Official Lance Armstrong thread

[Publicus]

I wouldn't want to be Alberto if it came to that.

My guess is Lance's bark is far worse than his bite.

 

[dadoorsron]

Looks like Armstrong is getting a free-ride from the UCI again....
____

LIMOGES, France (Reuters) - International Cycling Union (UCI) president Pat McQuaid on Monday refuted allegations that the organisation's anti-doping testers were "indulgent" towards riders on the Tour de France.

Pierre Bordry, the president of the French Anti-Doping Agency which works hand in hand with the UCI on the Tour, told French paper Le Figaro to be published on Tuesday: "There is a lack of rigour in the work of the UCI testers.

"I have the feeling there is some indulgence towards the riders and that the same rules do not apply to all of them."

He would not elaborate.

"I received a letter from Pierre Bordry and I am going to reply to it," McQuaid told Reuters by telephone.

"I refute allegations that there is any indulgence."

Armstrong has been tested three straight days in a row. the only thing he is in this whole thing is a target!

 

[elapid]

Armstrong has been tested three straight days in a row. the only thing he is in this whole thing is a target!

Rightly so. He should be one of the 50 targeted riders. His previous history and his current standing in both the Giro (12th) and TdF (3rd) should place him well and truly on the 50 targeted riders list. I am pretty sure Lance isn't complaining, but the likes of Paul Sherwin and Phil Liggett complaining about the amount of testing for Lance is just ridiculous.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Rightly so. He should be one of the 50 targeted riders. His previous history and his current standing in both the Giro (12th) and TdF (3rd) should place him well and truly on the 50 targeted riders list. I am pretty sure Lance isn't complaining, but the likes of Paul Sherwin and Phil Liggett complaining about the amount of testing for Lance is just ridiculous.

He's apparently been tested around 60 times since he announced his come-back. Michael Boogerd thought he was probably tested around 35 times during his entire career - just as a comparison.

 

[elapid]

He's apparently been tested around 60 times since he announced his come-back. Michael Boogerd thought he was probably tested around 35 times during his entire career - just as a comparison.

Forty times according to Phil and Paul (two days ago). Boogerd is not a fair comparison because he was never the same standard of rider as Armstrong, he didn't win nearly as much as Armstrong, and he retired before targeted testing became prominent.

Is Lance complaining? I don't follow his twitter, but I assume he is not. He knows the game. The more negative tests he has, the stronger his argument is that he doesn't dope.

 

[mr. tibbs]

I think the new JB/LA team is the worst kept secret in cycling. Gotta think Nike might be involved.

AC still has one year on his contract.

Not sure if this got posted or not:

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=336417&FS=F1

Let's hope they all split up by next July, cuz this is just ridiculous:

1 Rinaldo Nocentini (Ita) AG2R La Mondiale 39:11:04
2 Alberto Contador Velasco (Spa) Astana 0:00:06
3 Lance Armstrong (USA) Astana 0:00:08
4 Andreas Klöden (Ger) Astana 0:00:54
5 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Astana 0:00:54

 

[Amsterhammer]

Forty times according to Phil and Paul (two days ago). Boogerd is not a fair comparison because he was never the same standard of rider as Armstrong, he didn't win nearly as much as Armstrong, and he retired before targeted testing became prominent.

Is Lance complaining? I don't follow his twitter, but I assume he is not. He knows the game. The more negative tests he has, the stronger his argument is that he doesn't dope.

You're absolutely right, of course, about the difference in standard, but MB only retired two years ago. I just thought the difference in the two figures was quite dramatic. I don't think LA is complaining - I heard the figure 60 on Dutch tv from a usually well informed journo.

 

[Walshworld]

Armstrong is the mountain Contador can't climb over.

We're going to see just how strong Alberto is. Not physcially, but mentally. I'm blogging each stage of the tour, both coverage and comedy. check it out.
http://walshworld.wordpress.com/

 

[mambo#5]

We're going to see just how strong Alberto is. Not physcially, but mentally. I'm blogging each stage of the tour, both coverage and comedy. check it out.
http://walshworld.wordpress.com/

we need more Lance fans mixing it up here. We're heavily outnumbered.

 

[dadoorsron]

Rightly so. He should be one of the 50 targeted riders. His previous history and his current standing in both the Giro (12th) and TdF (3rd) should place him well and truly on the 50 targeted riders list. I am pretty sure Lance isn't complaining, but the likes of Paul Sherwin and Phil Liggett complaining about the amount of testing for Lance is just ridiculous.

It's ridiculous to test someone three days in a row. He has never tested positive in any test and all the doping speculations about armstrong has come from the French media and an ex american cyclist that likes to see his name in the paper because he mentions Lance.

 

[nobody]

You're absolutely right, of course, about the difference in standard, but MB only retired two years ago. I just thought the difference in the two figures was quite dramatic. I don't think LA is complaining - I heard the figure 60 on Dutch tv from a usually well informed journo.

You heard mot well, that is Cavendish who was tested 60 times, Cancellara around 60 too... and Lance was just tested 34 or a little more, that is always changing... ;D

 

[nobody]

It's ridiculous to test someone three days in a row. He has never tested positive in any test and all the doping speculations about armstrong has come from the French media and an ex american cyclist that likes to see his name in the paper because he mentions Lance.

Sorry but we know that some EPO disappear after a few hours, and there is a lot of other PED that have a short window to be tested. There is around 100 PED that are still undectable.

There is not only the french media that reported the 6 EPO positive of Armstrong, that is still available and pointed some times like by Velocity in an interview with an Australian.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

I suggest you to read that piece of information.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry but we know that some EPO disappear after a few hours...

Which EPO is that? How many varieties does Amgen produce? Which one is only detectable for a few hours?

You know, right?

 

[TrapperJohn]

Which EPO is that? How many varieties does Amgen produce? Which one is only detectable for a few hours?

You know, right?

Sure, didn't you know? rEPO, detectable only by rumors started on various forums.

 

[elapid]

It's ridiculous to test someone three days in a row. He has never tested positive in any test and all the doping speculations about armstrong has come from the French media and an ex american cyclist that likes to see his name in the paper because he mentions Lance.

Man, I don't usually subscribe to the lovers/haters theory, but you are so blinded that you are definitely an exception to that theory. Firstly, the never tested positive argument is mute. Armstrong's hCG levels were through the roof (109,000, normal < 0.5) because of his testicular cancer. hCG is a prohibited substance because it increases testosterone levels. He was tested numerous times during this period and never had a positive to hCG despite it being known to be increased. That blows the "I've never tested positive" claims.

Secondly, Armstrong has six positive EPO tests for the 1999 TdF. These came to light because of the investigative journalism of a reporter from l'Equipe knew that they were using 1999 Tour samples to investigate a new EPO test and he received Armstrong's permission to access his drug test numbers on the premise he was doing a piece on TUEs. Armstrong was never sanctioned and was never going to be sanctioned because these positive arose from research and not for sanctioning purposes, hence they were not handled accordingly. However, this still does not change the fact that he tested positive to EPO six times in the 1999 TdF.

Lastly, there is the circumstantial evidence. You can chose to believe this or not, but when it starts to pile up then you start to wonder. This includes testimony from Emma O'Reilly, testimony from Frankie and Betsy Andreau, texted conversations between Frankie Andreau and Jonathon Vaughters, and a Discovery motorbike discovered dumping drugs and drug use equipment into a trash can, amongst others.

You can be a true Lance lover, but best to inform yourself with the evidence, factual and circumstantial, rather than resorting to conspiracy theories and propaganda.

Finally, Lance knew he was going to be tested frequently. This was forecast by French Sports Minister Roselyne Bachelot on 3rd July 2009: "The (doping) controls will be multiplied, and I tell Lance Armstrong that he will be particularly, particularly, particularly monitored." However, you should be happy with all these tests dadoorsron. It means every time he tests negative, Lance will have more strength to his argument that he has not doped.

 

[dadoorsron]

Sorry but we know that some EPO disappear after a few hours, and there is a lot of other PED that have a short window to be tested. There is around 100 PED that are still undectable.

There is not only the french media that reported the 6 EPO positive of Armstrong, that is still available and pointed some times like by Velocity in an interview with an Australian.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

I suggest you to read that piece of information.

The retest of urine samples in 99 was against Wada, and UCI rules There was a very large independent study that makes your comments and the interview extremely wrong. Frankie Andreau's comments in a court of law were not seen as accurate. Which in a court case Lance was awarded his entire endorsement money and damages from the company.

 

[Escarabajo]

The retest of urine samples in 99 was against Wada, and UCI rules There was a very large independent study that makes your comments and the interview extremely wrong. Frankie Andreau's comments in a court of law were not seen as accurate. Which in a court case Lance was awarded his entire endorsement money and damages from the company.

You need to take this outside. This topic is not even accepted at the the Clinic. This topic has been discussed like 1,000,000 times. We have to repeat the same thing over and over and over. Read all the threads since april and then come back to discuss.
Thanks.

 

[dadoorsron]

Man, I don't usually subscribe to the lovers/haters theory, but you are so blinded that you are definitely an exception to that theory. Firstly, the never tested positive argument is mute. Armstrong's hCG levels were through the roof (109,000, normal < 0.5) because of his testicular cancer. hCG is a prohibited substance because it increases testosterone levels. He was tested numerous times during this period and never had a positive to hCG despite it being known to be increased. That blows the "I've never tested positive" claims.

Secondly, Armstrong has six positive EPO tests for the 1999 TdF. These came to light because of the investigative journalism of a reporter from l'Equipe knew that they were using 1999 Tour samples to investigate a new EPO test and he received Armstrong's permission to access his drug test numbers on the premise he was doing a piece on TUEs. Armstrong was never sanctioned and was never going to be sanctioned because these positive arose from research and not for sanctioning purposes, hence they were not handled accordingly. However, this still does not change the fact that he tested positive to EPO six times in the 1999 TdF.

Lastly, there is the circumstantial evidence. You can chose to believe this or not, but when it starts to pile up then you start to wonder. This includes testimony from Emma O'Reilly, testimony from Frankie and Betsy Andreau, texted conversations between Frankie Andreau and Jonathon Vaughters, and a Discovery motorbike discovered dumping drugs and drug use equipment into a trash can, amongst others.

You can be a true Lance lover, but best to inform yourself with the evidence, factual and circumstantial, rather than resorting to conspiracy theories and propaganda.

Finally, Lance knew he was going to be tested frequently. This was forecast by French Sports Minister Roselyne Bachelot on 3rd July 2009: "The (doping) controls will be multiplied, and I tell Lance Armstrong that he will be particularly, particularly, particularly monitored." However, you should be happy with all these tests dadoorsron. It means every time he tests negative, Lance will have more strength to his argument that he has not doped.

All your information that you have is just one side of the story. You really don't have the outcome to any of these situations because, you like the accusations better then the outcome of the cases. The 1999 doping was a L'Equipe article that claimed that Armstrong's samples on the 1999 Tour later tested positive. There was a very large independent study done on these test. "If you look at how the result was obtained it was so different from the analysis procedure required by Wada... it doesn't even qualify as a finding" Emile Vrijman Inquiry chairman I suppose since you are a hater and really don't have any other information other the accusations from a newspaper you didn't read the Emile Vrijman 135 page report stating the LNDD was at fault and didn't use any testing standards. But it said Wada and the LNDD may have "behaved in ways that are completely inconsistent with the rules and regulations of international anti-doping control testing", and their actions may also have been against the law.Vrijman wrote. http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf theres a link to the report. You may need to inform yourself prior to making claims.


The andreau thing is funny because, if you do some research you would know that in a court of law Lance was found clear of these accusations. . lance armstrong sued a company, called SCA, that had promised in a contract to pay Armstrong a $5 million bonus if he won his sixth straight Tour de France in 2004. He did win, but SCA withheld the bonus after new doping allegations against Armstrong surfaced that same year. A panel of arbitrators ultimately ruled in Armstrong's favor. SCA was forced to pay the $5 million bonus, plus $2.5 million more. SCA contends it lost because the bonus contract was poorly written, and not because SCA failed to prove Armstrong had cheated by using banned substances. It's funny but the Doctor and others in the Armstrong room when Frankie and Betsy heard this all said they don't know what they are talking about. It's funny how the media can go after the accusations but rarely you ever his the disposition of the cases.

 

[dadoorsron]

You need to take this outside. Not even to the Clinic. This topic has been discussed like 1,000,000 times. We have to repeat the same thing over and over and over. Read all the threads since april and then come back to discuss.
Thanks.

obvisously people can only look at the accusations and bring them up as truth. The truth is lance has never tested positive!

 

[elapid]

All your information that you have is just one side of the story. You really don't have the outcome to any of these situations because, you like the accusations better then the outcome of the cases. The 1999 doping was a L'Equipe article that claimed that Armstrong's samples on the 1999 Tour later tested positive. There was a very large independent study done on these test. "If you look at how the result was obtained it was so different from the analysis procedure required by Wada... it doesn't even qualify as a finding" Emile Vrijman Inquiry chairman I suppose since you are a hater and really don't have any other information other the accusations from a newspaper you didn't read the Emile Vrijman 135 page report stating the LNDD was at fault and didn't use any testing standards. But it said Wada and the LNDD may have "behaved in ways that are completely inconsistent with the rules and regulations of international anti-doping control testing", and their actions may also have been against the law.Vrijman wrote. http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf theres a link to the report. You may need to inform yourself prior to making claims.


The andreau thing is funny because, if you do some research you would know that in a court of law Lance was found clear of these accusations. . lance armstrong sued a company, called SCA, that had promised in a contract to pay Armstrong a $5 million bonus if he won his sixth straight Tour de France in 2004. He did win, but SCA withheld the bonus after new doping allegations against Armstrong surfaced that same year. A panel of arbitrators ultimately ruled in Armstrong's favor. SCA was forced to pay the $5 million bonus, plus $2.5 million more. SCA contends it lost because the bonus contract was poorly written, and not because SCA failed to prove Armstrong had cheated by using banned substances. It's funny but the Doctor and others in the Armstrong room when Frankie and Betsy heard this all said they don't know what they are talking about. It's funny how the media can go after the accusations but rarely you ever his the disposition of the cases.

Again, get your facts right. The 1999 samples were based on a research study investigating an EPO test. They were never intended to be used to sanction riders and hence were not handled as such. The only reason the results became public knowledge was a good piece of investigative journalism by an l'Equipe reporter.

Lance was always going to win the SCA Promotions case. SCA Promotions didn't want to pay Lance his bonus because they believed he won the Tours by inappropriate means (ie, he doped). However, there was no way Lance was going to lose the case because the UCI had deemed him the winner. As long as he was declared the winner by the appropriate authorities, it didn't matter whether or not he won with the assistance of PEDs. This does negate the evidence and testimonies against Lance because it had nothing to do with the results of the case. In fact, the SCA Promotions case was probably the worst move by Lance because of the amount of dirty laundry aired by ex-friends, racers and team mates.

 

[elapid]

obvisously people can only look at the accusations and bring them up as truth. The truth is lance has never tested positive!

As I have said previously, this is a stupid argument. Armstrong's hCG levels were through the roof (109,000, normal < 0.5) because of his testicular cancer. hCG is a prohibited substance because it increases testosterone levels. He was tested numerous times during this period and never had a positive to hCG despite it being known to be increased. That blows the "I've never tested positive" claims.

 

[BroDeal]

obvisously people can only look at the accusations and bring them up as truth. The truth is lance has never tested positive!

Except for those six EPO positives in retrospectively tested urine that the scientists who developed the EPO test agree show conclusive proof that Armstrong doped.

 

[BroDeal]

The andreau thing is funny because, if you do some research you would know that in a court of law Lance was found clear of these accusations. . lance armstrong sued a company, called SCA, that had promised in a contract to pay Armstrong a $5 million bonus if he won his sixth straight Tour de France in 2004. He did win, but SCA withheld the bonus after new doping allegations against Armstrong surfaced that same year. A panel of arbitrators ultimately ruled in Armstrong's favor. SCA was forced to pay the $5 million bonus, plus $2.5 million more. SCA contends it lost because the bonus contract was poorly written, and not because SCA failed to prove Armstrong had cheated by using banned substances. It's funny but the Doctor and others in the Armstrong room when Frankie and Betsy heard this all said they don't know what they are talking about. It's funny how the media can go after the accusations but rarely you ever his the disposition of the cases.

Armstrong's lawyer argued that the contract with SCA did not forbid Armstrong from doping, so it did not matter if he did. The arbitrators agreed, so the two sides settled. The arbitrators never ruled on the evidence, which was considerable, that Armstrong doped.

It is funny how four people in the hospital room have all confirmed that Armstrong admitted that he used banned substances. The doctor, after being deposed, got a cushy job with Armstrong's foundation. Since he was not in the room when Armstrong admitted he was a doper, his testimony was not worth anything anyway.

 

[Zen Master]

obvisously people can only look at the accusations and bring them up as truth. The truth is lance has never tested positive!

Exactly !!!
Just like wise & clever Uncle Lance once said:Tom Simpson has never tested positive !

 

[colwildcat]

obvisously people can only look at the accusations and bring them up as truth. The truth is lance has never tested positive!

Wow.

I'm a self admitted fan of Lance, for any number of reasons.

But, I think I'm going around to the dark side. The ridiculous fawning by some here borders on disgusting. There are ways for reasonable people to argue both sides of a point without their man crushes or hero worship coming through.