If you believe Lance raced clean this is your thread. Livestrong here.

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
SilentAssassin said:
This is another good example of how badly certain details are passed off as fact.
Did you not read the BBC News article:

The International Cycling Union, the UCI, confirmed newspaper reports on Wednesday that small amounts of corticoids were found in a urine sample taken from Armstrong.
Contemporary to the time, reporting simple facts with no allegations.

The positive in 1999 for corticosteroids is fact, not simply an allegation.

Confirmed by the UCI at the time as reported by the BBC.

Nothing to argue against. He had a positive test and based purely on facts, claims that he didn't are incorrect.
 
Jul 20, 2010
247
0
0
peterst6906 said:
Did you not read the BBC News article:



Contemporary to the time, reporting simple facts with no allegations.

The positive in 1999 for corticosteroids is fact, not simply an allegation.

Confirmed by the UCI at the time as reported by the BBC.

Nothing to argue against. He had a positive test and based purely on facts, claims that he didn't are incorrect.
"A 1999 urine sample showed traces of corticosteroid in an amount that was not in the positive range. A medical certificate showed he used an approved cream for saddle sores which contained the substance."

Now if it said "A medical certificate was given as a cover up" that is mere conspiracy theory.

Let's face it the conspiracy theorists tend to run their theories as fact here.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
SilentAssassin said:
"A 1999 urine sample showed traces of corticosteroid in an amount that was not in the positive range. A medical certificate showed he used an approved cream for saddle sores which contained the substance."
quoted from where?
 
Jun 15, 2010
1,318
0
0
Armstrong did not have a TUE at the time of his positve for corticosteroids.He got a back dated TUE which is why there are questions about it.Has any other rider been allowed a backdated TUE?
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
simo1733 said:
Armstrong did not have a TUE at the time of his positve for corticosteroids.He got a back dated TUE which is why there are questions about it.Has any other rider been allowed a backdated TUE?
Not only that, but to my knowledge in 1999 there was no minimum threshold for a positive. All use of corticosteroid (Cemalyt in LA's case) required a TUE.

Thresholds weren't introduced until 2004 as far as I am aware, but may be wrong.

That's why I'm interested in where that quote from Silent Assassin came from to see if it is pre-2004 or post-2004 and who made the statement. If there was a threshold for Cemalyt in 1999, that would be a good to confirm in terms of the claim of 'no failed test in >500".
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
peterst6906 said:
Not only that, but to my knowledge in 1999 there was no minimum threshold for a positive. All use of corticosteroid (Cemalyt in LA's case) required a TUE.

Thresholds weren't introduced until 2004 as far as I am aware, but may be wrong.

That's why I'm interested in where that quote from Silent Assassin came from to see if it is pre-2004 or post-2004 and who made the statement. If there was a threshold for Cemalyt in 1999, that would be a good to confirm in terms of the claim of 'no failed test in >500".
In 1999 the UCI developed a new test for glucocorticosteroids and Lance was one of the first to test positive at the Tour. The UCI let him invent a fake, backdated, TUE and said the amount was below the limit. If you refer to the UCI banned list from 1999 to present glucocorticosteroids, the class of drug to which covers triamcinolone acétonide, do not have a threshold level. They are banned outright.

Just like the extremely minute presence of clenbuterol that sanctioned Contador.

Triamcinolone acétonide is not a synthetic steroid that required the t/e ratio initial test to further test if the sample contained a synthetic steroid, a la Floyd Landis.

Armstrong tested positive, the UCI covered it up.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Race Radio said:
In 1999 the UCI developed a new test for glucocorticosteroids and Lance was one of the first to test positive at the Tour. The UCI let him invent a fake, backdated, TUE and said the amount was below the limit. If you refer to the UCI banned list from 1999 to present glucocorticosteroids, the class of drug to which covers triamcinolone acétonide, do not have a threshold level. They are banned outright.

Just like the extremely minute presence of clenbuterol that sanctioned Contador.

Triamcinolone acétonide is not a synthetic steroid that required the t/e ratio initial test to further test if the sample contained a synthetic steroid, a la Floyd Landis.

Armstrong tested positive, the UCI covered it up.
And the TUE was written by Del Moral.

Not that it matters.
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
SilentAssassin said:
7. Lance's Character throughout race and life doesn't seem like one that would cheat:
a) Had and fought through cancer
b) Started Livestrong and made a comeback tour for Livestrong
c) Good gestures throughout the tour like waiting for Ulrich when he crashed.
7.a. It's been well established through formal medical studies that attitude and outlook have no effect on surviving cancer. A family member of excellent character recently died from cancer, after having fought it in the most honest and bravest way imaginable. It does not matter what is one's character if one's body gives out, and conversely, surviving a terrible illness is simply good fortune, not evidence of good character.

7. b. Why is livestrong evidence of good character?

7. c. Lance's most famous "gesture" in the tour (de France, the only one he rode) was the persecution and bullying of Simeoni, a "gesture" which speaks volumes about both his character, and the likelihood that he was doping.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
peterst6906 said:
Not only that, but to my knowledge in 1999 there was no minimum threshold for a positive. All use of corticosteroid (Cemalyt in LA's case) required a TUE.

Thresholds weren't introduced until 2004 as far as I am aware, but may be wrong.

That's why I'm interested in where that quote from Silent Assassin came from to see if it is pre-2004 or post-2004 and who made the statement. If there was a threshold for Cemalyt in 1999, that would be a good to confirm in terms of the claim of 'no failed test in >500".
Wiki has the quote and references it to an Velo News article from 2005, however versions of the quote are everywhere, and `approved' isn't in the original.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
Hawkwood said:
Wiki has the quote and references it to an Velo News article from 2005, however versions of the quote are everywhere, and `approved' isn't in the original.
That's what I suspected; and it's only been in latter years that the "non-positive" threshold has come into it (WADA allowed use without a TUE up to a certain level in 2004).

I remember the original story well from 1999 (when the leader of the TdF tests positive for a banned substance during the tour, it's big news) and there was no mention back then of it being non-positive.

The modification over the years has allowed LA to claim no positive test, but the facts support a different conclusion.

No sanctioned positive would be a more accurate description.
 
Oct 12, 2010
53
0
0
Agreed

Deagol,

Deagol said:
As a scientist by education, reading this was a watershed moment for me.
I used to be a LA supporter due to being a life-long American cyclist.

Being a scientist makes you put logic before emotion and everything then falls into place. It's not a matter of "choosing" what to believe, as if it was a choice at all. Belief needs to be dictated by the facts. When presented with a fact, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you, you need to belive what is true and not simply what you wish were true.
Yep, trained in chemistry - synthetic organic, analytical - read Ashenden's material and that clinched it for me. All the rest of the testimony around it just confirmed it in my mind.
 
May 3, 2010
360
0
0
In 1999 EPO wasn't banned

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I assume this is no comedy?! :confused:

If you are serious, you fail already with No. 1:

Your buddy was tested 6 times positive for EPO and once for cortisone in the TdF 1999 alone.

Then we have the positive EPO test at the TdS which was covered up.

Son, you pray to the false god.
Next question: Confession? Leave GOD out of this, He/She is busy smashing envious folks like YOU!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
WindLessBreeze said:
Next question: Confession? Leave GOD out of this, He/She is busy smashing envious folks like YOU!
To your headline saying "In 1999 EPO wasn't banned" - of course that is wrong, it was on the banned list since 1990.

From the WADA website:
While the fight against stimulants and steroids was producing results, the main front in the anti-doping war was rapidly shifting to blood doping. "Blood boosting," removal and subsequent re-infusion of the athlete's blood in order to increase the level of oxygen-carrying haemoglobin, has been practiced since the 1970s. The IOC banned blood doping as a method in 1986.
Other ways of increasing the level of haemoglobin were being tried, however. One of these was erythropoietin (EPO). EPO was included in the IOC's list of prohibited substances in 1990, however the fight against EPO was long hampered by the lack of a reliable testing method. An EPO detection test (approved by WADA) was first implemented at the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000.
 
He is an inspiration to me. i have too much of an emotional investment in him to ever accept his guilt. Therefore you are all haters and love cancer. Why do you hate him. He is obviously the greatest athlete that has ever lived and has overcome enormous odds to show what determination can do.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
ggusta said:
He is an inspiration to me. i have too much of an emotional investment in him to ever accept his guilt. Therefore you are all haters and love cancer. Why do you hate him. He is obviously the greatest athlete that has ever lived and has overcome enormous odds to show what determination can do.
Yipes. That's crazy-talk!
 
Jul 20, 2010
247
0
0
Race Radio said:
In 1999 the UCI developed a new test for glucocorticosteroids and Lance was one of the first to test positive at the Tour. The UCI let him invent a fake, backdated, TUE and said the amount was below the limit. If you refer to the UCI banned list from 1999 to present glucocorticosteroids, the class of drug to which covers triamcinolone acétonide, do not have a threshold level. They are banned outright.

Just like the extremely minute presence of clenbuterol that sanctioned Contador.

Triamcinolone acétonide is not a synthetic steroid that required the t/e ratio initial test to further test if the sample contained a synthetic steroid, a la Floyd Landis.

Armstrong tested positive, I think the UCI covered it up.
Well the argument there is that he tested positive because he used buttcheek cream for his saddle sores. To say that the prescription was backdated is just heresay.

When you guys start talking about the UCI doing cover ups and all this conspiracy nonsense that's when the debate turns into a "Do you believe in UFOs" argument.

And I really dislike it when you guys say things like "The UCI covered it up" and present it as fact, when in fact, you don't know that.
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
ggusta said:
He is an inspiration to me. i have too much of an emotional investment in him to ever accept his guilt. Therefore you are all haters and love cancer. Why do you hate him. He is obviously the greatest athlete that has ever lived and has overcome enormous odds to show what determination can do.
Sorry but this is the wrong thread for you, it is about Lance Armstrong not L. Ron Hubbard. I think the Xenu lovers thread is in the general forum.
 
Jul 20, 2010
247
0
0
Deagol said:
As a scientist by education, reading this was a watershed moment for me.
I used to be a LA supporter due to being a life-long American cyclist.

Being a scientist makes you put logic before emotion and everything then falls into place. It's not a matter of "choosing" what to believe, as if it was a choice at all. Belief needs to be dictated by the facts. When presented with a fact, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you, you need to belive what is true and not simply what you wish were true.
Well fact is Lance never tested positive for EPO officially, and was never sanctioned for it. That's pretty big fact that you have to take into account. If you don't take that into account then you are not really approaching the case as logically as you think you are.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
SilentAssassin said:
Well fact is Lance never tested positive for EPO officially, and was never sanctioned for it. That's pretty big fact that you have to take into account. If you don't take that into account then you are not really approaching the case as logically as you think you are.
And apparently neither are you...

Nice bump, though. Yawn...
 
SilentAssassin said:
Well the argument there is that he tested positive because he used buttcheek cream for his saddle sores. To say that the prescription was backdated is just heresay.
her·e·say
noun \ˈhir-ˌā.sā\

Definition of HERESAY

1: A type of evidence that is a combination of hearsay and heresy, like when the village idiot claims that his brother-in-law saw the little old lady who lives at the edge of town casting a spell on her neighbor's root garden.

Examples of HERESAY

1. Evidence against the witch was thrown out of court because it was deemed heresay, but she was later proved to be in league with satan when she was tossed into the river and did not drown.
 
Jul 25, 2011
157
0
0
SilentAssassin said:
Well fact is Lance never tested positive for EPO officially, and was never sanctioned for it. That's pretty big fact that you have to take into account. If you don't take that into account then you are not really approaching the case as logically as you think you are.
fact: lance buying an anti doping machine for the governing body of cycling, conflict of interests anyone?
fact: how many people testified/spoke out against him? I lost count
fact: lance's performances repeatedly exceeded what are believed genuine human capable performances.
fact: swarm of doping allegation (backdated TUE, hamilton confession) but those are all made up of course, just to slammer the most honest, kind and extraordinary athlete of all time, just for the fun of it ..... you bast.ards!
fact: lance was a good athlete in his younger years, yet never showed real potential to win a grand tour.
fact: lance won vs a doped up peloton. Clean? How wonderful! (weird that someone like Lemond who had a vo2max of 94 and won 3 tours couldn't keep up, yet Armstrong with a vo2 of 82 could, hallelujah)
fact: lance transferred large amounts of money to a well known drugs doctor

fact: there are plenty of facts that don't favor for lance
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY