Carboncrank said:
I look at the same pics and see he looks noticeably thinner in the chest and shoulders.
But if thinking he hasn't lost weight make you feel safer, go right ahead.
What do you think of Lance's weight difference between his 1993 World Championship win and his 1999 Tour de France win?
Any guesses?
From Coyle's paper on Lance Armstrong:
Would you have guessed he was 3kg lighter in 1993 based on those photos? No way I would have. Photos are not good measures of weight loss or comparisons. Depends on the lighting, lens, angle, etc.
Also, Lance is well known for lying about his weight. In the same Coyle paper, he estimated his own racing weight as 72kg. However, Lance admitted that his actual weight was closer to 74kg when under oath during the SCA trial.
Carboncrank said:
None of which tests would ever hold up in court. Pretty much all the GC contenders around him in his era got busted.
Get over tests sponsored by a French newspaper that always had a hard on for him and put it to bed.
He's passing all the same tests everyone gets.
I find some of your posturing amusing, but you really need to get your facts right before sprouting BS like this. The facts are:
- Lance tested positive to EPO on six different samples taken during the 1999 TdF
- These tests were conducted as part of a research trial into this particular EPO test. The samples were not handled according to UCI/WADA regulations because this was research and never intended to convict an athlete or be defendable in a court of law. It was testing the validity and accuracy of the test, not trying to find a guilty athlete.
- An investigative journalist from l'Equipe knew of this research and requested permission from both Lance Armstrong and the UCI to look at his drug tests, and both granted permission.
- This journalist, who was given more than he asked for by the UCI, then matched the numbers from positives recorded by the researchers to the drug tests voluntarily provided by Lance and the UCI.
He was exposed by good investigative journalism. That's all. Nothing nefarious or illegal about the journalist's methods. However, despite WADA pushing for a conviction, those tests could never be used to convict Lance because they were never intended for that purpose. This still does not change the FACT that Lance has tested positive.
Also he has tested positive to steroids, but magically found a TUE which somehow was able to be applied retrospectively. Wonder why the UCI allowed this? Anything to do with a certain donation by Lance to the UCI?
Finally, the one negative test that continues to astound me is that he never tested positive to hCG when he had testicular cancer. hCG is a marker for testicular cancer and also a banned substance because it boosts testosterone production. Lance boasts that his hCG levels were >110,000 at the time of his diagnosis when the normal levels are <0.5. He was tested multiple times in 1996, but never tested positive for elevated hCG levels despite the fact that these would have been increased for many months before his actual diagnosis. So why didn't he test positive? UCI coverup? Any other ideas? A number of other athletes have had their lives saved because of an early diagnosis of testicular cancer because of increased hCG levels on drug tests.
So the argument that he has never tested positive is just delusional. He has tested positive six times to EPO and once to cortisone. And, as Dr. Maserati has pointed out, the majority of guilty riders in the peloton past and present have not been found guilty because of a positive test but rather police actions and guilty admissions.
)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram