What changed with Armstrong Post-Cancer?

[elapid]

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. Nothing that has earned him a sanction.




I apologize. It was not my intention to hijack the thread.



These are not confessions, they are accusations. They may be the truth, but they have not meritted any sanctions.




I am sure there is a great deal of expertise here. But I don't think anybody here is actually analyzing Lance's samples. Furthermore, I am not critizing anybody's work. But none of it has earned Lance a sanction.




I cannot. Perhaps this question has been addressed, but I haven't found the answer. But why in the face of all of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence has Lance not been kicked out of cycling? Especially, considering that Rasmussen was booted for lying about his whereabouts.

As for how Lance changed post-cancer: he could have doped. Maybe someday he will be caught or confess and put the speculation to rest. But until then, it is just speculation in my opinion.

On a side note to everybody: I am not quite sure what the rules are in this forum when it comes to disagreement. But it seems that for many people it means, "start your own thread. We want only people who love-lance/hate-lance/agree-with-me."

Gregod - I appreciate your answers and your stance. Most of us are way more moderate than you would appreciate. There are few polarizing "haters" and "lovers", but I admire Lance for some of his attributes (cycling talents, dedication, cancer work), but not for others (doping, support of Omerta, manipulation, immaturity, etc). Unfortunately, a number of threads do degenerate into polar opposites (love and hate if you will), and I am definitely guilty of this as well when I get a bee in my bonnet about certain facts. However, when it comes to a true disagreement (rather than some endless argument perpetuated by troll-like behaviour), then it is easy just to say we agree to disagree.

While I do not agree with your stance that he has not doped because he has not been sanctioned (because I personally think that is taking the decision making process out of your hands and you are relying on someone else to tell you what your opinions should be rather than processing the available information for yourself and coming to your own independent opinion), I do appreciate your honesty and directly answering my post.

In regards to why Lance has not been sanctioned, no one has ever accused him of being dumb. Rasmussen committed a doping-related offence by missing doping controls and lying regarding his whereabouts. While he may not have tested positive, these offences are considered the same as testing positive because of the UCI's regulations. Rasmussen was also implicated in other doping-related infractions (HBOCs in shoe box and testing positive to Dynepo in the 2007 TdF), but these were not sanctionable events for various reasons. Armstrong has never been sanctioned because he knows how to play the game: 49% hematocrit in the 1999 TdF knowing that the cutoff is 50%, and his recent hematocrit and OFF score spikes in the 2009 TdF which are within the UCI limits but not physiologically explainable during a GT.

 

[Race Radio]

Nothing that has earned him a sanction.

The Natural evolution of an Armstrong groupie. At first they cling to the "Never tested positive" But that is wrong as he has tested positives 7 times. Then they try the "There is no evidence" But there is a mountain of evidence that any rational person would read and easily conclude that Armstrong dope. Their final grasp is "Never earned a sanction"....pretty sad when your belief in a myth hinges on the corruption and ineptitude of the UCI.

As for trolling.......would you say a poster who spent many pages telling the forum that Besty Andreau should have committed perjury because it was the "Right thing to do", that Pro riders never used Cortisone, that Armstrong sudden improvement came from the development of his frontal lobe.....Would you call someone a troll if they had been banned for trolling and then came back using a new username, and various sockpuppets, to troll some more?

You make a blanket claim that all evidence is cercumstantial. Tell us which specific accusations you do not believe and why.

 

[gregod]

While I do not agree with your stance that he has not doped because he has not been sanctioned (because I personally think that is taking the decision making process out of your hands and you are relying on someone else to tell you what your opinions should be rather than processing the available information for yourself and coming to your own independent opinion), I do appreciate your honesty and directly answering my post.

In regards to why Lance has not been sanctioned, no one has ever accused him of being dumb. Rasmussen committed a doping-related offence by missing doping controls and lying regarding his whereabouts. While he may not have tested positive, these offences are considered the same as testing positive because of the UCI's regulations. Rasmussen was also implicated in other doping-related infractions (HBOCs in shoe box and testing positive to Dynepo in the 2007 TdF), but these were not sanctionable events for various reasons. Armstrong has never been sanctioned because he knows how to play the game: 49% hematocrit in the 1999 TdF knowing that the cutoff is 50%, and his recent hematocrit and OFF score spikes in the 2009 TdF which are within the UCI limits but not physiologically explainable during a GT.

Cheers.

I'm not saying I think he hasn't doped. I am saying no matter how much public opinion may be on the side that he doped, it hasn't gotten him suspended. So, assuming that the testing labs are competent at their work like the rest of the educated people who have expressed an opinion on Lance's results, then either they have some information that the speculators do not have or they are covering up for him.

Maybe this has been answered elsewhere: If it were so cut-and-dried that a consistent hematocrit can only be explained by doping, is there a reason why the UCI isn't using this to catch dopers?

 

[Digger]

Cheers.

I'm not saying I think he hasn't doped. I am saying no matter how much public opinion may be on the side that he doped, it hasn't gotten him suspended. So, assuming that the testing labs are competent at their work like the rest of the educated people who have expressed an opinion on Lance's results, then either they have some information that the speculators do not have or they are covering up for him.
Maybe this has been answered elsewhere: If it were so cut-and-dried that a consistent hematocrit can only be explained by doping, is there a reason why the UCI isn't using this to catch dopers?

How do you refute the link I posted?

 

[blackcat]

The Natural evolution of an Armstrong groupie. At first they cling to the "Never tested positive" But that is wrong as he has tested positives 7 times. Then they try the "There is no evidence" But there is a mountain of evidence that any rational person would read and easily conclude that Armstrong dope. Their final grasp is "Never earned a sanction"....pretty sad when your belief in a myth hinges on the corruption and ineptitude of the UCI.

As for trolling.......would you say a poster who spent many pages telling the forum that Besty Andreau should have committed perjury because it was the "Right thing to do", that Pro riders never used Cortisone, that Armstrong sudden improvement came from the development of his frontal lobe.....Would you call someone a troll if they had been banned for trolling and then came back using a new username, and various sockpuppets, to troll some more?

You make a blanket claim that all evidence is cercumstantial. Tell us which specific accusations you do not believe and why.

Armstrong is clean
>
Armstrong is most tested athlete ever
>
Armstrong never tested positive
>
Armstrong never sanctioned
>
They all dope
>
Lemond doped

 

[Race Radio]

Maybe this has been answered elsewhere: If it were so cut-and-dried that a consistent hematocrit can only be explained by doping, is there a reason why the UCI isn't using this to catch dopers?

It is pretty clear that the Biopassport is a joke. It has been a multi-million $$$ mistake.

Armstrong's own numbers have his Hct increasing 16.7% from his off season baseline during a period of heavy training and racing, yet they did nothing. That it was 10% above his off season baseline during the 3rd week of the Tour, when most people drop 12% makes it even more suspect.

Putting your faith in the UCI to do anything is misguided.

 

[gregod]

Their final grasp is "Never earned a sanction"....pretty sad when your belief in a myth hinges on the corruption and ineptitude of the UCI.

As for trolling.......

You make a blanket claim that all evidence is cercumstantial. Tell us which specific accusations you do not believe and why.

At the risk of getting off-topic, I'll address your questions, in reverse order.

You may be right that there is bona fide evidence beside the great deal of speculation. But aside from not earning him any sanctions, the ASO doesn't have to invite him to the tour and I think even paid him a large appearance fee this year, I think. Furthermore, they haven't tried to recover the prize money from 1999, as far as I know. So, I remain skeptical about the evidence.

As for trolling; what I had read up to that point in this thread didn't seem to amount to trolling. I am new at this, but if someone trolls in one thread, does it mean that all subsequent posts by that person in other threads are all troll posts?

Could you point to links from some news sources that show the UCI's ineptitude and corruption? This is the first that I have heard of this.

 

[elapid]

Maybe this has been answered elsewhere: If it were so cut-and-dried that a consistent hematocrit can only be explained by doping, is there a reason why the UCI isn't using this to catch dopers?

Don't get me started on the UCI and their ineptitude! Without getting stuck in this quagmire, there are a few explanations:
- The UCI and WADA have set quite high limits for doping tests. This is important to avoid the possibility of false positive results, which no one wants. Their philosophy, and it is one I personally agree with, is that it is better to have a doped rider in the peloton than a clean rider sanctioned because of a false positive.
- The UCI biological passport was designed to identify potential dopers for more specific targeted testing (Armstrong was one of 50 targeted riders) or actually catch riders. There has been widespread criticism of the Passport, namely because it appears to be a PR exercise for the UCI. However, we are also seeing the reverse effect of the Passport. Riders know the parameters they should be within and can tailor their program to fall within these limits. Bernard Kohl admitted to this and it seems as though Armstrong is using this to his advantage. No rider can increase their hematocrit in the middle of a GT through natural means, especially with a low reticulocyte count. But this is what Armstrong has been able to do. However, he is within the UCI limits so he is not sanctionable. This does raise alarm bells and he is targeted because of such results, but there is no test for autologous blood transfusions. So they only way to catch the likes of Armstrong is red-handed in the process of receiving a blood transfusion.
- I cannot explain why he did not test positive the HCG and no one has provided me with a reasonable explanation. Masking agents seem the most reasonable. A UCI coverup seems too outlandish (although Lance did "donate" a reported half a million dollars to the UCI around this time for either research into doping or equipment for dope testing).
- I cannot explain why Lance was allowed a retrospective TUE after testing positive to cortisone, apparently for saddle sores.
- The positives to EPO in the 1999 TdF were never intended to for sanctions. The UCI were investigating an EPO test and using stored samples from the 1999 TdF. An l'Equipe reporter heard of this research, matched the numbers from the positive reports to Armstrong (with Armstrong's permission), and then exposed the EPO use. However, because these investigators were researching an EPO test, they did not (and never intended to) handle the samples according to antidoping regulations and hence these results could not be used to sanction Armstrong (despite the efforts of Pound and WADA).

 

[Digger]

At the risk of getting off-topic, I'll address your questions, in reverse order.

You may be right that there is bona fide evidence beside the great deal of speculation. But aside from not earning him any sanctions, the ASO doesn't have to invite him to the tour and I think even paid him a large appearance fee this year, I think. Furthermore, they haven't tried to recover the prize money from 1999, as far as I know. So, I remain skeptical about the evidence.
As for trolling; what I had read up to that point in this thread didn't seem to amount to trolling. I am new at this, but if someone trolls in one thread, does it mean that all subsequent posts by that person in other threads are all troll posts?

Could point to links from some news sources that show the UCI's ineptitude and corruption? This is the first that I have heard of this.

In your eyes, the riders of Puerto are also innocent.
According to Verbruggen, president of the UCI, doping is ‘the fans’ fault’

How about the UCI and how corrupt they are? Rhis conversation between **** Pound, the former president of WADA, and Hein Verbruggen, the former president of the UCI. The exchange took place after the Festina affair and before the birth of WADA. **** Pound tells the story:

‘I said to him, ‘Damn it, Hein, there’s a real problem in your sport. You really must do something about it.’

He retorted, ‘But it’s the fans’ fault.’

I said, ‘I beg your pardon. How is it the fans’ fault?’

He replied, ‘Well, it’s simple. If they accept to watch a Tour de France at 25km an hour, the riders wouldn’t need all that. But because the fans absolutely require the Tour to run at 42km an hour, the riders have to prepare for it.’

I said to him, ‘I hope you’re joking.’ In fact, they were all well aware of it.

 

[gregod]

How do you refute the link I posted?

I don't. But Lance is still riding no matter how much I believe he doped.

 

[Digger]

I don't. But Lance is still riding no matter how much I believe he doped.

We turn a blind eye to science then...

 

[Anonymous]

I don't. But Lance is still riding no matter how much I believe he doped.

AND THIS IS WHAT IT HAS COME DOWN TO.

The UCI, WADA has accepted doping in the peloton as long as it is within a "range". Perhaps the only body willing to be very aggressive is the AFLD.

In the end, this is the rub. When LA tells anyone who will listen that he's the "worlds most tested" athlete, marches Don Caitlin out, promises transparency, ridicules others for attempting to run a clean program, enforces the omerta (Simeoni, Bassons, etc) all the while doping his *** off... let's just say it can be distasteful.

If Lance would shut his cake hole and go about his business he would create a lot less negatives from his detractors. Personally, I hope the guy is exposed, in cycling terms, as a fraud. I used to think quite highly of the guy but, geez... The hypocrisy is sickening.

 

[Race Radio]

At the risk of getting off-topic, I'll address your questions, in reverse order.

You may be right that there is bona fide evidence beside the great deal of speculation. But aside from not earning him any sanctions, the ASO doesn't have to invite him to the tour and I think even paid him a large appearance fee this year, I think. Furthermore, they haven't tried to recover the prize money from 1999, as far as I know. So, I remain skeptical about the evidence.

After the 99 positives came out Patrice Clerc, head of the Tour, said that Lance had lied for the 7 years he won. Armstrong was not paid to show up for the Tour. He did ask for Clerc to be fired , which he was.

Could point to links from some news sources that show the UCI's ineptitude and corruption? This is the first that I have heard of this.

The UCI for years has said there was not an issue with doping in the sport. They ignored the issue for decades and pretended that every new positive was an aberration. It was the UCI's refusal to address the issue that led to the formation of WADA.

Shortly after Armstrong's positive for Cortisone, that the UCI let him off on, Armstrong "Donated" $500,000 to the UCI. Sylvia Schenk, ex-President of the Bund Deutsche Radfahrer, member of the UCI management committee and the UCI Ethics Commission has been quoted many times saying that Armstrong gets special treatment from the UCI

"But everything is suddenly different when it comes to Armstrong...There is obviously a close relationship to Armstrong. For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep15news3

All of this has been covered over and over here. I would suggest reading some of the various threads on these topics that are on this forum.

 

[gregod]

Don't get me started on the UCI and their ineptitude!

I have heard all of these arguments before and agree that they are all reasonable questions to ask. I am not sure they indicate ineptitude as much as they show caution.

I admit my perspective is predjudiced by both the fact that I have been subject to testing and performed (medical) testing. I have never smoked, drunk alcohol or taken any drugs, but have had to obsess about everything that I put into my mouth. This meant foregoing cold medicine, headache medicine, allergy medicine and treatment for bee stings.

 

[Race Radio]

I have heard all of these arguments before and agree that they are all reasonable questions to ask. I am not sure they indicate ineptitude as much as they show caution.

Please explain the caution of Verbruggen saying

it’s simple. If they accept to watch a Tour de France at 25km an hour, the riders wouldn’t need all that. But because the fans absolutely require the Tour to run at 42km an hour, the riders have to prepare for it.’

This is not caution, this is enabling.

 

[Digger]

Good points. Anyone who disagrees with them is regarded as a troll or a sock puppet of someone else who is a troll. It's ironic since RaceRadio has admitted to being banned from the RBR forum for trolling, and used to have another account on this channel where he pretended to be a woman. TFF can't stop insulting and stalking people. They're the biggest couple of trolls in the history of the internet.

You're totally right about the science thing. Elapid keeps repeating that it is not physiologically possible for your crit to go up during the tour, when he knows even Wiggins crit went up on the rest day and the blood scientist says it can happen without doping. Nothing happened for the first couple of weeks in the ToF - no attacks in the GC - so it was an usual tour. That can''t be factored in for a second or anything else.

But the best issue to get them on is not the straw man of doping that they are obsessed with, but rather why Armstrong suddenly became a great tour rider post cancer if he was already doping before that time. They have absolutely no credible answers for this, as East Sycamore has pointd out. Plus they can't tell us why the new phenomenon of EPO in the tours in the early 90s didn't stop Armstrong himself from shinning earlier. They say it held back a lot of other young riders at that point, but not Armstrong. Go figure.

It short its a bloody mess and you can't trust them for a second. Right, I'm out on a ride...

That's a lie...An absolute lie.
I was there. I know what happened.
And not once did anyone ever say he was banned for trolling. Not once. Until you now.

 

[Digger]

You'll forgive me if I don't treat you as a reliable historian, but why do you think he was banned then?

Well you didn't even know that website existed.
Did he EVER say he was banned for trolling? Ever?

 

[Anonymous]

That's a lie...An absolute lie.
I was there. I know what happened.
And not once did anyone ever say he was banned for trolling. Not once. Until you now.

BPC is hijacking... again. Keep responding to him and this thread is down the toilet.

 

[Digger]

Of course he didn't say he was banned for trolling, obviously, just that he was banned, but obviously the RBR mods thought he was.

Three posts earlier you said this:
"It's ironic since RaceRadio has admitted to being banned from the RBR forum for trolling"

 

[Race Radio]

That's a lie...An absolute lie.
I was there. I know what happened.
And not once did anyone ever say he was banned for trolling. Not once. Until you now.

It is appears the BPC is getting desperate for attention and has increased his lying. He will likely increase this in the coming days as his frustration builds with nobody paying attention to him or his sockpuppets. He will just bring up the same topics again and again, even though they have been proven wrong again and again.

The poor troll is running out of ideas.

 

[Digger]

The problem is people keep refering to me in their posts and accusing others of being me, so its only right that I respond.

However you're right, if people want to see what I have written about this topic they can check out the rest of my posts on this thread. No need for me to add anything further.

Your level of knowledge of the whole sport could've been summarised in one sentence - not to mention a whole thread.

 

[gregod]

Anyone who disagrees with them is regarded as a troll or a sock puppet of someone else who is a troll.

Let's stick to what is said in this thread. IMO pointing out trolling is almost as bad as trolling.

You're totally right about the science thing. Elapid keeps repeating that it is not physiologically possible for your crit to go up during the tour

Lance and others were tested quite frequently during the tour. It strains credulity to think how could they have gotten away with doping during the tour.

But the best issue to get them on is not the straw man of doping that they are obsessed with, but rather why Armstrong suddenly became a great tour rider post cancer if he was already doping before that time. They have absolutely no credible answers for this

On topic. Cool. One way might be that he used steroids pre-cancer and EPO and different training post-cancer. This very rough speculation, though.

 

[Race Radio]

Lance and others were tested quite frequently during the tour. It strains credulity to think how could they have gotten away with doping during the tour.

Please tell us how you test for Transfusions.

 

[Digger]

Let's stick to what is said in this thread. IMO pointing out trolling is almost as bad as trolling.



Lance and others were tested quite frequently during the tour. It strains credulity to think how could they have gotten away with doping during the tour.


On topic. Cool. One way might be that he used steroids pre-cancer and EPO and different training post-cancer. This very rough speculation, though.

From Olympic sprinter Dwain Chambers.
Not exactly rocket science to beat testing. He tested negative this time and many many other times, until a rival coach tipped off the authorities, not because he wanted a clean sport, but because his athletes were being beaten.

In April, I had pumped THG, EPO and a growth hormone into my body 17 times. I was s******g myself.

I was on the lot, knocking them back almost every day: THG, EPO and HGH, then stocking up with insulin and Liothyronine.
HGH changed my body shape, improving muscle definition and reducing body fat, but it is not the wonder drug it is made out to be. I can see it being used in other athletes and I know who they are.
EPO causes the blood to thicken, so I was given iron, vitamin E, folic acid, selenium, vitamin C, B1, B2, B6 and B12 to counteract the possibilities of it clotting.

was sat at home massaging The Cream, which is the drugs masking agent, into my arms when the knock on the door came.

The Cream leaves a white residue, taking about an hour to disappear and smells a little bit like burnt almonds. I don’t remember a feeling of panic as I calmly walked to the door, but the residue on my arms was clearly visible as I was wearing a sleeveless vest top.
I opened the door and an official-looking man spoke His words chilled me to the bone. We walked into the lounge; the tube of THG lay on top of the television and the faint smell of almonds permeated the air.
He was a dour man, not too talkative and he did not leave my side until I had peed into his canister.

Victor had warned me about this first test. I thought I was ready. I thought I could be cool. Instead, I was sweating like a bull.
Eventually, I handed it over to him and stared at the canister like it was some radioactive substance.

He noticed my reaction and said: ‘Don’t worry, son, it’s only a little urine.’
The moment he left, I called Victor. ‘I’ve been tested,’ I blurted into the phone. I was on the point of tears.
‘I was rubbing The Cream in when he came to the door, it was on my fingers and could . . .’
Victor cut me off mid-sentence, relaxed me, told me it would be OK. I admitted I was taking THG and EPO and there was an uncomfortable silence at the end of the phone.
We checked dates and he said: ‘Dwain, you have been following the calendar day by day, haven’t you?’ I had.
I began breathing normally again. He berated me for answering the door to the tester and I apologised.

I had taken EPO nine times that month and yet opened the door to someone I had never seen before. That was stupid. There is an easy way around the system and one that is fool proof.
Quite simply, you hide.

 

[gregod]

Please tell us how you test for Transfusions.

You are right. I forgot about autologous blood transfusions.

What kind of access do the doping inspectors have to the riders' rooms and team staff and equipment? Can they look for blood bags before or after they are used?