I suppose if its a small field and there's not many people in it, he can be an expert.
I'm not saying that newly minted phds are not really knowledgeable, cause I was one once... but....
I suppose if its a small field and there's not many people in it, he can be an expert.
I'm not saying that newly minted phds are not really knowledgeable, cause I was one once... but....
While I wouldn't consider him an expert based on time in the field, sometimes fresh eyes see things that others overlook.
This case is somewhat of an example.
2008 Trek FX 7.2/Terry Cite X
2009 Jamis Aurora/Brooks B-68
2010 Trek FX 7.6 WSD/stock bontrager
There's nothing on velonews.com about this, and those guys can make a story out of someone's twitter feed when they think it's important. Also nothing on cyclingenews.com. Googling "armstrong blood" brings up links to cycling forums (like this one) where the original article is being discussed.
So either the cycling news organizations are taking their time to investigate, or they're not considering it worthy of repeating.
...a small fish in a big pond trying to make a name for himself...
As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence." ~Benjamin Franklin
It's just a crock of you-know-what for publicity sake. They never get tired of trying to pin this on him, even after all these years of testing where they could never find anything.
----------------------------------------------------
"I never made "Who's Who"- but sure as hell I made "What's That??..."
This is nothing. There are too many reasons for fluctuations in hematocrit levels to be able to make any definitive conclusions. His were all in the normal range, so to just say they might have been expected to go down over the timecourse of the race is nothing.