I noted in several entries — here, here, and, to a lesser extent, here — becoming intrigued by doping-in-cycling issues, especially as they concerned Lance Armstrong.

NY Velocity has published an interview by Andy Shen of Michael Ashenden, who testified as an expert against Armstrong in an arbitration related to the payment of a $5 million bonus for Armstrong’s winning a seventh Tour (an arbitration that did not, although Armstrong says otherwise, vindicate the charge of doping because the arbitrators decided that the obligation to make the payment existed only if Armstrong won, not whether he did it cleanly). Ashenden is devastating, in my view, on the issues of the 2005 testing of the 1999 Tour samples (discussed in detail in David Walsh’s “From Lance to Landis“) and on the illegitimacy of a paper by Eddie Coyle that purportedly showed Armstrong had improved his efficiency by 18%.

This has nothing to do with the recent contretemps about whether Armstrong did something wrong recently with respect to staying in sight of a tester (although it is addressed at the very end, in some follow-up comments).