Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[Aragon]

Re: Re:

Point I was trying to make was, neither was busted by UCI. Maybe caught, but not suspended. Armstrong was obviously never suspended by UCI. Contador would have gotten away clean if a reporter had not outed the results.

The CIRC-report concluded that there actually was no cover-up in the case of Contador, but other reasons for the in-action by the UCI:

In view of the explanation given by the rider about potential meat contamination, together with the extremely low concentration of clenbuterol found in Alberto Contador’s 21 July 2010 sample and other analytical data, a discussion took place between UCI, WADA, experts and laboratories, and further analysis was undertaken to assess how best to handle the results management process.

A review of UCI data shows that the UCI legal department was not in favour of opening a procedure on the basis of the clenbuterol finding only, given their concern about the high possibility of failure. WADA lawyers on the other hand maintained a procedure had to be opened, as it was an ADRV but agreed that further investigation needed to be undertaken to check if the meat contamination scenario held up

...

The CIRC has found no evidence to show that UCI tried to hide the positive test of Alberto Contador. WADA had been informed about the positive test and was involved in the discussion regarding the results management of the case.

So while UCI didn't want to proceed with the case, it is equally obvious that there were many people aware of the positive and it is the impression of many that WADA hasn't always been in the friendliest terms with the UCI. The chain of information from laboratory to the rider isn't my area of expertise, but if UCI would've wanted to whitewash Contador's positive, it is a lousy strategy to discuss the matter with WADA lawyers (and to be honest it is possible that some independent WADA observer knew about the case almost from day one, so they had to be involved).

I'd be interested again to know if there is any evidence that Armstrong's positives were swept under the rug.

 

[Nomad]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

I know many of you have probably seen this way back in 07. Some how I missed it or don't remember viewing it. I must admit I haven't laughed so hard in months! LA talking about how stupid it would be for a stage 4 cancer survivor to use PEDs, and how doping is so egregious in cycling but that he's clean. He even gives suggestions on how anti-doping could improve with more OOC testing! He is a true idiot! Lol.

Been stressed with injuries lately...and this really hit the spot for laughs. Just curious, how many of you remember watching this back in 07?

https://youtu.be/AG4odJP-Zuw

 

[kingjr]

Yeah, that was one of the two videos that convinced me he was doping apart from his performance on the bike. His initial reaction to the question half a minute in is just so weird.

 

[thehog]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

I know many of you have probably seen this way back in 07. Some how I missed it or don't remember viewing it. I must admit I haven't laughed so hard in months! LA talking about how stupid it would be for a stage 4 cancer survivor to use PEDs, and how doping is so egregious in cycling but that he's clean. He even gives suggestions on how anti-doping could improve with more OOC testing! He is a true idiot! Lol.

Been stressed with injuries lately...and this really hit the spot for laughs. Just curious, how many of you remember watching this back in 07?

https://youtu.be/AG4odJP-Zuw

Those who do not follow history are doomed to repeat it? Sounds a lot like the rhetoric we still here today.

 

[Aragon]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

LA talking about how stupid it would be for a stage 4 cancer survivor to use PEDs, and how doping is so egregious in cycling but that he's clean.

There is no logical fallacy, because I think he only claims that doping has always been prevalent not that it gives so enormous boost that it is impossible to compete clean.

This is very OFF-topic but related to this, but I think I am not the only one who has encountered instances when people have claimed that doping is enormously effective while maintained that it was possible to compete against the dopers. For instance "inventor" of blood doping Björn Ekblom claimed in early 1990s that rEPO was so effective that is was comparable to a 100m run, where rEPO user starts at the 10m line. Still he maintained ten years later that the Swedish skiers didn't succumb to rEPO use during that decade based on some more-or-less reliable hemoglobin data.

Just another day I stumbled upon a newspaper item where a Swedish skier complained just before the 1978 FIS Nordic World Ski Championships that it was impossible to compete against the blood doping Russians and "the truly best athlete never wins". During the following week, the Swedish 4x10 km relay team was first, his teammate Sven-Åke Lundbäck won gold at 50 km where he himself was 8th beating every single Russian except one (and also every single Finn except one).

That is an untenable position if there ever is one.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

Yeah, that was one of the two videos that convinced me he was doping apart from his performance on the bike. His initial reaction to the question half a minute in is just so weird.

Like I've said prior, I thought he was suspicious and definitely doping as far back as 97/98ish. After his second TDF win, I definitely knew he was on something other than bread and water, then subsequent wins proved it even further. Was never a believer in "Cancer Jesus" from the get go, as I always thought there was something shady about him from the beginning.

Pre-doping Wonderboy, Finished no better than what was it 24th(please correct me if I'm wrong here gang) in the Tour.

 

[kingjr]

Re: Re:

Yeah, that was one of the two videos that convinced me he was doping apart from his performance on the bike. His initial reaction to the question half a minute in is just so weird.

Like I've said prior, I thought he was suspicious and definitely doping as far back as 97/98ish. After his second TDF win, I definitely knew he was on something other than bread and water, then subsequent wins proved it even further. Was never a believer in "Cancer Jesus" from the get go, as I always thought there was something shady about him from the beginning.

Pre-doping Wonderboy, Finished no better than what was it 24th(please correct me if I'm wrong here gang) in the Tour.

I was 5 years old in 97 and didnt care much about doping until 2006. And I didnt have internet access before 2007, so that was the first year I actually started looking into this stuff. In hindsight I can see why people saw through him much earlier. And I think he was 36th in 95.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

I am not claiming that he is lying, but only that I can't fully vouch for his credibility, to be honest.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks he has credibility. His whole shtick is about painting LA as the worst of the worst so that, in comparison to LA, he's a sweetie. His whole book is about showing how LA was worse than him, virtually every TV appearance is about showing that LA was worse than him. So he comes out with this junk, that LA had access to better drugs, two years ahead of everyone else. But if LA was so 'cavalier' about his doping, keeping the stuff in the fridge, letting people watch, talking about doping at the dinner table, shouldn't Ty be able to name these super-secret miracle pills + potions he claims LA had in his tackle-box?

Also, even parking his motivation, he presents peloton scuttlebutt as fact: Stefano Garzelli's probenecid failure was an echo positive, this notion that LA had access to better drugs was a rumour - he doesn't care that people will take these statements as gospel, coming from the mouth of an anti-doping Jesus like him.

Interjection! (Am not a lawyer, btw.)

Ty Hamilton may very well be called to court once again as a witness. So if I were his lawyer I wouldn't have him show all his cards all at once.

 

[absolutely_not]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

I am not claiming that he is lying, but only that I can't fully vouch for his credibility, to be honest.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks he has credibility. His whole shtick is about painting LA as the worst of the worst so that, in comparison to LA, he's a sweetie. His whole book is about showing how LA was worse than him, virtually every TV appearance is about showing that LA was worse than him. So he comes out with this junk, that LA had access to better drugs, two years ahead of everyone else. But if LA was so 'cavalier' about his doping, keeping the stuff in the fridge, letting people watch, talking about doping at the dinner table, shouldn't Ty be able to name these super-secret miracle pills + potions he claims LA had in his tackle-box?

Also, even parking his motivation, he presents peloton scuttlebutt as fact: Stefano Garzelli's probenecid failure was an echo positive, this notion that LA had access to better drugs was a rumour - he doesn't care that people will take these statements as gospel, coming from the mouth of an anti-doping Jesus like him.

Interjection! (Am not a lawyer, btw.)

Ty Hamilton may very well be called to court once again as a witness. So if I were his lawyer I wouldn't have him show all his cards all at once.

The bits that have been leaked from the depositions tend to suggest the contrary : Tylor Hamilton backpedalling on some of his statements and blaming Daniel Coyle for them.
So anything is possible but I wouldn't hold my breath for Hamilton having some secret card if I were you.
For all we know, Hamilton made some sweet arangments with the truth in his book as Aragon and fmk_rol previously said. It doesn't fit with what you expect.

 

[absolutely_not]

Re: Re:

Pre-doping Wonderboy, Finished no better than what was it 24th(please correct me if I'm wrong here gang) in the Tour

36th

But taking this 36th place as a good indication to where his real place would be in a clean peloton is ludicrous at best.

1/ I doubt Armstrong was aiming at the GC this year. If memorie serves, he went on 200km breakaway that year and was clearly chasing stages victories

2/ The rest of the peloton was far from being EPO free. You can't serioulsy think that a rider on low octane (or who just started epo) is at his real place versus a peloton who is full gaz on epo for years.
The best exemple that comes to my mind are Armstrong ITT in 94. Those are sometimes used as a "proof" he wasn't such a great TTer. But he actualy finished 18th on the prologue and 13th in the ITT

Look at the classment here and tell me how many ahead of him where EPO free at that time in your opinion
http://www.procyclingstats.com/race.php?id=114981
https://www.procyclingstats.com/mob/race.php?id=100157

It's all a matter of perspective

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Pre-doping Wonderboy, Finished no better than what was it 24th(please correct me if I'm wrong here gang) in the Tour

36th

But taking this 36th place as a good indication to where his real place would be in a clean peloton is ludicrous at best.

1/ I doubt Armstrong was aiming at the GC this year. If memorie serves, he went on 200km breakaway that year and was clearly chasing stages victories

2/ The rest of the peloton was far from being EPO free. You can't serioulsy think that a rider on low octane (or who just started epo) is at his real place versus a peloton who is full gaz on epo for years.
The best exemple that comes to my mind are Armstrong ITT in 94. Those are sometimes used as a "proof" he wasn't such a great TTer. But he actualy finished 18th on the prologue and 13th in the ITT

Look at the classment here and tell me how many ahead of him where EPO free at that time in your opinion
http://www.procyclingstats.com/race.php?id=114981
https://www.procyclingstats.com/mob/race.php?id=100157

It's all a matter of perspective

Plus he fought cancer with one testicle tied behind his back and a grimace of determination on his face! A warrior. A cancer warrior. It's not about the bike, and you're not worth the chair your sitting on! What is he on!? He's on his bike. And drugs. Loads and loads of drugs. For the cancer victims. Always the cancer victims.... Truly he was a gifted champion in an age of filth.

John Swanson

 

[absolutely_not]

If it's the best answer you can come with I will be compasionate and leave it here so you can have your little moment and enjoy it.

If not, feel free to point specificly what you don't agree with in my previous post and try to articulate an argument

Up to you...

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

If it's the best answer you can come with I will be compasionate and leave it here so you can have your little moment and enjoy it.

If not, feel free to point specificly what you don't agree with in my previous post and try to articulate an argument

Up to you...

He was a fast one day specialist. Then he got cancer and... got faster at all disciplines? Sounds legit. I'll leave the "Reasoned Decision" as a plausible scenario. Now get off that chair!! And buy a Livestrong bracelet for the cause. It's ".com", not ".org".

John Swanson

 

[absolutely_not]

If it's the best answer you can come with I will be compasionate and leave it here so you can have your little moment and enjoy it.

If not, feel free to point specificly what you don't agree with in my previous post and try to articulate an argument

Up to you...

He was a fast one day specialist. Then he got cancer and... got faster at all disciplines? Sounds legit. I'll leave the "Reasoned Decision" as a plausible scenario. Now get off that chair!! And buy a Livestrong bracelet for the cause. It's ".com", not ".org".

John Swanson

What the hell are you talking about

Who even SUGGESTED he didn't dope?
All I said is you can't take the results of a low octane rider vs high octane rider to mesure the potential of a low actane rider.
And you can't take the result of someone chasing stages victories to mesure what his potential would be if he was aiming at the GT classment.

You can't even hear that without turning mid-crazy and attacking a poster?

I don't know you but I honestly hope you're 13 or something like that. If not... well, I try not to get personal here but let just say that's "pas normal"

Good luck to you

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Yeah, that was one of the two videos that convinced me he was doping apart from his performance on the bike. His initial reaction to the question half a minute in is just so weird.

Like I've said prior, I thought he was suspicious and definitely doping as far back as 97/98ish. After his second TDF win, I definitely knew he was on something other than bread and water, then subsequent wins proved it even further. Was never a believer in "Cancer Jesus" from the get go, as I always thought there was something shady about him from the beginning.

Pre-doping Wonderboy, Finished no better than what was it 24th(please correct me if I'm wrong here gang) in the Tour.

Pre-doping Wonderboy?

Pre-Ferrari doping. Armstrong always doped since his teenage years in Triathlons.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

If it's the best answer you can come with I will be compasionate and leave it here so you can have your little moment and enjoy it.

If not, feel free to point specificly what you don't agree with in my previous post and try to articulate an argument

Up to you...

He was a fast one day specialist. Then he got cancer and... got faster at all disciplines? Sounds legit. I'll leave the "Reasoned Decision" as a plausible scenario. Now get off that chair!! And buy a Livestrong bracelet for the cause. It's ".com", not ".org".

John Swanson

What the hell are you talking about

Who even SUGGESTED he didn't dope?
All I said is you can't take the results of a low octane rider vs high octane rider to mesure the potential of a low actane rider.
And you can't take the result of someone chasing stages victories to mesure what his potential would be if he was aiming at the GT classment.

You can't even hear that without turning mid-crazy and attacking a poster?

I don't know you but I honestly hope you're 13 or something like that. If not... well, I try not to get personal here but let just say that's "pas normal"

Good luck to you

Yup! 14 in January!!!

So if the playing field was level, he wouldn't have had to level the playing field? Is that the thesis? Really? Paging Dr. Ferrari.

 

[absolutely_not]

Re: Re:

Yeah, that was one of the two videos that convinced me he was doping apart from his performance on the bike. His initial reaction to the question half a minute in is just so weird.

Like I've said prior, I thought he was suspicious and definitely doping as far back as 97/98ish. After his second TDF win, I definitely knew he was on something other than bread and water, then subsequent wins proved it even further. Was never a believer in "Cancer Jesus" from the get go, as I always thought there was something shady about him from the beginning.

Pre-doping Wonderboy, Finished no better than what was it 24th(please correct me if I'm wrong here gang) in the Tour.

Pre-doping Wonderboy?

Pre-Ferrari doping. Armstrong always doped since his teenage years in Triathlons.

Yeah. Either pre-epo or pre-ferrari. It goes without saying he wasn't clean in 92-95

It's well known (or strongly assumed) he is one of the juniors who got doped by Carmichael in the development team. But I don't know anything about triathlon.

You have some infoor sources about that? I'm interested if you do

 

[absolutely_not]

Re: Re:

If it's the best answer you can come with I will be compasionate and leave it here so you can have your little moment and enjoy it.

If not, feel free to point specificly what you don't agree with in my previous post and try to articulate an argument

Up to you...

He was a fast one day specialist. Then he got cancer and... got faster at all disciplines? Sounds legit. I'll leave the "Reasoned Decision" as a plausible scenario. Now get off that chair!! And buy a Livestrong bracelet for the cause. It's ".com", not ".org".

John Swanson

What the hell are you talking about

Who even SUGGESTED he didn't dope?
All I said is you can't take the results of a low octane rider vs high octane rider to mesure the potential of a low actane rider.
And you can't take the result of someone chasing stages victories to mesure what his potential would be if he was aiming at the GT classment.

You can't even hear that without turning mid-crazy and attacking a poster?

I don't know you but I honestly hope you're 13 or something like that. If not... well, I try not to get personal here but let just say that's "pas normal"

Good luck to you

Yup! 14 in January!!!

So if the playing field was level, he wouldn't have had to level the playing field? Is that the thesis? Really? Paging Dr. Ferrari.

Now it make sense!

So to answer your question : No. It's not the thesis. It's never been. Nowhere has anyone said that.
The thesis is - for the third time - you can't take 36th as a good calibration to what his results would have been had he and the entire peloton been clean. Because I think he wasn't focusing on his classment so much that year and because he was probably less doped that a good part of the peloton that year

You can babble about yellow bracelet and cancer and statements no-one made for a third time if you want but I will stop here

Try to focus next time. While you're in middle school it's easy, but once you're in high school you might have difficulties to follow if you don't read carefully

bye

 

[spetsa]

Re: Re:

Yeah, that was one of the two videos that convinced me he was doping apart from his performance on the bike. His initial reaction to the question half a minute in is just so weird.

Like I've said prior, I thought he was suspicious and definitely doping as far back as 97/98ish. After his second TDF win, I definitely knew he was on something other than bread and water, then subsequent wins proved it even further. Was never a believer in "Cancer Jesus" from the get go, as I always thought there was something shady about him from the beginning.

Pre-doping Wonderboy, Finished no better than what was it 24th(please correct me if I'm wrong here gang) in the Tour.

Pre-doping Wonderboy?

Pre-Ferrari doping. Armstrong always doped since his teenage years in Triathlons.

Yeah. Either pre-epo or pre-ferrari. It goes without saying he wasn't clean in 92-95

It's well known (or strongly assumed) he is one of the juniors who got doped by Carmichael in the development team. But I don't know anything about triathlon.

You have some infoor sources about that? I'm interested if you do

The time frame of junior cyclist and triathlete overlapped. He raced with Subaru Montgomery in 1990. If you know anything about US cycling, I will not have to explain any more to you.

 

[absolutely_not]

Re: Re:

Yeah, that was one of the two videos that convinced me he was doping apart from his performance on the bike. His initial reaction to the question half a minute in is just so weird.

Like I've said prior, I thought he was suspicious and definitely doping as far back as 97/98ish. After his second TDF win, I definitely knew he was on something other than bread and water, then subsequent wins proved it even further. Was never a believer in "Cancer Jesus" from the get go, as I always thought there was something shady about him from the beginning.

Pre-doping Wonderboy, Finished no better than what was it 24th(please correct me if I'm wrong here gang) in the Tour.

Pre-doping Wonderboy?

Pre-Ferrari doping. Armstrong always doped since his teenage years in Triathlons.

Yeah. Either pre-epo or pre-ferrari. It goes without saying he wasn't clean in 92-95

It's well known (or strongly assumed) he is one of the juniors who got doped by Carmichael in the development team. But I don't know anything about triathlon.

You have some infoor sources about that? I'm interested if you do

The time frame of junior cyclist and triathlete overlapped. He raced with Subaru Montgomery in 1990. If you know anything about US cycling, I will not have to explain any more to you.

Oh! So he wasn't implying he doped just as a 16 yo triathlete? cycling and triathlon did overlap but just for a few months. I wouldn't say he doped "since his teenage years in Triathlons" if I only meant he started when he got into cycling, that's why I though Benotti69 had others infos

 

[poupou]

Scientific American published the results of the physilogical tests done for JO on Lance Armstrong that mentionned average recovering abilities, so he was advised to focus on races with few days. How could he be a TDF contender in that condition in a clean field?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

bye

So long!! Find a worthy chair!

Poor sweet, cancer Jesus. Never did get a fair shake. If only everyone else would play by the rules, everyone would know he was worth every chair he ever sat on.

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Scientific American published the results of the physilogical tests done for JO on Lance Armstrong that mentionned average recovering abilities, so he was advised to focus on races with few days. How could he be a TDF contender in that condition in a clean field?

Cancer. Changed his body. Heart the size of three men. Will of a champion.

John Swanson

 

[spetsa]

absolutely_not, you have no clue what you are talking about. "overlapped for a couple months". He was racing bikes at the same time he was doing triathlons. He won a tri national championship in 1990 and had exposure to USA Cycling in 1988. Yes, I grew up racing at the same time, against and in some cases with, the same people.

 

[absolutely_not]

Re:

absolutely_not, you have no clue what you are talking about. "overlapped for a couple months". He was racing bikes at the same time he was doing triathlons. He won a tri national championship in 1990 and had exposure to USA Cycling in 1988. Yes, I grew up racing at the same time, against and in some cases with, the same people.

You are inventing the "couple of months" quote
I talked of "a few months" and what I really meant was about a year or so. Considering he was a cyclist for almost 20 years and did tri for 4-5 years, the period of time he was seriously involved in both is relatively short. I could be wrong but I think he really started focusing on cycling in 89 and did his last tri in 90.

But it doesn't actually matter if it overlapped for 6 months or 18. We know he probably was doped by his trainers as a junior when he got into cycling. I was under the impression that Benotti69 was implying he doped even before that - before cycling when he was just a 15-17yo triathlete.
This is new to me. If he (or you) has informations about that, I'm curious to hear it. If not, it's just an infortunate formulation from Benotti69 since it leads people to believe Armstrong's doping originated in tris and not in cycling