt, most of us will say that today's Grand Tours are faster than those of the past. True. For instance, since its inception in 1903 to the 1990's, the Tour de France had seen its winner's average speed increase some 50-55%  as this site will show.

But here's the big question - how much of that speed increase came from bicycle improvements alone? If you don't factor in the contributions from all other things- temperature, course, race tactics, improved training methods, nutrition and doping - what role does bicycle technology alone have to play in higher speeds? Is it significant to be appreciated?

This most entertaining problem is one that maybe analyzed with a technique called multiple regression. This method, a staple in any statistician's arsenal of tools, allows one to estimate the effects of many factors on a single dependent variable, in our case - cycling performance.

For starters, there are a number of independent variables that factor into a favorable cycling performance. I have shown these factors diagrammatically below.

In my opinion, these independent or explanatory variables can be broadly termed into 4 categories :

1. Human Performance Related - Physiology, training, nutrition, medicine and doping
2. Technology Related - Bicycles, fancy apparel etc. We'll disregard other things and consider just bicycles.
3. Race Specific - Course, weather, tactics employed, rules, etc.
4. Random Events (Noise) - Example - a freak crash 2 km from the finish line that injured many riders, a neutralized stage due to the death of an athlete, any day to day variation that cannot be predicted but is present. 

In 100 years of cycling history, innovations have come and gone. Some have stuck through to Grand Tour racing, the list of which is mandated by the final word of the UCI.

To consider the effect of just bicycle technology alone on cycling speeds, a multiple regression analysis has to be performed. You would require lots of data for many years and a handy computer to make some meaning out of it. Unless someone gives me serious money, I won't be diving into such an endeavor.

But recently, Ph.D's Jan Heine and Mark Vande Kamp who write for the magazine Bicycle Quarterly sought to answer this question in their article titled "Are Modern Bicycles Faster? An Analysis of Tour de France Speed". To me, the article appeared to be a logical investigation of why speeds increased in the Tour and whether they could be explained by the latest racing bikes. 


The article had ignited controversy in cycling circles about its apparently "flawed" analysis. I think it will be to everyone's benefit if the strategy of the article's investigations are clarified first and foremost. We'll then explore its conclusions.

Here's the strategy behind the article's investigation :

1. Fundamental assumption : The fundamental assumption that the authors imply, but which is not stated explicitly in the article, is that all modern bicycles and related technology are introduced into the market to strictly increase cycling speeds. With this assumption, they proceed to quantify how much that speed increase is.

2. Eliminate day to day performance variations : They selected the Tour de France as the main race of interest with this notion that multiple stages and over 150 riders will eliminate the influence of day-to-day variations in fitness, weather and other factors on individual performance.

3. Eliminate course specific variations : With the view that courses change "somewhat" in the Tour de France, they selected the Milan-San Remo as a supplement in the analysis as the race has been run on the same course for over a 100 years without change. The race's difficulty has also been consistent since smooth speed curves have been displayed for over a century.

4. Separate human performance improvements from bicycling technology improvements :  This one is tricky so pay attention. The authors wanted another race as a control to compare cycling with. They thought of a race from another branch of endurance sports that had little to do with technology or inconsistent conditions and where performance was mostly limited by the "human factor".

They selected medium distance running, specifically the 5 and 10 km running race from all events worldwide and studied trends in running speeds. The logic? If bicycles have truly become faster, the trend line for cycling speeds in the Tour would deviate from that of human speeds in running by showing step increases. If bicycles have not become faster, the trend lines should closely match each other due to the "human factor" common to both endurance sports.

5. Regression Analysis : Using the data of speeds, a regression analysis was performed on the Tour de France and running speeds for the last 100 years. The "athletic performance" regression lines would show the long term speed trends for both races. This was made into a "Chart 1". "Chart 2" was also made where the authors smoothed TdF and 10 Km running speeds for many years by taking a 5-year running average. These curves were compared to each other and to the long term "athletic performance" regression line in Chart 1.


Summary Of Results :

1.  Co-relation between actual TdF speeds and speeds predicted by the runner's trend line was 0.94. Strong.

2.  Co-relation between actual running speeds and the long term running speed trend line was 0.95. Also strong.

3.  88% of increases in TdF speeds over the last 100 years can be explained by improved athletic performance.

4.  For both running and cycling, there appears to be an unexplained 9-12% that are simply random occurrences seen when athletes compete.

5.  The regression curve (or line fit) for TdF speeds have a shallower slope than that of running indicating that cycling speeds increased at a slower rate. The authors propose that this is due to wind resistance factor in cycling as power demand increases by the cube of velocity. But the non-linearity of aerodynamic resistance is not much, it is instead minimized in the Tour de France and spread over a large group of riders.

6.  Over the last 20 years, TdF speed increase trends parallel that of runners' speeds. Technology has had minor roles to play in these achievements according to the logic in the analyses (no step increases were observed).

7.  There were steeper speed increases in the TdF in between 1926-1940 than running speeds during that time. The early 1920's saw periods of low performance and the authors propose that World War I had depleted the pool of cycling champions taking part.

The late 1920's, however, showed a marked speed increase was not observed in the Milan San Remo which got the authors to conclude that something particular to the TdF caused these increases. They propose the radical shortening of stage distances as a possible reason.

There were pronounced speed increases in the 1930's that corresponded well with the significant, revolutionary and long term changes introduced on racing bikes such as lightweight steel frames with thinwall tubing. The authors state that of all advances, lightweight steel frames had the most pronounced effect on Tour speeds. These speed increases were also observed in the Milan San Remo in the 30's as well, indicating that this was a sport-wide phenomena.

8.  Since 1947, speed increases in cycling, relative to runner's speeds, came during times when cycling technology did not even change. The late 1950's saw a jump in cycling speeds but nothing significant was invented or innovated in bicycles during that time, since the introduction of Compagnolo's rear derailleur in 1951. Since speed increase came at a time when technology was stagnant, the logical conclusion is that speed increase cannot be explained by technology. The authors state that other reasons, like the paving of roads, may have been primarily responsible.

9.  In the early 1980's, TdF speeds increased between 1981-1982 without a rational reason and then dipped down without an explainable reason as well. Between 1985-1990, time trial bikes, such as those used by Greg Lemond in his 1989 Time Trial did increase stage speeds but the time trial stages were too short to influence overall speed of the entire Tour. Moreover, the bikes used in mass-start races "evolved little" during this period, wrote the authors.

10.  From 1999-2009, lots of things in bicycles evolved - from index shifting, to rear cassettes, increased gearing, aerodynamic wheels and ceramic bearings. Sure, the speeds of the Tour de France saw an almost linear increase as well. But what the authors found was that the long term trend of running speeds tracked this increase in cycling speeds very closely indicating that almost all these improvements can be tracked to physiological factors common to both running and cycling.

Since 2005, speeds started to drop below the predicted trends, possibly indicating that strict doping controls are responsible for the lower speeds. Speeds decreased 3.5% from their peak, while running speeds decreased only 1.8%. This shows that something not common to both sports have influenced the speeds in cycling.

By now, you must be tired with all this information overload. So let's take the justifications provided by the authors for speed fluctuations and plot it on a chart for the last 100 years. I did it below for you :

Conclusions :

The authors wrote that there is no evidence that advances in cycling technology since WWII led to faster racing speeds. There is no systematic co-relation between the two.  Some speed increases came during times when athletic performance as a whole were increasing. Others came at times when bicycle technology and innovation were stagnant.  The only period where bicycling technology led to a pronounced speed increase was during the 1930's with the introduction of lightweight steel frames. Bottom-line of this whole affair is as follows, quoted from the article :

"It is tempting to look over the Tour de France speed curve and pick [technology] factors that appear to have caused increases or decreases in speeds. [...] However, when taken in the context of all the data, these specific examples don't add up to a compelling case that bicycle technology increased Tour de France speeds. Neither of them stand up to close scrutiny.  [...] Across the whole timeframe of the last 100 years, even radical changes like the introduction of the derailleurs did not alter the trend of Tour de France speeds. Clearly, the larger pattern suggests that bicycle technology has had little, if any, effect on racing speeds, especially in recent decades."

Critique & Suggestions :

1. Choice of control : Why was medium distance running chosen as a control and not ...say, the marathon? I don't know. The authors don't provide an explanation for this deliberation, although they suggest that the medium distance races do not see much "influence of technology". So does the marathon see influence of technology then? I don't know. You would think not. Long distance running, to me, is the purest form of endurance sports. It would be interesting to see if marathon running speeds closely followed all the trends of cycling speeds for the past 100 years.

2. Choice of race : One will agree that are simply too many variables in the Tour de France to make a valid relation between one aspect, such as cycling technology, and another aspect, cycling speeds. Why not extend the research to a solo performance such as the hour record where variability is reduced even further? Or a time trial? Or a sprint? In a past post, I revealed details of a study that found that between 1980 and 1990 before UCI regulations came about, 60% of cycling hour records in the discipline were solely due to engineering. The authors may want to catch up with that.

3. What to investigate : The authors start off the article by asking the question - how much faster are the lastest racing bikes compared to classic machines? But it seems that throughout the article, they tend to look at small innovations across years such as the rear derailleur, or increased gearing, or thin walled tubing to see if they made an effect on the "overall" speeds of each year's Tour. How could does a tiny component translate to anything appreciable in the overall speeds across successive years? Rear derailleurs or improved front brakes alone don't make any appreciable change to Tour de France speeds across successive years.

4. Details of each stage : The exact details of each stage were not investigated by the authors. It would be interesting to see how many flat stages and how many mountain stages each Tour so far consisted of and how gravity would play a role in changing outcomes. Data may be tricky to find. Now keep in mind that we do have data for the speeds, distances, number of entrants and number of finishers in each of the Tours. Perhaps blending all this information into one graph for different eras of cycling may lend some insight.

For illustration, lets take the Hinault Era (1978-1985). I plotted speed (kph), % of entrants who finished the race, and number of stages with respect to the years and the distances involved. Check this out :

You may be able to come to some kind of understanding about what was going on in those 7 years. For instance, during 1980-1982, speeds increased drastically. It is also interesting to see that between 1980-1981, the number of participants who finished the race had also risen and the distance in Km of the race had fallen, although the number of stages were increased from 22 to 24. It would be interesting to superimpose the percentage of km in uphill roads and downhill roads on this graph for those years. It would also be interesting to see how the "Badger's" temperamental tactics and pace control influenced the speeds in those years.

5. Successive yearly investigations vs leaping : Based on the initial question posed, it would be more meaningful to take a vintage racing bike and a modern racing bike and compare the two.  Hypothetically, a 1903 racer traveling across a period of 100 years into the future to ride the Tour de France on a 2010 race bike with a lighter frame and aerodynamic wheels should be faster. Similarly, a group of 1903 racers climbing a 2 hour long Alpine climb on 40 pound steel bikes would be slower than the same group of racers riding on flyweight machines of similar sizes in similar terrain. It is basic physics.

Investigating this issue year by year, where all riders would have access to the same bikes and the same technology won't show you clearly how cycling technology is improving overall Tour speeds, if they do at all. Besides, some modern equipment and technical wear don't always serve to increase speed solely. Some of them have intangible benefits as comfort and so on. That is an advantage when you stay seated in the saddle for 90 hours of racing.


Overall, I don't think this is as bad of a study as many people think. Besides, it was published in a popular magazine to open up a forum for discussion. It is not a rigorous scientific white paper.

I do agree with one thing that studies like this discover time and time again - that majority of racing performance is related to the human body.

Racing is never a level playing field, no matter what race it is or how much you want to complain - be it the Berlin Marathon, or the Tour de France, the 24 Hours of Le Mans or the Baja 1000. There's always those few individuals genetically gifted or blessed with the finances and talent needed to win.

Then there are those who cheat to win. They may have the talent, but they want to boost it with some extra energy from extraneous sources, illegal by all rules.

Kamp's and Heine's study corresponds with several people's observations that cycling speeds have been coming down since 2005 due to doping regulations. In July during Tour time, I had done my own analysis of this Stage 17 power to weight ratios and my approximate figure of 6 W/kg agreed with other people's observations, among them the Science of Sport bloggers (see their article).

In the end, we may never know exactly what portion of those early TdF speed increases were "fabricated" through cheating. How much came from Amphetamine use, or alcohol, or narcotics, steroids, growth hormones, EPO and blood transfusions or using mechanical devices? Food for thought?

What do you think? Come discuss this article and its implications!

*  *  *

Johan Museeuw Trained Hard

A man who knew how to train properly to overcome adversity was Johan Museeuw. He was known for his gradual approach to training, his belief in his training ideas and his ability to focus on training so he could return to racing when his cycling career seemed to be over - a couple of times.

A wicked crash on the slick cobblestones of the Arenberg Forest in the 1998 Paris-Roubaix, the queen of one-day racing classics, almost ended his career. Gangrene set in because of improper cleaning of a knee wound by medical personnel, and they almost had to amputate the leg. As it turned out, they didn't amputate the leg, and Museeuw responded by recovering, training and coming up with a win in the 2000 Paris-Roubaix. Tragedy struck again when he crashed on his motorcycle in the summer of 2000. He fought back yet again for another Paris-Roubaix win in 2002, among other victories.

Museeuw's glory started in a small way, but he kept stretching his personal limits. In his first race outside of Belgium, the Tour of Austria, Museeuw finished the first stage 30 minutes behind the winner. He was alone, numb from the cold, and reportedly crying on his bike. He did not abandon the race though. In the same manner, he would continue to break down barriers during the remainder of his career - with dogged determination.

Museeuw was infamous for training alone for periods as long as 4 months. He knew his specific training goals would not be achievable in large groups. He would ride ruthlessly into the wind for hours on end. When he adopted heart rate training later in his career, he took himself into the red repeatedly on hard days, for unbearably long periods. He would impose kilometer per hour "basements" on some training rides  - on the order of 43 kmph (27mph) - and he'd refuse his body when it told him to slow down.

Museeuw's good friend and teammate (and world class racer in his own right) Wilfried Peeters says of Museeuw, "Out of 100 pros, 95 won't be able to deal with Johan's training rhythm. A young rider who tries to constantly keep up with him will, so to speak, destroy his body. Johan has both the body and the willpower to work those heavy training schedules. He sometimes has some riders that live in his region ride with him, but very few can keep up for a few days in a row."

Peeters explains that after brutal group training rides, Museeuw would ride another half hour extra, because it was mentally very important to him.

These words were from the book Cycling Fast by Robert Panzera, a USA Cycling certified coach and NSCA-certified strength and conditioning specialist.

In order to stay a bit more objective on the subject of Johan's superhuman performances, I will also include the fact that he was imprisoned (suspended) for 10 months for allegedly using human growth hormones and other substances to boost his strength, red blood cell count and recovery time. He had stood trial for his part in a ring alleged to have funneled EPO and other doping substances from a Belgian veterinarian to pro riders.

Turns out, critical reading is essential when reading any glorified literature about any athlete these days. Its an utter shame.

*  *  *

ABC Nightline Interview With Floyd Landis

UPDATE : It looks like ABC got rid of the Nightline interviews with Floyd Landis which were on their website upto this afternoon.  They suddenly disappeared. We obtained another full copy of the show from Hulu.

I recorded almost 15 minutes of it, but missed out the last 2 minutes of the ending sequence with Betsy Andreu, who came across as a very bold, confident woman not afraid to face the cameras. The whole interview as televised was short, much to my chagrin, in spite of ABC claiming they had over 90 minutes of talk time with Floyd.

Main highlights of the Nightline segment : 

1) There is no Santa Claus in cycling. He hates to break it to people. He's not afraid to tell it. 

2) If Lance didn't win the Tour, someone else would have won it and every single one of them was doped to the gills.

3) He was given testosterone patches by Lance Armstrong.

4) He saw Lance take PED's like EPO and blood boosters at several training camps "multiple times".

5) Team U.S Postal riders would dope on the team bus, 300mL of blood or so typical.

6) The team checked into several anonymous hotels to dope. Techniques, among others, included taping blood bags on room walls overhead. Gravity then played its role as the blood entered through the veins of the riders. One or two doctors always supervised.

7) He feels relieved telling the truth. He never felt at ease lying before.

Full episode (only available in the U.S) :

The following are low quality backups (with sync issues) in case Hulu decides to go zulu on us : 

 

RELATED (for your research) : Written & Audio Clip Testimonies from Betsy Andreu, David Walsh, Mike Anderson + Tapped Phone Conversation With Ex-Oakley Employee Stephanie Mcllavain

*   *   *

Doping Cheat Lance Armstrong Gets Further Exposed

Few publications deliver the credibility needed as the Wall Street Journal. This latest and exclusive interview that the WSJ had with disgraced cyclist Floyd Landis (see below for fullscreen reading) exposes the systematic doping practices of himself, Lance Armstrong, Johan Bruyneel and sundry in the past Tour de France's. Along with it comes a some unexpected chills. There is shocking revelation about aspects such the team selling their own bikes to raise money for doping (see more here), married man and father Armstrong going out to strip bars for years with his cocaine indulging friends, how team helpers got rid of blood bags down the toilet, how doctors "prepared" the riders for performance, so and so forth.

You may accuse me of acting on sound bites but I'm no fool when it comes to "blindly taking faith" when reality is fraud, whatever the business maybe. People have lost dignity and their self respect in the quest for money and glory, be that in cycling, soccer, baseball or the corporate business world.

Sometimes I wonder, is it truly an American phenomena that shady individuals get to write books about their "great victories" or do reality shows on television, and then stand to make unimaginable sums of money by defrauding people? When in trouble, they are able to hire expensive lawyers who are experts by training at poking holes in stories to help their disgraceful clients get away.  To cushion against a fall from grace at any time, among their insurance policies are forming relationships with big political names, giving generously to charity and using social media to deliver propaganda.

The die-hard fans who sit blindly and accept such behaviors are arguably immoral themselves or plainly unable to exercise their own brains. Their excuses for continuing to support these idiots are : "there is no proof", "this is hearsay", "he's inspiring", "he's done so much for this cause" and so on. Sadly, common sense is rare and that has been a constant since the Neanderthal man.

RELATED READING : Testimonies In The Lance Armstrong Doping Crisis

 

*  *  *

GRUBER Assist Made No Sale To Cancellara

GRUBER Assist, an e-bike drive train company in Austra, has (fortunately or unfortunately) found itself at the center of rumors regarding illegal motor use among the peloton.

I covered the story two days back and wrote about my feelings of what a motor should be capable of to help someone win the Paris Roubaix or the Tour of Flanders. We took for granted that this motor could be the GRUBER Assist. In the comments section of that blog post, I agreed with posters that at high cadences and power outputs such as Cancellara's (see Anatomy of a Cancellara Attack), the rider can "dilute" this motor, if you will.

Don't get me wrong. I'm also very impressed about the product's capabilities. I suppose one good thing that has emerged out of this controversy is that it is showing people a neat little technology for use in bicycling and potential use in bike racing.

BikeBiz already reported that the motor involved in the controversy in fact comes from Hungary, not Austria where GRUBER is based in. But hey, Hungary and Austria share a border.

Just to get the record straight about the product and its alleged use in the peloton, I had a chat with Julia Timmerer, a representative for the company. The following is what she told me in reply. I quote her :

"We are pleased about your interest in our product.

GRUBER Assist is an ultra-light drive for bicycles, invisible and built into the seat tube of the bicycle. The auxiliary drive supports with 200 Watt engine power (100 Watt Output) and weighs just 900 grams (plus 1 kg battery).

You can store the frequency of the pedals between 30 and 90 rpm. And so it gives the difference to your frequency. For example: You pedal 60 rpm, the motor is stored to 80 rpm, he supports the 20 (as far as it’s possible with it’s 100 Watts). BUT, if you pedal faster than the motor (you pedal 80, motor is stored 60) you overrun the motor and have no support.
For installing the GRUBER Assist into your bicycle, please note the requirements for the bicycle frame:

• - Aluminium or steel bicycle frame
• - Straight, continuous seat tube
• - Seat tube inner diameter of 31,6 or NEW 30,9 mm
• - Shimano Hollowtech II crankset – with outer bearing shells
• - Seat tube should be as central as possible on the bottom bracket
• - Minimum length of 62 cm from the middle of the crank to the saddle or 57 cm at a shorten seat post
• - Installation by a certified GRUBER Assist dealer

On our homepage you can find 3 spots which explains the GRUBER Assist exactly: http://www.gruberassist.com/english/downloads/spot-gruber-assist/

Please note, that neither the GRUBER Assist, nor the battery is admitted in the USA.

Please note, that the GRUBER Assist has not installed a blocking. For example in Austria an E-Bike needs a blocking at 25 km/h, otherwise you cannot drive legal on a public street. If one wants this blocking, the customer should let us know with their order. A later installation is very complicated and more expensive.

We never sold the GRUBER Assist to Fabian Cancellara and we don’t think that one of our dealers did this. And I don’t know anything about the using of our product in any races. At the moment our product is unique and we also have the patent for it. I don’t know anything about a similar product. There are many other E-Bikes (hub dive, bottom bracket motor,…) but those bicycles are not only very heavy but you can also see the motor."

Fabian's race winning bike posted by Jered Gruber. Where's the motor?

* * *

An Open Letter To The UCI President Pat McQuaid

Note : A gentleman on Cycling News' forums wrote the following, but it does not represent the views of CN itself. I'm helping to spread the word to other cycling fans, as I told him. The letter comes in direct response to McQuaid's statements today, denying using the money Armstrong "donated" in 2005 as bribe to cover up the latter's positive test in 2001. You guys must read this, as we're going through one of the biggest scandals in sports. NYT reports today that the investigations are going to broaden. Two unnamed individuals have already been contacted by investigators to exchange vital information in return for leniency.


Dear Pat,

As the cycling community is quite small, I have had the opportunity to meet with you over the years. I always admired your enthusiasm for the sport and your extensive knowledge of the sport in general.

Since the revelations made this week by Floyd Landis, the sport of cycling and the UCI of which you are President has come under immense scrutiny. The accusations that a positive drug test by Lance Armstrong was ignored in return for a financial settlement is deeply disturbing and a serious charge against the UCI.

In a radio interview on Friday you mentioned that Lance Armstrong had ‘donated’ $100,000 in 2005. You repeated those comments again today at the Giro d'Italia.

It seriously harms the reputation of this great sport that there still remains major discrepancies in your version of events.

At the Play The Game conference in October 2007 you said the $100,000 ‘cash’ came in to our account "in actual fact, about 15 months ago". (Audio here- second clip) This would be approximately July 2006 - which contradicts today's statements from you.

More alarmingly - July 2006 is only one month after the publication of the Vrijman report which cleared Mr Armstrong of facing sanction for having EPO in 6 urine samples that were retested in 2005.

With so many discrepancies I believe it is prudent that the UCI subject itself to a full independent financial audit.

I realize that this is a costly and time consuming process but it is one that the UCI must bare if it is to restore its faith in its members and the sporting community.

In a separate interview today former UCI member Sylvia Schenk said "the UCI was always very proud of its accounts".

This should mean that the UCI should be able to immediately release details of the transaction, UCI booking and machine purchased, before an audit gets underway.

I also believe that you need to consider your position at this point. In the interest of the sport of cycling, I respectfully suggest you stand down or stand aside while any investigation takes place – as I believe it would effect your ability to carry out the day to day duties of President.

If you feel that you should not stand down or stand aside then it is imperative that you clearly articulate the reasons for not doing so.

It is time to move along and begin the process of rebuilding the trust and credibility of this great sport.

Signed,
- (Name and address with CyclingNews)

* * *

A little about Pat McQuaid : Before his election, Irishman Pat McQuaid (a former racing cyclist from 1966-1982) fell out with Sylvia Schenk, a member of the UCI's management committee, who believed McQuaid was living off an expense account sanctioned by Verbruggen. [Source]

McQuaid joined the UCI's management committee in 1997 and six years later was nominated to take over from Verbruggen.

At the UCI Congress in Madrid on Sept. 23, 2005, 42 voting delegates gave him a 31-11 majority over challengers Darshan Singh and Gregorio Moreno.

McQuaid heads a 14-man committee that meets each January, June and September. For legal decisions, he depends on a team of five lawyers.

"In my 2 years on the board, there has never been a vote, everybody's agreed by consensus," McQuaid said once. "When it gets down to legal decisions it's the lawyers here that would advise me."

He sums up his role as being the "executive" who presides over the running of day-to-day business.

* * *

Floyd Landis' Letter Of Confession

Remember the Floyd Landis Fairness Fund? Well, we now know that was an outright lie. An interesting letter surfaced this morning. A pdf copy of the same gets uploaded to this Scribd account and is attached to this post below. Hit "Fullscreen" and read away. Also, keep following the uploader. There's tons of material to read there, specifically about doping.

Other sources in this developing story are the Wall Street Journal, and the Guardian. Bonnie Ford of ESPN also wrote here of her interview with Floyd. Related to this are exclusive audio clips from the ESPN telephone interview where Floyd speaks about how he's "clearing his conscience" and why he's doing it now.

The Science of Sports blog, which I greatly enjoy, had this to say on the matter. 400+ comments from readers go along with the Yahoo Sports' story about the confession. Cycling News' Clinic is also roaring with discussion about the same. Keep it alive, "BroDeal" and "RaceRadio"!

WADA has released an immediate but weak statement in response to these allegations. Most interestingly, Paul Kimmage had this to say about the affair to the Irish radio. Greg Lemond released a statement supporting Landis.

Pat McQuaid on the other hand, who appeared on the Irish radio show a bit later, questions Landis' credibility and fires back "what is his agenda??" Armstrong, as usual, insists he has nothing to hide and declares he doesn't want to waste his time. The same day, he crashes and abandons the TOC. Hmm...

How Cycling Pros Defeat Anti-Doping Part II

Has someone been watching too many movies?

Hey, do some of you still want to know the astonishing success secrets of Floyd Landis' Tour de France victory? I guess not, not now.

I had that funny feeling that the list of methods athletes and their cohorts use to fight anti-doping authorities was incomplete. Shortly after Joe Papp helped write the popular Part I of this post, we learnt of a guerrilla attack on a van carrying a pro cyclist's sample somewhere in Guatemala. In that ambush, the athlete's test samples were destroyed. What irony, eh?

Did you also wonder what else could be in the bag of dirty tricks?

Here's the headlines and a little snippet from today's NYTimes.

"Arrest Warrant Issued for Cyclist Floyd Landis

PARIS (Reuters) - A French judge has issued an international arrest warrant against American rider Floyd Landis for suspected hacking into an anti-doping laboratory computer, French anti-doping agency head Pierre Bordry told Reuters on Monday."

So is Floyd the real ringleader of this operation? Or is it the person shown in the photo on the top, one Mr. Arnie Baker - ex bicycle racer, ex-doctor, writer and Landis' coach.

I'm not sure if this is common knowledge to a lot of people, but a poster chimed the following on the CyclingNews Forum :

"Dr. Arnie Baker hired a hacker to break into LNDD and steal documents. Baker then modified the documents and distributed them in an attempt to discredit the lab.

The French wanted Floyd Landis to answer questions months ago. At that time the possibility of an arrest warrant was threatened. Floyd Landis should have taken the opportunity to deal with the problem last year."

What next? Will these guys storm into a doping laboratory with RDX explosives and AK 47's? Should labs now convert to Apple Macs instead of Windows? Should anti-doping control now have anti-hackers on their staff payroll? Should vans carrying samples be bulletproofed, led by a motorcade?

Sadly, I respected Mr. Baker a lot and have read some of his books. They're still sitting on my shelf. Gosh its time to lose some of it. The French judge in question, Thomas Cassuto of the Tribunal de Grande, has issued an international arrest warrant for him as well.




CONNECTED READINGS :

Arrest Warrant Issued For Landis In France
How Cycling Pro's Defeat Anti-Doping Control Part I
8 Things On Lance Armstrong From The Other Side Of The Grass
NYTIMES : Cyclist Floyd Landis Says Anti-Doping Agency Offered Deal to Implicate Lance Armstrong

* * *

How Cycling Pro's Defeat Anti-Doping Control

There is doping in cycling, no doubt. However, as we have it, there's a fine line between talking about it and not talking about it. If you don't talk about it, like they say, ignorance is bliss and you have a million happy cycling fans who know little of the real going on's of cycling. If you talk about it, suddenly you're a hater of professional athletes and you are giving the business of cycling a bad name.

As the author of this blog, I cannot live with ignorance and naivety. Inaction is worse than silence. If we don't understand what is really going on in our sport, we will not have the power to help clean it up as fans. The best way to understanding the doping issue is through education.

This Guest Post by none other than ex-racer Joe Papp (also a blogger) describes at length how racers subvert and escape doping control. Joe needs no special introduction. He's been there, done that and I think he's a fine candidate to tell us how slippery the pro's can get from the system. How are athletes tricking our intelligence into believing illegitimate sporting performances? Well, find out by reading the following eye-opening article.


When Ron asked if I would be willing to write a guest post for Cozy Beehive, I readily accepted, thinking I’d be able to oblige within a few days. It’s funny how life throws curve-balls, because it’s been a lot longer than that since I promised the piece, and several more drug scandals have hit cycling during the interim. The topic is but a general overview of some of the ways by which riders attempt to defeat anti-doping controls – a course of study that should have been read by Tom Zirbel and Nicklas Axelsson (at least according to their A-sample results).

The counter-measures an athlete will deploy in hopes of beating a doping control are all drawn from the same bag of dirty tricks, though the specific tactic ultimately depends on which doping product the athlete has ingested and where he can find a possible weakness in the testing protocol.


I. SPIKING WITH ENZYMES

Axelsson is accused of taking EPO, which is detectable via urinalysis. About the time of Operation Puerto, however, riders were defeating the urine-based EPO test by spiking their samples with small doses of enzymes like protease, which break down proteins — including EPO — in urine in the space of a few minutes.

Typically an athlete would conceal a supply of protease powder in his jersey before a test, transfer it to his fingers with a quick movement and then urinate over his hand into the sample bottle to ensure that the test is meaningless. Alternatively, once doping control officers (DCO’s) began to insist that the athletes wash their hands first, male athletes switched to secreting the powder under their foreskin and transferred it that way.


II. ILLEGAL POWDERS

A more sophisticated method was used in Spain, where, according to an acquaintance of mine who rode for Kelme during the Fuentes years, the procedure that Jesus Manzano described was their preferred tactic.

Manzano : "There is a red powder that's made in an illegal lab just for them outside of any controls which destroys the urine sample. This powder comes in the form of a grain of rice that we put into our penis before we pee…”

III. EPO MICRO-DOSING

Given that the UCI is now wise to this subterfuge and has instructed its DCO’s to be on the lookout for it, the best bet that a rider has for beating an EPO control is to micro-dose. EPO, typically produced from cultured animal cells, is detectable in urine for less than a week. A decade ago, before the development of the urine test, riders would gorge themselves on large quantities of EPO during the inter-race periods to raise their hematocrit levels, and re-dose prior to competition.

Now, there is a growing trend towards micro-dosing, where athletes take small, barely detectable amounts of EPO to maintain the slightly elevated levels with which they enter competitions. The UCI Biological Passport will make it difficult for dopers to manipulate blood parameters sufficiently to enhance performance without tripping a reporting threshold, and even with micro-dosing there is now no guarantee that minute changes in a rider’s hematological profile will go unnoticed. And if changes are noticed, watch out! The hematological profile itself can be used to open a doping case against a rider.

The UCI explains:

“The haematological [sic] profile opens new doors in the detection of riders who choose to manipulate their blood to unfairly enhance their performance. The scientific assessment of a rider’s profile applies similar principles to those used in forensic medical science to determine the likelihood of guilt. Once sufficient evidence is gathered which determines guilt at an agreed level of certainty, scientific experts will recommend that the UCI open disciplinary proceedings for an anti-doping rule violation. It is expected that a profile of six tests will enable the detection of blood manipulation. In some cases, a fewer number of tests may be needed to detect doping.

Such a violation will be based on Article 21.2 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules – “The use or attempted use of a prohibited method". To support this rule, the List of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods maintained by WADA is incorporated into the UCI Anti-Doping Rules. Section M1 of the Prohibited List prescribes the “enhancement of oxygen transfer through blood doping” as a prohibited method.

The expected sanction for a first offence under this rule is a suspension from competition for 2 years. In addition, the detection of abnormal levels will cause a rider to be declared unfit and to be suspended from racing for an agreed period of time."

IV. URINE SUBSTITUTION

Not nearly as glamorous as spiking urine samples or manipulating blood profiles to thwart a doping control is the process of urine substitution, whereby an athlete’s dirty sample is substituted with that of another person (who presumably hasn’t consumed banned substances) or a synthetic sample.

While the Italian team I rode for never switched one flask of human urine for another, they did keep cartridges of synthetic urine in the team car in case of a random control. The powder within the cartridge would be poured into a small Mylar bag, and then, with the addition of lukewarm water, a “safe” sample would be ready. At that point, it was up to the rider and his team attendant to distract the DCO or otherwise subvert the sample collection process in order to deliver the synthetic urine in place of the rider’s own “hot” pee.

That same team was the one who gave me dose of synthetic urine after the final stage of the UCI’s Tour of Turkey in 2006 and told me to catheterize myself prior to reporting to doping control. I’d won the final stage, and obviously understood that the team believed I had something in my body that would produce a positive result, and they didn’t want to take the risk of even sending me to doping control without some kind of countermeasure. I couldn’t do it, however. There was no way I could self-catheterize myself, and so my career approached its end. Had I catheterized myself I would have committed a doping violation just as serious as if I’d been caught with EPO in my pee. For the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Code clearly prohibits the following (quote) :

"M2. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL MANIPULATION

1. Tampering, or attempting to tamper, in order to alter the integrity and validity of Samples collected during Doping Controls is prohibited. These include but are not limited to catheterization [sic], urine substitution and/or alteration.

2. Intravenous infusions are prohibited except in the management of surgical procedures, medical emergencies or clinical investigations."

V. BRIBERY TO "CHANGE" OUTCOMES

Lacking the sophistication of a blood doper like Ferrari are the brute force cleaners who are called in to the sample collection site near the end of the session. When the guilty athlete can’t suppress his hot urine anymore, an agreement must be reached between all the stakeholders, like the Doping Control Officer, Lab Director, Race Director, rider, Team and Assorted Flunkies.

Quite simply put, cash changes hands based on the guarantee of someone in a position of power to ensure the outcome and the positive test is never declared, or, more likely, flushed before it is ever analyzed. The upside for the cheater is that were sample collectors to visit that same race the following season, he would probably be able to prepay to avoid any doping hassles.


VI. HIDING WHEREABOUTS

Of course, a rider might attempt to subvert a control before he was ever called to the collection station at a race. Providing inaccurate whereabouts and information so as to avoid out-of-competition testers (Michael Rasmussen), evading sample collection (Riccardo Riccò) or refusing it after having been notified of selection would probably not save the guilty, but would certainly provide fodder for the media and blogosphere.

* * *

I hope Joe's article convinced you that although difficult, there are multitudes of elaborate schemes dopers follow to defeat the system and lead us to believing in fantastic myths. As an inset, there is bribery taking place to twist outcomes bad to a racer's reputation as Joe mentioned above.

Cycling has now grown to be a sport where its definitely tough to make it to the cream of the crop, but once you slip in, the rewards for high performance promise to be high, involving millions of dollars of direct payouts and endorsement deals. There is no doubt in my mind that cheating at races and then collecting such prizes is akin to fraud and embezzlement, no different than that in any other aspect of human endeavor. Perhaps at this time, it would do the dopers good if they would study what exactly happened to Bernie Madoff at the end of an incredible fairytale. A fairytale setup in such a way that it would inevitably spiral into a mega catastrophe for a nation.

Do you have any additional insights to share? What else do you think dopers are doing to subvert doping control measures? You're all welcome to chime in.

ADDITIONAL READING :

Suspect Samples Destroyed In Guatemala : Cycling News
The Doping Devil : Prof. Verner Moller (e-book)

* * *