PDA

View Full Version : US doctor from the Postal Team reaffirms doping claims


andy mac
10-06-2005, 05:24 PM
from:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9005.0.html


Former U.S. Postal doctor reaffirms doping claims
By Agence France Presse
This report filed October 6, 2005
A former doctor with the U.S. Postal Service cycling team has reiterated earlier allegations that he says support claims that American Lance Armstrong used EPO (Erythropoietin) to win his first Tour de France in 1999.


Thursday's L'Equipe featured Steffen's allegations from 1996


Prentice Steffen, a 44-year-old emergency room physician, claims U.S. Postal fired him in 1996 when he refused to administer doping products to certain riders. And although he says he has received threatening phone calls warning him not to speak out from Armstrong, who in recent weeks has been forced to deny reports that he used EPO in 1999, warning him not to speak out, Steffen is determined to do so.

Dan Osipow of Tailwind Sports, the parent company of the Postal and Discovery Channel teams, said that Steffen's claims were baseless accusations from a disgruntled former employee.

"Within our team, Prentice has zero credibility," Osipow said. "He was let go by the team way before 1999, and now he's accusing our team of something that he says happened when he had nothing to do with the team.

"Prentice joined our team as an inexperienced EMT doctor," Osipow continued. "He only worked with us for a year. The team was growing more international and wanted someone with more experience in sports medicine. He made some ridiculous threats to the effect of, ‘Hey, you better keep me or I'm going to make accusations about the team.'"


photo: L'Equipe

"Accusing us of doping has been his continuing M.O.," Osipow said "He continues to want to speak about us and jump and down about us, and clearly he has an audience and a platform. But within our team, when Prentice speaks it doesn't mean anything. Prentice is a non-issue."

A question of enforcement
Steffen claims that today's top riders are now using almost fail-proof methods of doping in the world's biggest bike race.

"There are some riders from certain teams on the Tour de France riding with a hematocrit [red blood cell] level of between 55 and 60," he said in an interview in Thursday's edition of the French sports daily L'Equipe.

The UCI's permitted hematocrit level is 50.

Elevated red blood cell levels, gained by using EPO or blood doping methods, give an advantage because oxygen-rich blood cells allow the muscles to work for longer, and to recover more quickly after extreme effort.


photo: L'Equipe

"I've been told by a well-informed source from one of the teams about the methods," Steffen said. "It's so easy to do that there's almost no chance of getting caught."

"Then a doctor will take out some of the blood and keep it in a special container so their red blood cell count can be brought back to the permitted (racing) threshold so they will sail through pre-race testing," Steffen claimed. "The teams know that the blood testers can arrive at hotels on any day, but always between seven and eight o'clock in the morning - give or take half an hour.

"After that, there are no more controls and so the riders can be reinjected with their own blood. They race the stage with a huge advantage, their red blood cell count oscillating between 55 and 58.

"After the stage, doctors will take out some blood again to make it safe to sleep, but above all to make sure they don't get caught in any random checks in the morning."

Osipow that Steffen's claims had no basis in reality.

"Now he's claiming of having sources within a ProTour team, but I don't believe it," Osipow said. "This is a U.S. team doctor. I don't think he has any real extensions to Europe.

"To claim that Lance and Tyler have doped, that's just crap. To shoot his mouth off like that, especially with all the details that are trying to be found out right now, and with our team, and Lance himself, being involved in the fight against doping."

While Steffen did not name the sources he claims to have contacted, the methods outlined in his latest allegations have been supported by French blood doping expert Michel Audran, widely regarded as an authority on methods currently being used in sport.

"In a stage race, these methods are totally plausible, both scientifically and materialistically," said Audran.

He expressed fright however at the suggestion of blood doping being carried out the morning of a stage.

"I hope this isn't the case, from a strictly health point of view," Audran said. "It normally takes an hour for a liter of blood to be properly transfused and it must be carried out in proper conditions. As for taking blood out after the stage, it seems totally plausible to me. The rider would have less chance of getting caught the next morning. Taking out a unit [450 milliliters] of blood would drop the hematocrit by about three points."

For Audran, whose scientific studies have shown that athletes using micro-doses of EPO will retain it in their system for a maximum of only 24 hours, there's only one solution.

"They would have to take blood and urine samples from riders just before the start," he said. "You could also take a pinprick-sized sample of blood from every rider on the start line."

Hope for the sport?
Steffen, who has been involved in cycling for 26 years, currently works with the American TIAA-CREF team and says that he has spoken out because he fears for the sport he loves.

If Armstrong or his former teammate Postal Tyler Hamilton - who is currently awaiting a decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport on his ban for doping - escape punishment, Steffen said he will end all his links with the sport.

"I've made a promise to myself and my wife," Steffen said. "If Hamilton is let off and nothing happens to Armstrong, then I will quit cycling for good. For me, it's the end of all hope.

"For the moment I'm optimistic, but I believe every method possible should be used to catch cheats, including keeping samples for retroactive testing.

"The amateurs I work with know fine well what goes on in the professional ranks," he added. "To compete with the best you have to dope. I don't think for a minute they have any doubts about that.

"You don't know how a [young] rider is going to evolve [into possible doping]. If you had asked me 10 or 11 years ago about Tyler Hamilton I would have said, 'No way, he's too honest, he's been brought up well and he works hard,' but it doesn't work like that. The bad guys, like Armstrong, dope, and the good guys, like Hamilton, dope too. There's always a moment of wavering, as if, all of a sudden, they have no choice."

Steffen has already come under fire from Armstrong for speaking out, in 2001, to The Sunday Times of London about doping within U.S. Postal, the team with whom Armstrong won six Tour de France yellow jerseys. The American doctor, however, said he has little fear of those threats, as he has plenty of experience in facing down top cyclists.

Steffen said Hamilton, formerly with U.S. Postal, was one of two riders, the other being Marty Jemison, who asked him for EPO when they were racing the 1996 Tour of Switzerland and struggling to keep up with the pace of the race.

Steffen says that he refused, reported the matter to then-director Mark Gorski, and at the end of that year his contract with the team was not renewed. Subsequently, he received a registered letter from U.S. Postal ordering him not to talk about what went on inside the team.

Now, however, Steffen has apparently decided to ignore the directive contained within that letter.
(VeloNews's Neal Rogers contributed to this story)

Argos
10-06-2005, 07:18 PM
He was fired in 96. Where was Armstrong in '96? Right.

He has the ability to make comments on a team he had not worked for for 3 years at the time of the alleged incident?

Fired in 96, warned in 99?

Not sure how many other ways I can say that. 3 seems to be enough.

Needs Help
10-06-2005, 07:25 PM
If Lance demanded EPO in '96, it's certainly relevant to an inquiry into whether he used EPO in '99.

Argos
10-06-2005, 07:34 PM
Needs Help....

Not sure if you are getting what I am saying.

When was Lance sick? When was Prentice fired?

Lance joined USPS in '97.

Ok, so when did they work together? Right, they didn't.

Needs Help
10-06-2005, 07:42 PM
Ok, so when did they work together? Right, they didn't.
And, everyone including USPS seems to have missed that detail?

After a more careful reading of the story, he doesn't appear to be claiming Lance used EP0.

Dekonick
10-06-2005, 07:57 PM
Lance did use EPO - probably in '96. So what? He had cancer and that was part of his treatment.

Sounds like a MD with a case of sour grapes.

Needs Help
10-06-2005, 07:59 PM
Sounds like a MD with a case of sour grapes.
Or, it sounds like an MD relating his experience inside pro cycling, which is clearly suffering from a wide spread doping problem.

I would think a rider that didn't dope and wasn't a cheat would steer clear of doctors connected to doping, and they wouldn't chase down riders who spoke out on doping when they already had the race won. At the very least, actions like that condone doping.

LegendRider
10-06-2005, 08:02 PM
If the UCI, doping authorities and/or the police really think riders are removing blood after the stage and re-injecting after the AM dope tests, then it should be fairly easy to find the refrigerators where the blood is stored, right? I'm not naive, but many of these alleged doping techniques sound slick, but the devil is in the details. How are the "logisitics" handled?

BumbleBeeDave
10-06-2005, 08:30 PM
. . . the suspicion level towards doping has grown so high and the cynicism so rampant that just about ANY accusation becomes “plausible.” The question of what axe an accuser MAY be grinding has grown to be just as important as the actual question of whether the athlete they are accusing of doping actually did the deed.

Tyler is one of my favorite people. Lance is not. But I have seen absolutely no truly credible evidence that either one actually engaged in doping. The test used on Tyler is of questionable reliability, IMHO, and the way the UCI and WADA have pursued what was supposed to be “due process” with him are shameful. The accusations against Lance just reek of sour grapes and cynical opportunism, if not downright frame-up.

While Prentice may have the best of intentions in his own mind, the fact remains that the accusations he is making date from so long ago as to be useless. They constitute no circumstance that he can prove credibly. It’s yet another case of “He said, She said.” And even if the accusations ARE true, the mere fact that Hamilton and Jemison may have ASKED about doping does not in any way actually prove that they DID dope.

I find it next to impossible to take this guy seriously.

BBDave

Skrawny
10-06-2005, 08:55 PM
I think I'd rather be reading about Dadoo...


-s

Dekonick
10-06-2005, 10:17 PM
I think I'd rather be reading about Dadoo...


-s
and eating wine pie? :D

Kevin
10-07-2005, 06:10 AM
EPO does stand for "Extra Pie Order" :beer:

As a matter of fact I have had a standing order for EPO for about 40 years. ;)

Kevin

William
10-07-2005, 06:40 AM
I think the Colonel still has a lot of chicken to go with your EPO.... :rolleyes:



William

Len J
10-07-2005, 06:53 AM
certainly would describe Tyler's test results........if his MD reinjected him with the wrong blood.

Len

Russell
10-07-2005, 08:08 AM
If Lance demanded EPO in '96, it's certainly relevant to an inquiry into whether he used EPO in '99.
It was Tyler and Marty who demaned th EPO according to him.

Russell
10-07-2005, 08:13 AM
EPO does stand for "Extra Pie Order" :beer:

As a matter of fact I have had a standing order for EPO for about 40 years. ;)

Kevin
That's why Ullrich keeps fighting his weight problem

TmcDet
10-07-2005, 08:20 AM
First how does he know what was going on in 1999 when he worked for the team in 1996 (this fact alone shoots down the French Newspaper article)

Second if it is so widely known how these guys get by with doing the EPO and the blood transfusions then it should be easy to stop. If they know when it is all happening then they should have any problem catching them do it.

Third how is it that a Dr here in the US knows all the drugging that that is going on in Europe, even when it is taking place yet the anti-doping people don't know?

Fourth I was in Richardson Bike Mart in 2005 so I know for sure if Lance used EPO in 1999, but I am not telling. Well ok if the French newspaper offered me enough money I might tell.

There are other question this guy brings up but I don't have the time to spend with it at the moment

BumbleBeeDave
10-07-2005, 08:51 AM
. . . that those elements of his story--among others--just don’t add up. The fact that this was published in L’Equipe seals the deal for me.

I’ve been in journalism for over twenty years and while the huge, vast majority of journalists I have worked with are professional, honest, and objective, there have been several instances when an editor decided he just KNEW the REAL story and he was going to tell readers about it and not let inconvenient little things like the truth get in the way.

My overwhelming impression is that there is at least one--or several--editors at L’Equipe who have a vendetta against Lance for whatever reason. It has to be those somewhat in charge because a mere reporter grinding such an axe would not get very far into print. They are really dredging the bottom for anything at all damaging to him and regular journalistic standards are being ignored. This guy’s story has more logical holes in it than the swiss cheese I had for lunch yesterday, but they are publishing it anyway . . . something stinks, and it’s not the rest of the swiss cheese I accidentally left out on the counter . . .

BBDave

Frustration
10-07-2005, 08:55 AM
Frankly, I am suprised that Velonews ran this with the spin that is on it. It's news worthy, but irrelevant to the Armstrong deal. I thought better of them than that.


It just seems like any time anyone can stick the words "Armstrong" and "Doping" together they will. I personally give no credibility to Jackass's like this Doc who wait till the timing is right to rehash or come clean with "hot" info.

GoJavs
10-07-2005, 09:10 AM
I'm sure the good Doctor put himself through medical school just so that one day a guy going by the name "frustration" would call him a "jackass" on the ol' serotta board....

Sweet....folks, if you don't buy it, don't read it.
---------------------------------------------

Frankly, I am suprised that Velonews ran this with the spin that is on it. It's news worthy, but irrelevant to the Armstrong deal. I thought better of them than that.


It just seems like any time anyone can stick the words "Armstrong" and "Doping" together they will. I personally give no credibility to Jackass's like this Doc who wait till the timing is right to rehash or come clean with "hot" info.

BumbleBeeDave
10-07-2005, 01:51 PM
Why the sarcasm? I felt his comment was reasonable. Frustration is right. This doctor is far from the first who has made accusations at suspiciously coincidental times.

I might disagree with him a bit on the opinion about VeloNews, though. They always have to walk a fine line between the Armstrong-Lovers and Haters. Note that a footnote ppoints out that one of their reporters also contributed to the story they ran. So I am imagining it was even more critical of Lance before they added to it.

BBDave

GoJavs
10-07-2005, 02:10 PM
It's not sarcasm. It's 'frustration'. I also don't see much to the story of the doctor, and I'm actually one who believes Lance is dirty. So, why pay attention to a silly story like that? If (or when) Lance doped, he got away with it. End of story. What's the point at this point...

Let's go back to talking about Ti frames and Plastic ibises... :beer:

Fixed
10-07-2005, 03:38 PM
bro maybe it's cos I'm a street kid but who cares drugs are everywhere.i.m.h.o. cheers :beer:

LegendRider
10-07-2005, 07:48 PM
If the UCI, doping authorities and/or the police really think riders are removing blood after the stage and re-injecting after the AM dope tests, then it should be fairly easy to find the refrigerators where the blood is stored, right? I'm not naive, but many of these alleged doping techniques sound slick, but the devil is in the details. How are the "logisitics" handled?

Here's a quote from the L'Equipe interview with Prentice Steffen:

STEFFEN:
No, just for important stages in the mountains or maybe for a time
trial. It's so simple to do and there's no risk of being caught
unless the police intervene. The blood was shuttled by motorcycle in
a refrigerated compartment...

Ginger
10-07-2005, 08:08 PM
The whole blood out/blood in thing is funny. Generally, the needles used to draw blood are not the fine little ones that could be used to inject drugs...they're pretty dang huge...Seems to me that if they followed that practice on a regular basis the riders would have a fair set of tracks and bruising *somewhere*.

Dekonick
10-07-2005, 08:29 PM
They would need to be 18 guage or larger to minimize hemolysis - you can do transfusions with larger guages (smaller needles) - (after all how else would you do an infant?) but RBC's can get damaged.

I think the red cross nurses uses 16 guage needles on blood donor's - I have not met anyone who can hide the mark left by those vampires...

Ginger
10-07-2005, 09:45 PM
Thanks for confirming my thought...I guess they could use the legs for access. And perhaps that explains some of the "saddle sores" the riders get...
(Hey, everyone wants a theory...)

Heck, my other thought was if they were drawing and reintroducing blood that often over a three week period, wouldn't there be some issue with the vessels that were getting poked? When I donate blood, or have blood drawn, or they screw up when I'm having blood drawn, they tend to alternate arms...

Fixed...I'm not a street kid, but yeah, drugs are everywhere.

dirtdigger88
10-07-2005, 09:49 PM
Fixed...I'm not a street kid, but yeah, drugs are everywhere.


http://www.localart.org.uk/images/Drugs4.jpg

Jason

dirtdigger88
10-07-2005, 09:51 PM
OR

http://www.bendib.com/environment/2-25-05-Dangerous-Drugs.jpg

Jason

dirtdigger88
10-07-2005, 09:54 PM
.

toaster
10-08-2005, 03:48 AM
If he was such an inexperienced EMT then why would Postal hire him?

BumbleBeeDave
10-08-2005, 05:14 PM
This guy sounds like he has so much egg on his face that he’s gonna need a breathing tube . . .

BBDave
______________________

Steffen retracts

The now former TIAA-CREF team physician Prentice Steffen has retracted the comments he made recently in L'Equipe concerning Lance Armstrong and other athletes, and doping. As a one-time doctor with the US Postal Service team in the 1990s, Steffen's comments reverberated around the world as part of the ongoing allegations that Armstrong used EPO in the 1999 Tour.

In a statement, Dr Steffen apologised for any personal comments he made about Armstrong and others: "It was inappropriate for me to suggest that 'the bad guys, like Armstrong, dope, and the good guys, like Hamilton, dope too.' I do not know Lance Armstrong personally and have I never witnessed him taking banned substances. I based my assumptions about Mr. Armstrong on rumours I had heard, instead of on anything remotely factual and I want to issue this public retraction of comments.

"Second, my intentions in participating in the L'Equipe interview were not to impugn anyone's character. I understood the purpose of the interview to be a discussion of the great strides being made by anti-doping agencies around the globe and the opportunity to improve testing for banned substances. As a Board Certified Emergency Room and Sports Medicine physician, I feel it is my duty to help USADA, WADA, and the UCI when I see a potential problem with testing protocols or methods. Unfortunately, the L'Equipe article overshadowed these issues and focused, instead, on my comments relating to specific athletes.

"Third, it is true that some athletes in the professional peloton, accused of doping, have willingly confessed that it is prevalent in the professional cycling. Just as many athletes, however, have done exceedingly well in the sport and have never been implicated in any way. It is an unfair assertion that the only way to achieve success in cycling is through doping. Many other factors such as hard work, dedication, and natural ability play crucial roles in any athlete's success.

"Fourth, I am extremely sorry for any negative impact my comments may have had on Team TIAA-CREF, its sponsors, or staff. My personal comments were not intended to reflect their views. My comments were not approved by Team TIAA-CREF, its sponsors, or staff. I am gravely sorry that Team TIAA-CREF was even mentioned in association with my personal comments."

Dr Steffen finished by announcing his resignation from TIAA-CREF. "I should permanently remove myself from the role of team physician at Team TIAA-CREF, as my comments have damaged and dampened the spirits of these young athletes," he concluded.

GoJavs
10-08-2005, 05:35 PM
Sounds like the good doctor got a call from the now infamous collection of Armstrong attorneys. Ah....intimidation....the American Way.... :)

Doc Austin
10-08-2005, 05:35 PM
I based my assumptions about Mr. Armstrong on rumours I had heard, instead of on anything remotely factual..........

But hey, that's enough evidence, right?

dave thompson
10-08-2005, 06:55 PM
This guy sounds like he has so much egg on his face that he’s gonna need a breathing tube . . .

BBDave
______________________

Steffen:".............. never witnessed him taking banned substances. I based my assumptions about Mr. Armstrong on rumours I had heard, instead of on anything remotely factual ......".
Steffen must have honed his gossip skills while living in France.

Fixed
10-08-2005, 07:03 PM
bro there must be money in this somewhere.i.m.h.o cheers :beer:

djg
10-08-2005, 07:59 PM
Sounds like the good doctor got a call from the now infamous collection of Armstrong attorneys. Ah....intimidation....the American Way.... :)

Surely he heard from all sorts of folks (persons human and corporate) and their attorneys. Let's look at the retraction and take a wild, wild guess that, among others, Team TIAA-CREF and their sponsor (TIAA-CREF) expressed just a bit of displeasure with his unfounded allegations about particular individuals. I don't think it takes a lick of cynicism to imagine any of this and I don't see how it speaks poorly of the American legal system. The doc was beyond foolish, and certainly wrong, to make such statements to a newspaper without any firsthand knowledge or evidence that the statements were actually true. Knowledge of widespread doping just doesn't cut it. And the real treatment practices and body chemistries of Lance or anyone else on the 1999 US Postal squad seem to me entirely beside the point. A doctor knows about his or her own patients and--absent subpoena or very special circumstances--should keep his or her mouth shut about those patients. He should not attach his reputation and degree to rumors about other doctors' patients.

BumbleBeeDave
10-08-2005, 09:10 PM
. . . I think this was a particularly bad combination of an interviewer with an agenda and an interviewee with a big mouth and no brain attached to it. He probably got calls from many different attorneys--and rightly so. His blanket accusations essentially insulted ALL pro riders, including the ones on his own team. If I were in charge of the team, I would have fired him, too. He’s lucky they let him resign instead of calling a press conference to announce he had been thrown out on his a**. His statements were just an all-star STUPID move . . .

BBDave

Ginger
10-08-2005, 10:06 PM
Tock....


(his 15 minutes of fame slowing fading away...)

froze
10-08-2005, 10:59 PM
This doctor has made his rounds before (no pun intended) on this very subject some years ago probably around 1999 as another poster pointed out. I'm not sure if this guy is for real. I do know that he supposely studied the previous doctor reports on Lance from previous years and concluded, along with those of some other doctors including Italian sports doctor Michele Ferrari, who worked with Armstrong and Carmichael and whose name has been linked to the endurance-boosting drug EPO; and Craig Nichols, who was Armstrong's principal oncologist, that the cause for Lance's cancer was "maybe" due to Lance taking performance enhancing substances. After the cancer Lance supposely was reported saying he would never ever use performance enhancement drugs again. If any of this is true-which Lance says is not, then Lance would not have been taking any drugs for any of his TDF wins and Lance would not have had to lie about it.

But if you know anything at all about Lance's cardiovascular system then you would know he wouldn't need drugs to help him win. But his wins in the TDF are more about strategy then raw power or cardiovascular strength-a situation that drugs can't really do anything about. And if Lance had been using drugs then why not race in other Euro classic races and win those? Using the French reasoning, then what about Merckx who won many more races then Armstrong has, he had to be doping too! Because no one could be as good as Merckx without some sort of outside aid.

Johny
10-08-2005, 11:04 PM
Using the French reasoning, then what about Merckx who won many more races then Armstrong has, he had to be doping too! Because no one could be as good as Merckx without some sort of outside aid.

Merckx was caught with doping.

froze
10-08-2005, 11:25 PM
Merckx was caught with doping.

My understanding is that Merckx, like Armstrong, only had allegations. I checked the internet and found nothing about Merckx doping just allegations because a bunch of people think that it's impossible to do what Merckx did without outside aide. Allegations that Merckx denies of course and doping was not very sophisticated nor successful in his day.

But I did find this interesting web site about Armstrong though: http://www.answers.com/topic/lance-armstrong

asgelle
10-09-2005, 08:06 AM
My understanding is that Merckx, like Armstrong, only had allegations.
Check harder. Merckx was sanctioned at least three times:

1969 Giro: Reactivan (Amphetamines) 30 day suspension, abandoned with a tearful denial!

1973 Tour of Lombardy, Ephedrine (stimulant), DQ

1977 Fleche Wallone, Stimul (pemoline), DQ

Sandy
10-09-2005, 08:39 AM
I have never been accused of doping. I wonder why. :)


The Dope

Frustration
10-09-2005, 11:15 AM
Man I love a good retraction...


It's one thing to comment on what you know and something else to take a crack at getting your 15 minutes of fame. Nice to see the Doc only got 4 of his 15 and Velo needed to reprint.

I am not a firm believer of a clean Pro Peloton, but fools that step up to the podium like this (saying it or printing it) do nothing but make the fight against doping harder.


To answer GoJavs dig at my "jacka$$" comment, no I don't think he went to med school just to get called a Jackass.

It's just another great example of the fact that plenty of school can make you "educated", but lots of classwork and a great title doesn't always make you smart...

tch
10-09-2005, 11:44 AM
1) if Lance doped, he CANNOT be the only one. From a competitive point of view, he then might have an unfair advantage over some, but certainly not all of his co-competitors. He won 7 times -- therefore, he is still the best among his peers, regardless of where the line on chemical assistance is drawn.
2) it seems highly likely, in fact, that some kind of medical supplementing is occuring. The achievements of Lance, Jan, Cipo, Boonen, Basso, etc. are, quite literally, super-human.
3) there is a whole structure of individuals, corporations, and sport which is vested in denying the prevalence of doping. Vast amounts of money and lots of reputations are balanced on this denial. And lots of money and energy will be devoted to protect the status quo (which by the way gives lip service to an anti-doping effort).
4) the world will probably not get to the bottom of this until a competitor or coach comes forward with concrete evidence at the level of vials, needles, dates, DNA connection to those tools, etc. Legal and extra-legal methods will have to be overcome by a large body of irrefutable, physical proof.
5) That will be a long time in coming.

Best.