Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

[thehog]

Does anyone know when the USADA will send their report on the Armstrong suspension/Tour stripping?

I thought it was supposed to be sometime this week?

Mid-next week. (My guess)

 

[Fatclimber]

Mid-next week. (My guess)

One of the many articles linked yesterday said something along the lines of, "As early as the end of this month." Where's RR when you need him?

 

[miloman]

Whose titles stay and whose titles go?

Mid-next week. (My guess)

It has been a long time since I last followed the CN Forum and even longer since I submitted anything. Perhaps this has been discussed elsewhere, but I will pose the question anyway. I think most of us find the USDA announcement long over due and the fact that something finally stuck to Armstrong seems truly amazing. But what criterion will the TDF and UCI use to justify stripping him of his titles? How can you vacate the titles without awarding them to someone? To me it seems like a wasted decade without any winners. Why should Armstong’s titles be blotted out when Riis’, Pantani’s and Ullrich’s remain? Or, if you decide to elevate number 2 to the top step of the podium, is Jan Ullirch the greatest tour winner in history. (I have to admit I wouldn’t mind seeing that.) It seem to me that someone inside needs to come up with a consistent, more universal criterion for everyone who finished on the podium since the late 90’s. I think not having a winner makes a mockery of the whole event. Put an asterisk by the names of Armstorng, Ullrich, Riis, Pantani, Pereiro et al and let’s just move on is my suggestion. This was an era rife with PED’s and cheaters, but that was what we had. I think we should acknowledge it and move on. Other sports have done it.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It seem to me that someone inside needs to come up with a consistent, more universal criterion for everyone who finished on the podium since the late 90’s.

That's impossible given the federation is the opposite of consistent. It will likely be a mess that will slowly fade into history. Meanwhile the UCI will continue to manipulate the sport as it pleases.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It has been a long time since I last followed the CN Forum and even longer since I submitted anything. Perhaps this has been discussed elsewhere, but I will pose the question anyway. I think most of us find the USDA announcement long over due and the fact that something finally stuck to Armstrong seems truly amazing. But what criterion will the TDF and UCI use to justify stripping him of his titles? How can you vacate the titles without awarding them to someone? To me it seems like a wasted decade without any winners. Why should Armstong’s titles be blotted out when Riis’, Pantani’s and Ullrich’s remain? Or, if you decide to elevate number 2 to the top step of the podium, is Jan Ullirch the greatest tour winner in history. (I have to admit I wouldn’t mind seeing that.) It seem to me that someone inside needs to come up with a consistent, more universal criterion for everyone who finished on the podium since the late 90’s. I think not having a winner makes a mockery of the whole event. Put an asterisk by the names of Armstorng, Ullrich, Riis, Pantani, Pereiro et al and let’s just move on is my suggestion. This was an era rife with PED’s and cheaters, but that was what we had. I think we should acknowledge it and move on. Other sports have done it.

Welcome back.
I believe your post is what's known as "the bargaining stage" .

 

[poupou]

Follow logic and rules first.
No convincted doper has to keep his title(s).

Then there is a dilemma : is it possible to strip others pilotes because we suspect doping?
If yes, should we strip the winners of others races like GIRO too because winners are suspected of doping too?
If no, we would have just a bit cleaner overall ranking, but fair according rules.

 

[Tubeless]

It has been a long time since I last followed the CN Forum and even longer since I submitted anything. Perhaps this has been discussed elsewhere, but I will pose the question anyway. I think most of us find the USDA announcement long over due and the fact that something finally stuck to Armstrong seems truly amazing. But what criterion will the TDF and UCI use to justify stripping him of his titles? How can you vacate the titles without awarding them to someone? To me it seems like a wasted decade without any winners. Why should Armstong’s titles be blotted out when Riis’, Pantani’s and Ullrich’s remain? Or, if you decide to elevate number 2 to the top step of the podium, is Jan Ullirch the greatest tour winner in history. (I have to admit I wouldn’t mind seeing that.) It seem to me that someone inside needs to come up with a consistent, more universal criterion for everyone who finished on the podium since the late 90’s. I think not having a winner makes a mockery of the whole event. Put an asterisk by the names of Armstorng, Ullrich, Riis, Pantani, Pereiro et al and let’s just move on is my suggestion. This was an era rife with PED’s and cheaters, but that was what we had. I think we should acknowledge it and move on. Other sports have done it.

It is based on whatever the official sanction is. Most doping offenses have a 2-year sanction - and results are erased from the period when the doping was detected. Armstrong's sanction is lifetime ineligibility and all results eliminated from 1998 onwards. An unusually long period for an unusually serious doping offenses.

Unless UCI appeals to the CAS, they'll have to honor the USADA sanction. As for your reference cases, Riis made a self-admission of doping - and was never officially sanctioned. Ullrich was sanctioned in 2011 and his results erased from May 2005 onwards. Pantani was never officially sanctioned - he was disqualified for "health reasons" from the 1999 Giro as his hematokrit exceeded the 50% limit.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Welcome back.
I believe your post is what's known as "the bargaining stage" .

Winner! Winner! Turkey dinner!

 

[SavageKiwi]

I am new to this forum, but have looked at relevant (public) data, and observe some interesting features about the environment around the time of Armstrong's return in 1999. You can find it at

http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html

if you are interested.

 

[Fatclimber]

It has been a long time since I last followed the CN Forum and even longer since I submitted anything. Perhaps this has been discussed elsewhere, but I will pose the question anyway. I think most of us find the USDA announcement long over due and the fact that something finally stuck to Armstrong seems truly amazing. But what criterion will the TDF and UCI use to justify stripping him of his titles? How can you vacate the titles without awarding them to someone? To me it seems like a wasted decade without any winners. Why should Armstong’s titles be blotted out when Riis’, Pantani’s and Ullrich’s remain? Or, if you decide to elevate number 2 to the top step of the podium, is Jan Ullirch the greatest tour winner in history. (I have to admit I wouldn’t mind seeing that.) It seem to me that someone inside needs to come up with a consistent, more universal criterion for everyone who finished on the podium since the late 90’s. I think not having a winner makes a mockery of the whole event. Put an asterisk by the names of Armstorng, Ullrich, Riis, Pantani, Pereiro et al and let’s just move on is my suggestion. This was an era rife with PED’s and cheaters, but that was what we had. I think we should acknowledge it and move on. Other sports have done it.

Welcome to the circus otherwise known as "pro-cycling." The standard has been set for how to deal with winners that are caught: Landis/Pereiro, Contador/Schleck, Contador/Scarponi. And how about throwing in a little bit of Rasmussen/Contador. I think you'll have to go back to the early 90's, not the late 90's, to see when it truly became a joke.

There really isn't anything that can be done that won't seem silly in some way. The sport has been made a mockery of by all involved, including those that are in charge of issuing sanctions. There are so many things that are unfair in the sport, the rider who gets his name on the top line in the books it but the tip of the iceberg.

 

[thehog]

Welcome to the circus otherwise known as "pro-cycling." The standard has been set for how to deal with winners that are caught: Landis/Pereiro, Contador/Schleck, Contador/Scarponi. And how about throwing in a little bit of Rasmussen/Contador. I think you'll have to go back to the early 90's, not the late 90's, to see when it truly became a joke.

And just think when Wiggins gets busted he gets to give his Tour title to Froome!

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

A long history of cheating.

A blatant center-line violation at age 15 in a Bermuda Triathlon at minute 3. Tri-hero Mike Pigg calls him on it and is promptly told to #uck off.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HorLQHQ3pMc

 

[Benotti69]

A blatant center-line violation at age 15 in a Bermuda Triathlon at minute 3. Tri-hero Mike Pigg calls him on it and is promptly told to #uck off.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HorLQHQ3pMc

roid rage

 

[Microchip]

One of the many articles linked yesterday said something along the lines of, "As early as the end of this month." Where's RR when you need him?

On twitter.

 

[Gnarly Gnasher]

Did he actually have cancer?

Before undergoing treatment, he had sperm frozen for future use - first 3 kids were born by IVF using these samples.

Now he is fertile again and last 2 kids were conceived naturally.

Can anyone who knows about cancer with regards to male fertility comment on this?

Also is EPO used by people undergoing treatment for cancer? He mentioned in an interview using it in 1996 and "whenever he was sick".

 

[Catwhoorg]

Did he actually have cancer?

Before undergoing treatment, he had sperm frozen for future use - first 3 kids were born by IVF using these samples.

Now he is fertile again and last 2 kids were conceived naturally.

Can anyone who knows about cancer with regards to male fertility comment on this?

Cancer per se doesn't necessarily affect the fertility, it is more that the typical chemo drugs used target fast dividing cells, and destroying spermatogenesis is a common side effect of some of them.

Without details of the particular drug cocktail used, we could only speculate

Also is EPO used by people undergoing treatment for cancer? He mentioned in an interview using it in 1996 and "whenever he was sick".

EPO is used in cancer patients yes. The same concept (attacking fast dividing cells) leads to low blood counts as a common side effect.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/7675903/WADA-to-consider-amnesty-for-drug-cheats

Looks like WADA are willing to entertain the
Idea.

Apologies if already posted, amnesty would not neccessarily be such a bad thing, IMO, but I'm sure Pat would try to manipulate it to his advantage.

 

[the big ring]

I am new to this forum, but have looked at relevant (public) data, and observe some interesting features about the environment around the time of Armstrong's return in 1999. You can find it at

http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html

if you are interested.

A very interesting analysis.

Unfortunately,

1. noone is suggesting awarding any of the stripped titles to anyone else. You'd know this if you ever read something other than LA PR.

2. when the charges were leveled at Armstrong and his cohorts, they were all still actively engaged as or with professional atheletes, unlike anyone else you want investigated (Indurain and all TdF winners since 1990) that has not already confessed (eg Riis) or been investigated (eg Ullrich) and there's this thing called statute of limitations you may have heard of, perhaps?

3. there is actual evidence - including significant witness testimony and failed tests to support the case of Armstrong's case, vs your evidence which is comparing performances across the years.

Your conclusions look more like fanboyism.

 

[KayLow]

Did he actually have cancer?

Before undergoing treatment, he had sperm frozen for future use - first 3 kids were born by IVF using these samples.

Now he is fertile again and last 2 kids were conceived naturally.

Can anyone who knows about cancer with regards to male fertility comment on this?

Also is EPO used by people undergoing treatment for cancer? He mentioned in an interview using it in 1996 and "whenever he was sick".

A lot of chemotherapies are antifolates, which completely decimate rapidly dividing cells. Bone marrow tissue contains some of the most rapidly dividing cells in the body. Bone marrow tissue also produces RBCs. Putting one and one together, you can figure out what antifolates do to one's RBC count.

 

[D-Queued]

Did he actually have cancer?

Before undergoing treatment, he had sperm frozen for future use - first 3 kids were born by IVF using these samples.

Now he is fertile again and last 2 kids were conceived naturally.

Can anyone who knows about cancer with regards to male fertility comment on this?

Also is EPO used by people undergoing treatment for cancer? He mentioned in an interview using it in 1996 and "whenever he was sick".

Studies have demonstrated a breakthrough reversal of infertility with gene doping.

You know... the next big thing in PEDs, thought to be already in use.

Dave.

 

[sairyder]

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/7675903/WADA-to-consider-amnesty-for-drug-cheats

Looks like WADA are willing to entertain the
Idea.

Apologies if already posted, amnesty would not neccessarily be such a bad thing, IMO, but I'm sure Pat would try to manipulate it to his advantage.

great article especially like this bit:

"While McQuaid has questioned USADA's handling of the case, Howman said, "We've got no problem with the process they have followed."

Howman also differed with McQuaid on Tyler Hamilton, the former US cyclist and teammate of Armstrong who has published a book detailing the years he spent lying about the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Hamilton was a witness for USADA in the case against Armstrong.

McQuaid contends Hamilton's evidence is tainted and questions whether he can be trusted, but Howman said the book is "compulsory reading" for the anti-doping movement.

"It's very detailed, something we will study closely in terms of how a sophisticated cheater is continuing to avoid detection," he said. "All these things are helpful in terms of understanding what goes through the minds of those who take shortcuts."

 

[the big ring]

great article especially like this bit:

"While McQuaid has questioned USADA's handling of the case, Howman said, "We've got no problem with the process they have followed."

Howman also differed with McQuaid on Tyler Hamilton, the former US cyclist and teammate of Armstrong who has published a book detailing the years he spent lying about the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Hamilton was a witness for USADA in the case against Armstrong.

McQuaid contends Hamilton's evidence is tainted and questions whether he can be trusted, but Howman said the book is "compulsory reading" for the anti-doping movement.

"It's very detailed, something we will study closely in terms of how a sophisticated cheater is continuing to avoid detection," he said. "All these things are helpful in terms of understanding what goes through the minds of those who take shortcuts."

Pick the one that actually sounds like they want to eradicate doping from cycling.

 

[Casualfan]

@lancearmstrong

Hey - you bet. Happy to help. Call my cell 778 384 7520. Take Care, L

Anyone given him a ring yet?

 

[luckyboy]

Couldn't get through

 

[Pastavore]

A blatant center-line violation at age 15 in a Bermuda Triathlon at minute 3. Tri-hero Mike Pigg calls him on it and is promptly told to #uck off.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HorLQHQ3pMc

Wow, love the old school tri rigs.

And guess who was commentating, describing LA as 15yo wonder boy? I didn't realise just how far back those two went.