USADA - Armstrong

[GJB123]

I'm not at all sure Indurain was clean, and I know Anquetil wasn't (and Anquetil made the point that doping was necessary for the Tour). Anquetil thus , by his own admission, did dope his way to multiple Tour wins.

And your argument that Armstrong is alone at the top of organized dopers is only valid if you talk about riders. Saiz and Pevenage are at least as bad as Armstrong, and IMO Saiz is worse.

And before you go accusing, in advance, those who disagree with you of being fanboys, what's this with your "just a few pills" statement? Is 'pot belge' just a few pills? Is amphetamine abuse insignificant? You are minimizing the seriousness of past doping abuse. It was a huge problem back then, both with riders' health and with getting broader public acceptance for such a filthy sport.

There are a lot of aggravators, and Lance deserves a lifetime ban for them.

But ask yourself this: How in the world is Lance going to compete and win against Saiz and Pevenage unless he has a more effective doping organization? The answer is obvious.

Anybody who thinks Lance is an aberration is an [fill in the blank--you apparently like that style of argument]. Take out Lance's multiple doped TdF wins, and what do you get? You get Ullrich's multiple doped TdF wins. You get Ivan Basso.

Lance is a weed. He was one of the biggest weeds. He thrived because nobody tends the garden. Now, belatedly, that weed may be pulled out by the roots. But there are lots more weeds, and the garden still isn't being tended adequately.

Gag me with all this talk of how Lance ruined pro cycling. The sport was a going brothel long before Lance and it will be a going brothel long after Lance.

I'll save you the trouble of trying to make my opinion into something it isn't. Anquetil doped, Merckx, doped, Thevenet doped, Zoetemelk doped, Hinault probably did, Fignon doped, Indurain doped, Riis doped, Ullrich doped, Pantani doped. The jury is still out on Lemond but given the evidence so far I tend to believe he was clean or at the least the cleanest winner in the last 4 decades. There you have it, we agree on most of the TdF-winners being doped.

The main difference you fail to see is that Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Zoetemelk, Van Impe, Ocana, Lemond and Fignon were all very talented GC-contenders in their own right (and probably also clean). For Indurain that is debatable at best and with Riis and Armstrong it becomes laughable. Note that I exclude Ullrich as I believe he was a truly gifted GC-contender all along, doped or not.

The main point I am making and that you are obviously missing is that in the 90's things changed. Whereas in the past it was possible for a clean rider with a lot of talent to compete with PED-users (due largely to the marginal gain derived from old-school PED's). From the 90's onward that became impossible. Donkeys became racehorses overnight both in one day classics and big Tours. Edwig Van Hooydonk stopped racing for that reason as he couldn't keep up anymore with guys whose *sses he kicked two years before. Such was the gain derived from using EPO and blood manipulation.

Armstrong was, at least imho, the epitome of that really. He made it look ridiculous. From a no-hope GC-contender (good 1 day-rider mind you) to a record breaking 7-time TdF-winner beating guys who were obviously way more talented than himself. So yes, Armstrong is the kingpin and Bruyneel is the big kahuna of organised doping to a level rarely seen before while still getting away with (until now that is). Does that make Pevenage or Saiz any better than them? Hell no, it just makes them slightly less good in getting their doping act together. But to point at Anquetil or the French in general (or at Saiz, Pevenage or Indurain as you are doing) in defense of Armstrong is beyond ridiculous. Yes, we need to acknowledge that doping was, is and always will be endemic in cycling, but it still remains that Armstrong is top of the doping list which ever way you want to look at it.

Regards
GJ

 

[henryg]

IYes, we need to acknowledge that doping was, is and always will be endemic in cycling, but it sill remains that Armstrong is top of the doping list which ever way you want to look at it.

Regards
GJ

Pre EPO, doping was so ineffective and such a non-factor that the only way to really effect the outcome of a race was the good old fashioned way. Paying off your competitors to let you win. While many a stage and minor race were determined that way it was rare (from available evidence) for a major race to be fixed. The top racers in any given season were the best athletes.

Beginning with EPO we entered an era of high-tech sophisticated PEDs that could determine the outcome of a racing season. Non contenders became super stars, gifted athletes that were clean would get blown away by guys who couldn't shine their shoes in a real athletic contest. It became a contest between doctors, labs and how sophisticated and well funded your doping network was and how receptive your metabolism was to blood doping rather then an athletic contest. Policing doping and go after dopers now is central to cycling surviving as a sport. Pre-EPO it was a minor issue that required attention but was not going to wreck the sport.

 

[BillytheKid]

Maybe this has been asked and answered, but I don't see it. Can we guess who the ten cyclists are? Should we?

01) Landis
02) Hamilton
03) Zabriskie
04) Vande Velde
05) Leipheimer
06) Hincapie
07) Vaughters
08) Andreu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryder_Hesjedal
(Not sure about Hincapie.) Any guesses as to the other two? Hesjedal? Livingston? O'Bee? McCarty? Ventura?

Yeh, whoever they are, many will walk away and be just as guilty of it. Self-serve ice cream

 

[cleanmarine]

It's fairly well known that Floyd almost bankrupted USADA. So Lance is probably aiming to finish the job.

I will gladly donate to the USADA. And once Lance is tarred feathered and cooked we can expect a rather large fine.

I would also like a one page signed confession from the criminal in USA Today. A full acknowledgement of guilt. No lawyer double speak. Just "I am a liar a cheat and a scam"

 

[henryg]

Yeh, whoever they are, many will walk away and be just as guilty of it. Self-serve ice cream

What happens to riders, including Armstrong is not as important as what happens to managers, doctors, UCI officials. Without them, the doping going on today can't exist at an effective level.

Armstrong was the only rider who refused to cooperate so he is the only rider named in the letter. He could have been a witness like the rest.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Yeh, whoever they are, many will walk away and be just as guilty of it. Self-serve ice cream

Rocky Road Ice Cream:

 

[BillytheKid]

“So far, as legal challenges are concerned, we’re not scared of them,” Howman said. “The system is robust and we have confidence in it.”

Tygart responded in a statement: “Any suggestion that the Usada process is unfair is a blatant distortion of the truth. The truth is this arbitration process is grounded in a federal statute and contains all of the safeguards to ensure a fair hearing.”

Its review board — which is where Armstrong’s case is headed now — is like a grand jury, but does not have any investigative or subpoena power. It consists of technical, legal and medical experts who examine the evidence and see if the case is strong enough for the athlete to charged with breaking antidoping rules.

Armstrong had 10 days, until June 22, to file a written submission to that review board. If he had failed a drug test, he would have received the laboratory documentation of that failed test. But he did not, according to a letter the antidoping agency sent to him last week that listed the charges against him.

The agency said only that data from blood collections obtained by the International Cycling Union from Armstrong in 2009 and 2010 is “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”

If the review board finds enough evidence to charge Armstrong, then the antidoping agency will charge him with a doping violation. If he does not accept the charges, the next step for him would be to proceed to a hearing, which is mandated by the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.

A three-person arbitration panel that would eventually rule on the case is convened in advance of that hearing. That panel determines when the antidoping agency gives Armstrong the evidence it has against him, the antidoping agency said.

But to get to that point might take a while.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/s...e-in-lance-armstrong-case.html?pagewanted=all

I am still not sure what "fully consistatnt" really means. Biopassport interpretation?

I think that's what a lot the case will hinge on. An expert opnion vs. another as I've said before. If so, then the bio passport results could hang over cyclists for years and BP system will also be on trial.

Another important aspect will be why it has taken so long for the the ruling to arise.

Armstrong could take an arbitration ruling against him to another court, but the court would have to accept the case. He may have the fire power to do so. This is could drag on for a long time.

Time will only tell what is the case as I am speculating again.

 

[BillytheKid]

Rocky Road Ice Cream:

Very apt, better my son.

 

[TheEnoculator]

I'll save you the trouble of trying to make my opinion into something it isn't. Anquetil doped, Merckx, doped, Thevenet doped, Zoetemelk doped, Hinault probably did, Fignon doped, Indurain doped, Riis doped, Ullrich doped, Pantani doped. The jury is still out on Lemond but given the evidence so far I tend to believe he was clean or at the least the cleanest winner in the last 4 decades. There you have it, we agree on most of the TdF-winners being doped.

The main difference you fail to see is that Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Zoetemelk, Van Impe, Ocana, Lemond and Fignon were all very talented GC-contenders in their own right (and probably also clean). For Indurain that is debatable at best and with Riis and Armstrong it becomes laughable. Note that I exclude Ullrich as I believe he was a truly gifted GC-contender all along, doped or not.

The main point I am making and that you are obviously missing is that in the 90's things changed. Whereas in the past it was possible for a clean rider with a lot of talent to compete with PED-users (due largely to the marginal gain derived from old-school PED's). From the 90's onward that became impossible. Donkeys became racehorses overnight both in one day classics and big Tours. Edwig Van Hooydonk stopped racing for that reason as he couldn't keep up anymore with guys whose *sses he kicked two years before. Such was the gain derived from using EPO and blood manipulation.

Armstrong was, at least imho, the epitome of that really. He made it look ridiculous. From a no-hope GC-contender (good 1 day-rider mind you) to a record breaking 7-time TdF-winner beating guys who were obviously way more talented than himself. So yes, Armstrong is the kingpin and Bruyneel is the big kahuna of organised doping to a level rarely seen before while still getting away with (until now that is). Does that make Pevenage or Saiz any better than them? Hell no, it just makes them slightly less good in getting their doping act together. But to point at Anquetil or the French in general (or at Saiz, Pevenage or Indurain as you are doing) in defense of Armstrong is beyond ridiculous. Yes, we need to acknowledge that doping was, is and always will be endemic in cycling, but it still remains that Armstrong is top of the doping list which ever way you want to look at it.

Regards
GJ

You have a very good point about pre- and post-cancer Armstrong performances. From 1992 to 1996, his best GT result was 36th and didn't finish the other ones, then after he came back, he immediately went on a Tour winning rampage. That alone is suspicious.

 

[BillytheKid]

The French are hypocrites. The sport, the TdF, has had always had a problem, but when the French were winning they looked the other way.


http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/lamentation

"Anquetil, however, was always nice to me. He was 18 years old, and he was already a star. He just got better and better. But he also took a fair amount of pills, you know. It is not something we talked much about. Of course a lot of guys would take stuff, but only when it was valuable."

Roger Walkowiak, Tour de France winner 1956.

A great interview. Insight and evidence this is not an Armstrong invention, but a long held dark-side of this sport and I beleive others as well. It does not make it right. Testing should go forward. Armstrong was a true talent, I think at that level I agree with Walkowiak on "a lot of guy took stuff."
Those who bend it to be like a massive invention of doping by Armstrong and Bruyneel are just playing a nationalistic fiddle. There's nothing new under the sun here.

My statement is too generalized. We're all hypocrytes at times in my opinion. The Festina affair did mark a change in a historical attitude regarding doping in cycling. I was looking at it, obviously, historically.

 

[poupou]

You have a very good point about pre- and post-cancer Armstrong performances. From 1992 to 1996, his best GT result was 36th and didn't finish the other ones, then after he came back, he immediately went on a Tour winning rampage. That alone is suspicious.

And we know that in 1996 Lance was already a Ferrari's boy, orange juice should have helped to finish his first GT and improved his average recoving ability.

 

[BotanyBay]

I am still not sure what "fully consistatnt" really means. Biopassport interpretation?

I think that's what a lot the case will hinge on. An expert opnion vs. another as I've said before. If so, then the bio passport results could hang over cyclists for years and BP system will also be on trial.

Another important aspect will be why it has taken so long for the the ruling to arise.

Armstrong could take an arbitration ruling against him to another court, but the court would have to accept the case. He may have the fire power to do so. This is could drag on for a long time.

Time will only tell what is the case as I am speculating again.

I care more that Lance gets bankrupted in the process, rather than loses the eventual rulings. Because along the way, all the laundry will have aired. He's already losing his adoring public. Only his true fanboys are left. Soon enough, even Nike will non-renew. This process will make him a liability.

 

[MarkvW]

I care more that Lance gets bankrupted in the process, rather than loses the eventual rulings. Because along the way, all the laundry will have aired. He's already losing his adoring public. Only his true fanboys are left. Soon enough, even Nike will non-renew. This process will make him a liability.

He's probably made the decision not to fight the charges just for that reason and it is absolutely killing him.

It will be interesting to see what happens in two days.

 

[Microchip]

You have a very good point about pre- and post-cancer Armstrong performances. From 1992 to 1996, his best GT result was 36th and didn't finish the other ones, then after he came back, he immediately went on a Tour winning rampage. That alone is suspicious.

I have the commemorative Tour de France book which reproduces the results for every year since the Tour began up to 2003 for the first 20 or 25 places. His name doesn't appear in even the top 20 before 1999. I believe the first Tour that he actually finished, he came 97th. Then, as you say, he went on a winning rampage. And now he says there was no spike in performance.

 

[mewmewmew13]

You have a very good point about pre- and post-cancer Armstrong performances. From 1992 to 1996, his best GT result was 36th and didn't finish the other ones, then after he came back, he immediately went on a Tour winning rampage. That alone is suspicious.

I love this. It is so clear and clean-cut.
How can anyone explain this?? Totally unnatural..

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You have a very good point about pre- and post-cancer Armstrong performances. From 1992 to 1996, his best GT result was 36th and didn't finish the other ones, then after he came back, he immediately went on a Tour winning rampage. That alone is suspicious.

I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. It is common knowledge that having cancer and then receiving cancer treatments leads to the greatest gain in athletic ability of anything on the planet. Fact.

 

[thehog]

My statement is too generalized. We're all hypocrytes at times in my opinion. The Festina affair did mark a change in a historical attitude regarding doping in cycling. I was looking at it, obviously, historically.

The Festina affair was huge event in sport in ‘98 and in 2000. It had a tremendous impact in France. It started slow but by the Tour the race several times was almost ground to a halt. I don’t think many realize today how close it came to not finishing. From memory only 110 or so finished. There was a massive sea change in respect to doping afterwards. Not so much from a moral standpoint but there was outrage by citizens in France that they didn’t want drugs being distributed across their borders. The government was under a lot of pressure to do something about the distribution networks. In addition the police were doing more to stop cyclists from doping than actual police work!

Come 1999 the Tour was seen as “the Tour of hope”. Supposedly a lot of teams had cleaned up and it was evident from some of the early season races. Armstrong’s rise in the race was called out by several journalists but LeBlanc was worried for his race. He pleaded with many journalists to give Armstrong the benefit of the doubt and not to destroy the race. If Armstrong was called out for doping the race would have fallen into a farce after the events of 1998. The UCI felt the same. Although they hadn’t done a lot since 1998 they were singing from the same hymn sheet. Both groups in ASO and UCI saw Armstrong as a savior. Not so much from the American audience but his story went along with the story that the Tour had cleaned up its act. Armstrong at the time used his recovery from cancer as the method to reject claims that he was doping. It worked well. If he hadn’t had cancer then it would have been a lot harder to believe that he wasn’t’ doping.

2000 onwards he got a lot smarter and took the program team wide. The longer he went on and the more he kept winning the program was stepped up to the next level. 2004 was probably the worst of it. Not only was the entire team pushing it to unheard of levels they were actively behind the scene dropping other athletes into the doping mire with target testing.

In 2000 the French made doping a crime along with creating a bio-passport for French riders. They were the first with such a program. There was still doping by French riders but it became less and less due to the positive actions from FCF and the Government.

French riders made several claims to the UCI and the press about “cycling at two speeds”. They knew what was going on but were powerless to do anything about it. The UCI didn’t care and everyone just said they didn’t ”train’ hard enough.

We may want to blame a lot of people for what happened but you can’t blame the French.

 

[MarkvW]

In terms of the sheer size of the fraud, which must be calculated in terms of the amount of profit and fame made on it, nobody even comes close to Lance in the business. If all the accusations being brought to bear against him, furthermore, are verified, then he is also right on par with Saiz.

As per your last statement, we know this; however, none of the other dopers behaved like Napoleonic psychopaths, and who hoodwinked an entire nation of the faithful which simple demands that he crash in exemplary fashion. While the others you mentioned have, at least, been exposed and punished.

You're more than a little hyperbolic. While I'd easily buy "sociopath," there is no way that "psychopath" is a fair characterization of Armstrong. Sure, he deserves a lifetime ban in the USADA proceedings, and we'll wait and see what comes after that.

 

[patricknd]

You're more than a little hyperbolic. While I'd easily buy "sociopath," there is no way that "psychopath" is a fair characterization of Armstrong. Sure, he deserves a lifetime ban in the USADA proceedings, and we'll wait and see what comes after that.

"potato" "potato"

 

[mewmewmew13]

I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. It is common knowledge that having cancer and then receiving cancer treatments leads to the greatest gain in athletic ability of anything on the planet. Fact.

I remember him saying that after he shed all that excess upper body bulk that it 'transformed him' as a rider...

 

[ruamruam]

I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. It is common knowledge that having cancer and then receiving cancer treatments leads to the greatest gain in athletic ability of anything on the planet. Fact.

You neglected to mention one thing. Before 1999 Armstrong and all the other cyclists used to push a 52/13 or 52/12, sometimes even a 52/11 up the large alpine climbs. In 1998 Johan noticed him struggling on the climbs and suggested using a lower gear. They ran this by Ferrari and he thought it was a good idea too. So for the 1999 Tour they fitted a double chainwheel (52/42) to his bike and whenever the gradient got steep, he'd put his chain into the bottom ring. He was laughed at at first but come the first mountain they stopped laughing. Do ye not remember the first mountain stage in the 1999 Tour? The whole peloton is walking up the Galibier and Armstrong was the only one able to cycle it without getting off his bike. That's because he was pedaling faster but using a lower gear. Armstrong had discovered high cadence.

Since Armstrong most cyclists use a lower gear in the mountains. If you look at bicycles pre 1999 none of them have a double chainwheel. Practically all bikes now come equipped with a double chainwheel.

After he discovered the benefits of using a low gear up the mountains, (he would still used a high gear on the flat and going downhill) he was a little upset as he realised he could have won more races earlier in his career.

Drugs had nothing to do with his success!

 

[Jeremiah]

Wonderlance!

You neglected to mention one thing. Before 1999 Armstrong and all the other cyclists used to push a 52/13 or 52/12, sometimes even a 52/11 up the large alpine climbs. In 1998 Johan noticed him struggling on the climbs and suggested using a lower gear. They ran this by Ferrari and he thought it was a good idea too. So for the 1999 Tour they fitted a double chainwheel (52/42) to his bike and whenever the gradient got steep, he'd put his chain into the bottom ring. He was laughed at at first but come the first mountain they stopped laughing. Do ye not remember the first mountain stage in the 1999 Tour? The whole peloton is walking up the Galibier and Armstrong was the only one able to cycle it without getting off his bike. That's because he was pedaling faster but using a lower gear. Armstrong had discovered high cadence.

Since Armstrong most cyclists use a lower gear in the mountains. If you look at bicycles pre 1999 none of them have a double chainwheel. Practically all bikes now come equipped with a double chainwheel.

After he discovered the benefits of using a low gear up the mountains, (he would still used a high gear on the flat and going downhill) he was a little upset as he realised he could have won more races earlier in his career.

Drugs had nothing to do with his success!

Good to see you!

 

[Jeremiah]

You're more than a little hyperbolic. While I'd easily buy "sociopath," there is no way that "psychopath" is a fair characterization of Armstrong. Sure, he deserves a lifetime ban in the USADA proceedings, and we'll wait and see what comes after that.

A sociopath is like a calculating psychopath, is that correct?

 

[BotanyBay]

You neglected to mention one thing. Before 1999 Armstrong and all the other cyclists used to push a 52/13 or 52/12, sometimes even a 52/11 up the large alpine climbs. In 1998 Johan noticed him struggling on the climbs and suggested using a lower gear. They ran this by Ferrari and he thought it was a good idea too. So for the 1999 Tour they fitted a double chainwheel (52/42) to his bike and whenever the gradient got steep, he'd put his chain into the bottom ring. He was laughed at at first but come the first mountain they stopped laughing. Do ye not remember the first mountain stage in the 1999 Tour? The whole peloton is walking up the Galibier and Armstrong was the only one able to cycle it without getting off his bike. That's because he was pedaling faster but using a lower gear. Armstrong had discovered high cadence.

Since Armstrong most cyclists use a lower gear in the mountains. If you look at bicycles pre 1999 none of them have a double chainwheel. Practically all bikes now come equipped with a double chainwheel.

After he discovered the benefits of using a low gear up the mountains, (he would still used a high gear on the flat and going downhill) he was a little upset as he realised he could have won more races earlier in his career.

Drugs had nothing to do with his success!

Yes, we remember this con-job that he did with his scham "coach" carmichael.

 

[MarkvW]

I'll save you the trouble of trying to make my opinion into something it isn't. Anquetil doped, Merckx, doped, Thevenet doped, Zoetemelk doped, Hinault probably did, Fignon doped, Indurain doped, Riis doped, Ullrich doped, Pantani doped. The jury is still out on Lemond but given the evidence so far I tend to believe he was clean or at the least the cleanest winner in the last 4 decades. There you have it, we agree on most of the TdF-winners being doped.

The main difference you fail to see is that Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Zoetemelk, Van Impe, Ocana, Lemond and Fignon were all very talented GC-contenders in their own right (and probably also clean). For Indurain that is debatable at best and with Riis and Armstrong it becomes laughable. Note that I exclude Ullrich as I believe he was a truly gifted GC-contender all along, doped or not.

The main point I am making and that you are obviously missing is that in the 90's things changed. Whereas in the past it was possible for a clean rider with a lot of talent to compete with PED-users (due largely to the marginal gain derived from old-school PED's). From the 90's onward that became impossible. Donkeys became racehorses overnight both in one day classics and big Tours. Edwig Van Hooydonk stopped racing for that reason as he couldn't keep up anymore with guys whose *sses he kicked two years before. Such was the gain derived from using EPO and blood manipulation.

Armstrong was, at least imho, the epitome of that really. He made it look ridiculous. From a no-hope GC-contender (good 1 day-rider mind you) to a record breaking 7-time TdF-winner beating guys who were obviously way more talented than himself. So yes, Armstrong is the kingpin and Bruyneel is the big kahuna of organised doping to a level rarely seen before while still getting away with (until now that is). Does that make Pevenage or Saiz any better than them? Hell no, it just makes them slightly less good in getting their doping act together. But to point at Anquetil or the French in general (or at Saiz, Pevenage or Indurain as you are doing) in defense of Armstrong is beyond ridiculous. Yes, we need to acknowledge that doping was, is and always will be endemic in cycling, but it still remains that Armstrong is top of the doping list which ever way you want to look at it.

Regards
GJ

Armstrong, with laser like focus (and the aid of Ferrari), doped like most of the contenders in the history of the sport. The difference is that Armstrong took the program to the 'next level,' and with the aid of Bruyneel, turned USPS into a fully organized doping machine. That was the only way he could compete with the likes of Ullrich (child of the DDR), for example.

For the massiveness of this sporting fraud, Armstrong and Bruyneel should get lifetime bans. Sorry if I'm not hating enough, but that's the most the rules allow.

Your "donkey" rationale doesn't hold up. In the EPO era it didn't matter whether you were a "natural" or not. What mattered is whether or not you were a good responder to EPO therapy--and that applied to all contenders, not just Lance. And Lance was a good responder! That we can agree on, I'm sure.

There are a lot of people, other than Lance and Bruyneel, who deserve lifetime bans (and, sad to say, won't get them). Maybe they are not as "bad" as Lance, but once you pass a certain threshold of badness, who cares? It's like arguing whether Charles Manson is worse than Hitler.

Like I said, Lance was one of the biggest weeds in an untended garden. The gardener needs to be replaced.