Armstrong's Bio Passport Critic Speaks

Imagine how easy . Finding the source. asking him to expand and explain. Publish full interview instead of juicy snippets. Why hasn’t big media done this?

Hope to see an equally serious response from LA or some other scientists.

If we go by the assumption that autologous blood transfusions aren’t taking place, can the levels be maintained some other way? Does exercise physiology as a science know enough about differences in individual physiology to know if it’s possible that there are exceptions to the norm? This science of physiology is really cool stuff but very hard to draw conclusions I think.

As far as the claim that younger this-and-that (scientists and cyclists) seem to be leaving omerta behind… bullshit.

sniped from the article

AS: Damsgaard says this is just speculative, he hasn’t criticized this on specific points. How do you view his statement?

JM: I really don’t want to comment on that.

Damsgaard and Jacob M. used to work together, no? Really puts clouds on the internal testing done by Damsgaard.

AS: Damsgaard also talked about the rights of the cyclist. Do you think it’s correct for us to discuss this at all? The blood passport does allow for a lot of speculation, and the rider may not have sufficient recourse…

JM: I would like to emphasize that the passport does NOT allow for a lot of speculation, because the values are NOT publicized. I think there is a good reason for that and in my opinion that is the way it should be. Another thing is, when you as an athlete choose by yourself to publish your values – then it’s free for people to comment on them. This was his own decision. If you’re not ready for that scrutiny, you shouldn’t publish your values. If a journalist comes to me, it’s because I’ve done work in this area, and want my opinion as a scientist. If he has got a problem with people commenting on his values, he shouldn’t have chosen to publish them. When he does that, it’s an open forum, it’s public, and if something looks strange it would be wrong for me not to say that, when I was asked. If I didn’t say his values looked suspicious, I would dismiss the scientific literature, which I have based my comments on.

Funny:
AS: Have you been contacted by any members of the US media?

JM: The Associated Press contacted me.

(Chris/Jens/editor(s)) cut it down if I posted too much from the article)

Agree with Jens, why was that too hard for VeloNews? Sheesh, call the dude up and ask him the questions.

Well done by the Velocity boys.

was done with how many riders? 7? 12?
Do they really understand the concept of statistically significant sample?
They should.

provided your sample is drawn truly randomly from the population concerned. And of course, the results then apply TO THAT POPULATION, not to “any other group of riders,” unless group #2 can be presumed equivalent to group #1.

drug companies and homeopathic entrepreneurs have been coming out for decades with small studies that show the effectiveness of some new drug or herb. An overwhelming number of times when those drugs are placed in large scale controlled tests they discover that the smaller studies were incorrect and reverse their findings. Its the “large” part of the large scale studies that give the study its accuracy. The margin of error in every statistical calculation is mathematically derived from the quantity of data point.

Furthermore, in this specific case the top 10 climbers on the planet have a highly unusual physiology that allows them to race up huge mountains day after day. So in this specific study it is far more likely that those people that constitute the smallest fraction of the population on earth would almost never be included in a study of 12 !