Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Race Radio]

I have not said that I do not believe he was clean from 2000 and on - I have stated I do not know and neither does anyone else since there are no positive samples. As for why he might not have continued to use PEDs - 1) there was a test out for EPO in 2000; 2) his team had gotten stronger; 3) he started focusing a lot more time in targeting the Tour with a lot of equipment and bike position testing; and, 4) he had fully recovered his strength after cancer.

since you seem to like lists

1) There was no test for transfusions
2) There was no test for HGH
3) Despite saying he had stopped working with Ferrari after his conviction he continued to work with him
4) His team was caught dumping Actovigen, 160 syringes, insulin and other drugs
5) His assistant found steroids in his house (amongst other things)
6) Blood bags delivered by motorcycle (Floyd has the pictures)
7) Advanced notice of OOC tests.

I guess if some believe the myth that "bike position testing" is what turned Armstrong from a rider who dropped out of GT's to a 7 time winner then it is not much of a stretch to believe the Nazi Frogmen sabotage theory.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Given what you have posted so far it is not surprising you do not know the sample collection process.

The athlete gives a sample, he/she then pours some in one tube and some in another. he/she then seals the tube and discards the rest of the sample. Ashenden said there was plenty to run the tests with.

Correct - here are a couple of videos showing the process, a short video from the AFLDand a slightly longer one from WADA.

I have not said that I do not believe he was clean from 2000 and on - I have stated I do not know and neither does anyone else since there are no positive samples. As for why he might not have continued to use PEDs - 1) there was a test out for EPO in 2000; 2) his team had gotten stronger; 3) he started focusing a lot more time in targeting the Tour with a lot of equipment and bike position testing; and, 4) he had fully recovered his strength after cancer.

Just a small correction -the test for EPO was not introduced until 2001.

The 1999 Tour was in many ways the 'easiest' to win as many of the top riders (Pantani, Ullrich) were missing.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I have the 8-hour VHS of the 2000 tour if you want to borrow it. It's a good watch.

I watched as much as was available live - unless it has positive testing results, it does not contain proof that LA used PEDs during the event.

I have a basic problem in speculating that good performance is proof of PED use. It may be a reason to suspect but it would not be enough to get a judge to sign a search warrant in this country without something more (note: it takes a lot less evidence to get a search warrant than it does to obtain a conviction in a criminal case, or even get a civil verdict).

I have no problem with people stating, they suspect that Armstrong used PEDs because he was much stronger than people who later admitted using PEDs during an event. I certainly would not think less of someone who said that, in their opinion, they believed he must have used PEDs because they believe there was prior use in 1999 as evidence by the test results given in the past and it he probably continued doing what he had done in the past. But I see no way to state there is irrefutable evidence LA used PEDs after 1999 (and, though I personally believe it is likely he used in 1999, I can see why some might not).

 

[red_flanders]

I watched as much as was available live - unless it has positive testing results, it does not contain proof that LA used PEDs during the event.

I have a basic problem in speculating that good performance is proof of PED use. It may be a reason to suspect but it would not be enough to get a judge to sign a search warrant in this country without something more (note: it takes a lot less evidence to get a search warrant than it does to obtain a conviction in a criminal case, or even get a civil verdict).

I have no problem with people stating, they suspect that Armstrong used PEDs because he was much stronger than people who later admitted using PEDs during an event. I certainly would not think less of someone who said that, in their opinion, they believed he must have used PEDs because they believe there was prior use in 1999 as evidence by the test results given in the past and it he probably continued doing what he had done in the past. But I see no way to state there is irrefutable evidence LA used PEDs after 1999 (and, though I personally believe it is likely he used in 1999, I can see why some might not).

He used PED's in 1999. There are multiple positive tests and not a shred of evidence or logic to suggest otherwise. This thread is the reddest of herrings in that regard.

While I agree that performance (alone) is a poor indicator of doping, his 2000 performance was overwhelming in comparison to 1999. There is no way, no chance, no reason at all, that he was dirty in '99 and stepped UP a level in 2000.

That anyone seriously goes to the effort to continually point out that it's not a 100% fact that he doped after '99 is odd to me. Of course it isn't. Nothing is 100%. We all get it, seriously. The idea that we keep pointing this out so that some people can hold on to the myth (anything, just throw me a rope!) is silly. Is it possible that he was clean? Anything is possible. It's farsical to believe it based on the available evidence. Farsical.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Correct - here are a couple of videos showing the process, a short video from the AFLDand a slightly longer one from WADA.


Just a small correction -the test for EPO was not introduced until 2001.

The 1999 Tour was in many ways the 'easiest' to win as many of the top riders (Pantani, Ullrich) were missing.

For some reason I thought that the test for EPO was announced in 2000, perhaps I am incorrect (although I did just read an article stating it was announced then).

While I really enjoyed watching Pantani climb up the mountains I am not sure he would ever be dominant as a GC contender even with EPO since he was so terrible at TT. personally, while I was rooting for him to hold on to the jersey, I did not believe he would ever be able to repeat if there was a strong TT rider who could climb in the race.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I watched as much as was available live - unless it has positive testing results, it does not contain proof that LA used PEDs during the event.

I have a basic problem in speculating that good performance is proof of PED use. It may be a reason to suspect but it would not be enough to get a judge to sign a search warrant in this country without something more (note: it takes a lot less evidence to get a search warrant than it does to obtain a conviction in a criminal case, or even get a civil verdict).

I have no problem with people stating, they suspect that Armstrong used PEDs because he was much stronger than people who later admitted using PEDs during an event. I certainly would not think less of someone who said that, in their opinion, they believed he must have used PEDs because they believe there was prior use in 1999 as evidence by the test results given in the past and it he probably continued doing what he had done in the past. But I see no way to state there is irrefutable evidence LA used PEDs after 1999 (and, though I personally believe it is likely he used in 1999, I can see why some might not).

People are entitled to their opinions - however I always find it puzzling yet amusing when someone like Sproket01 and his various aliases admits they believe LA doped 'at some point in his career' - yet then vigorously defends the 99 samples as some vast conspiracy and states that Betsy Andreu should have lied in court for Lance.

To me - what does it matter when or if he started and stopped?
If you believe he is a doper then he deserves the same contempt as anyone else who doped.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

People are entitled to their opinions - however I always find it puzzling yet amusing when someone like Sproket01 and his various aliases admits they believe LA doped 'at some point in his career' - yet then vigorously defends the 99 samples as some vast conspiracy and states that Betsy Andreu should have lied in court for Lance.

To me - what does it matter when or if he started and stopped?
If you believe he is a doper then he deserves the same contempt as anyone else who doped.

I am pretty sure that the evidence points to Pantani using PEDs (along with a lot of other substances), however, I still enjoyed watching him ride.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am pretty sure that the evidence points to Pantani using PEDs (along with a lot of other substances), however, I still enjoyed watching him ride.

Firstly - the EPO test was available at the 2000 Olympics but was not introduced to cycling until 1st April 2001!

While I agree with your conclusions about Pantani, he never failed a dope test or had any sanction against him for any doping violation!

 

[Race Radio]

For some reason I thought that the test for EPO was announced in 2000, perhaps I am incorrect (although I did just read an article stating it was announced then).

While I really enjoyed watching Pantani climb up the mountains I am not sure he would ever be dominant as a GC contender even with EPO since he was so terrible at TT. personally, while I was rooting for him to hold on to the jersey, I did not believe he would ever be able to repeat if there was a strong TT rider who could climb in the race.

The EPO test had limited use in the 2000 Olympics, but not in the Tour. It was first used in the Tour in 2001.

 

[scribe]

Firstly - the EPO test was available at the 2000 Olympics but was not introduced to cycling until 1st April 2001!

While I agree with your conclusions about Pantani, he never failed a dope test or had any sanction against him for any doping violation!

the way he'd throw down his pirate cap screamed doped to me.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Firstly - the EPO test was available at the 2000 Olympics but was not introduced to cycling until 1st April 2001!

While I agree with your conclusions about Pantani, he never failed a dope test or had any sanction against him for any doping violation!

I believe you are correct about never getting a positive - would not matter, I would not have contempt for him even if they go back and test the 1998 samples and they came out positive. I also enjoyed watching Richard Virenque and Tyler Hamilton.

I am in favor of banning many of the drugs (I might be in favor of all that are on the list but do not know the results of over use of many) because of the effect on riders and, especially with EPO and similar PEDs, the potential for death. I also recognize that most riders use some form of PED (caffeine) and most would be willing to use anything they could get their hands on that would make them more competitive.

Just because I favor banning the substances (and the necessity of sanctions for use) does not mean I lose the interest of watching cycling as a result of the repeated positive testing results. I also, while disappointed to some degree when a favored rider tests positive, I do not hold that rider in contempt but also would not oppose the sanction that must be imposed. Should LA ever turn up a positive test which results in a ban I would be disappointed in him (just as I am to a certain extent over the 1999 samples) but I would not hold him in contempt any more than I would other riders; even riders like Jan Ulrich and Bjarne Riis who I really did not find that enjoyable though I still remember when Bjarne took the lead in 1996 and the next year when he blew up and just could not ride with Jan Ulrich on that bald mountain who's name I cannot remember.

 

[scribe]

And that 60% thingie

 

[CentralCaliBike]

since you seem to like lists

1) There was no test for transfusions
2) There was no test for HGH
3) Despite saying he had stopped working with Ferrari after his conviction he continued to work with him
4) His team was caught dumping Actovigen, 160 syringes, insulin and other drugs
5) His assistant found steroids in his house (amongst other things)
6) Blood bags delivered by motorcycle (Floyd has the pictures)
7) Advanced notice of OOC tests.

I guess if some believe the myth that "bike position testing" is what turned Armstrong from a rider who dropped out of GT's to a 7 time winner then it is not much of a stretch to believe the Nazi Frogmen sabotage theory.

For some reason the French police and prosecution (who have not been shy in many other cases) did not find any of the above compelling - perhaps because, like #6 the evidence is not available for prosecution (unless you have seen the video that could make Landis a few million).

 

[Ferminal]

For some reason the French police and prosecution (who have not been shy in many other cases) did not find any of the above compelling - perhaps because, like #6 the evidence is not available for prosecution (unless you have seen the video that could make Landis a few million).

How utterly irrelevant.

 

[Race Radio]

For some reason the French police and prosecution (who have not been shy in many other cases) did not find any of the above compelling - perhaps because, like #6 the evidence is not available for prosecution (unless you have seen the video that could make Landis a few million).

Incompetence is not a defense.

The laws seldom keep up with the criminals. Do you really think that any team would be allowed to finish the Tour in 2010 if they are caught dumping large amounts of dope and syringes? Do you think a backdated TUE would be excepted today? Basso was suspended with far less evidence then the 99 positives.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I believe you are correct about never getting a positive - would not matter, I would not have contempt for him even if they go back and test the 1998 samples and they came out positive. I also enjoyed watching Richard Virenque and Tyler Hamilton.

I am in favor of banning many of the drugs (I might be in favor of all that are on the list but do not know the results of over use of many) because of the effect on riders and, especially with EPO and similar PEDs, the potential for death. I also recognize that most riders use some form of PED (caffeine) and most would be willing to use anything they could get their hands on that would make them more competitive.

Just because I favor banning the substances (and the necessity of sanctions for use) does not mean I lose the interest of watching cycling as a result of the repeated positive testing results. I also, while disappointed to some degree when a favored rider tests positive, I do not hold that rider in contempt but also would not oppose the sanction that must be imposed. Should LA ever turn up a positive test which results in a ban I would be disappointed in him (just as I am to a certain extent over the 1999 samples) but I would not hold him in contempt any more than I would other riders; even riders like Jan Ulrich and Bjarne Riis who I really did not find that enjoyable though I still remember when Bjarne took the lead in 1996 and the next year when he blew up and just could not ride with Jan Ulrich on that bald mountain who's name I cannot remember.

I understand and appreciate your position - I am not a lawyer, so I use common sense

When I said "the same contempt" my emphasis was meant more on the words "the same" - I could have said "the same" disrespect or sympathy.

Riders who dope - many of whom I liked or was fans of (Pantani as an example)-deserve to be sanctioned properly, then when they have completed their sanction allowed to return to the sport - everyone should be judged and treated equally.

Many of those who end up taking PEDs are victims of the system - and this is the real pity with threads like this.
In this thread it has descended down to a rather petty argument over whether LAs samples were somehow manipulated - from 10 years ago!

The bigger picture is that even with the introduction of new procedures and tests like the Bio-Passport very little has actually changed within that last 10 years.

According to BikePure there have been 52 riders caught this year - while some may argue that points to a better system of detection - what it actually reveals is that the riders are just the links on a chain that can be removed or replaced but they end up being hauled over the cogs that are as filthy now as they were 10 years ago.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

According to BikePure there have been 52 riders caught this year - while some may argue that points to a better system of detection - what it actually reveals is that the riders are just the links on a chain that can be removed or replaced but they end up being hauled over the cogs that are as filthy now as they were 10 years ago.

I completely agree with this statement - in fact it comes to mind ever time I hear that LA's return to cycling was a return to the dark days.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Incompetence is not a defense.

The laws seldom keep up with the criminals. Do you really think that any team would be allowed to finish the Tour in 2010 if they are caught dumping large amounts of dope and syringes? Do you think a backdated TUE would be excepted today? Basso was suspended with far less evidence then the 99 positives.

Actually the law usually catches up with them eventually because most are not that smart or they would have figured a non criminal method of obtaining what they want.

What I am hearing is that you want a win in the court of public opinion which will not happen except for the people in your choir. If you approach questions such as, who is the dirtiest DS, or did a particular rider take PEDs, in something other than an internet trial you need objective standards and evidence - until a case is brought against LA you will "win" when preaching to the choir of your church but you will have a problem convincing those who are looking for more.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I completely agree with this statement - in fact it comes to mind ever time I hear that LA's return to cycling was a return to the dark days.

Without going too much in to the detail - the cogs got a bit of a clean up during 2006 and it appeared that there was going to be a new cassette.

Shall we say - they decided not to maintain the cleaning operation as they could see the puddles ahead.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Actually the law usually catches up with them eventually because most are not that smart or they would have figured a non criminal method of obtaining what they want.

What I am hearing is that you want a win in the court of public opinion which will not happen except for the people in your choir. If you approach questions such as, who is the dirtiest DS, or did a particular rider take PEDs, in something other than an internet trial you need objective standards and evidence - until a case is brought against LA you will "win" when preaching to the choir of your church but you will have a problem convincing those who are looking for more.

Not quite - this is a internet forum, not a Court of Law.
People are entitled to form their opinions anyway they wish.

As an example you mentioned Pantani as a rider you believed doped - yet as I pointed out he has never been sanctioned or even had a prosecution started for an anti-doping violation. When he crashed in Milan-Turin and had a reported HCT level of 60%, well thats "hearsay" - and with client patient privileges I am sure a good lawyer could make any statements inadmissible.

There is no standard for internet forums - so the only standard I try and offer to a debate is to try and source the correct information - after that it is for the reader to make their own mind up by their chosen standard.

 

[Race Radio]

Actually the law usually catches up with them eventually because most are not that smart or they would have figured a non criminal method of obtaining what they want.

What I am hearing is that you want a win in the court of public opinion which will not happen except for the people in your choir. If you approach questions such as, who is the dirtiest DS, or did a particular rider take PEDs, in something other than an internet trial you need objective standards and evidence - until a case is brought against LA you will "win" when preaching to the choir of your church but you will have a problem convincing those who are looking for more.

You may be hearing that but that is not what I am saying.

The reality is that prior to the advent of WADA (2005 Tour), the AFLD (2007), and the criminalization doping much was allowed to slide. What Armstrong, and others, got away with prior to 2005 does not fly anymore.

The court of public opinion was lost a long time ago. The vast majority of cycling fans know that Armstrong doped and continues to.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Not quite - this is a internet forum, not a Court of Law.
People are entitled to form their opinions anyway they wish.

As an example you mentioned Pantani as a rider you believed doped - yet as I pointed out he has never been sanctioned or even had a prosecution started for an anti-doping violation. When he crashed in Milan-Turin and had a reported HCT level of 60%, well thats "hearsay" - and with client patient privileges I am sure a good lawyer could make any statements inadmissible.

There is no standard for internet forums - so the only standard I try and offer to a debate is to try and source the correct information - after that it is for the reader to make their own mind up by their chosen standard.

Actually I am not willing to claim those who believe he did not use are stupid, and since he did not test positive - I understand that his blood values may have been in the 60% range but EPO was not tested for at the time. Not knowing the source of the 60% claim I cannot state that I know he was using, but if the claims are true it does seem likely.

Of course there is no standard for the forums, which is why the argument between those who hold LA in contempt and those who idolize him will never be resolved (unless he is in fact found to be positive ~ and even then some will hold out the claim of conspiracy).

 

[CentralCaliBike]

You may be hearing that but that is not what I am saying.

The reality is that prior to the advent of WADA (2005 Tour), the AFLD (2007), and the criminalization doping much was allowed to slide. What Armstrong, and others, got away with prior to 2005 does not fly anymore.

The court of public opinion was lost a long time ago. The vast majority of cycling fans know that Armstrong doped and continues to.

I guess that I ride with a majority of a minority then. I know some think he has and continues to use EPO - I know a lot more that either do not care enough to have seriously considered the matter OR actually believe it is entirely possible that he road clean, at least since 2000 (note: I am not riding with uneducated morons either since I suspect you will probably think that).

 

[Digger]

Actually I am not willing to claim those who believe he did not use are stupid, and since he did not test positive - I understand that his blood values may have been in the 60% range but EPO was not tested for at the time. Not knowing the source of the 60% claim I cannot state that I know he was using, but if the claims are true it does seem likely.
Of course there is no standard for the forums, which is why the argument between those who hold LA in contempt and those who idolize him will never be resolved (unless he is in fact found to be positive ~ and even then some will hold out the claim of conspiracy).

A hospital blood test when he crashed. That sufficient?

 

[scribe]

A hospital blood test when he crashed. That sufficient?

He seems to be leaning towards the idea that Pantani was doping during that period, like he is leaning towards the idea that Armstrong was doping during that period too.