Why LA is not a doper (seriously)

[gree0232]

The most popular accussations debunked ....

There is a lot of talk about the 'science' of doping and anti-doping in here that is quite good, but my read on the situation has always been on how you go about settling a great dispute. The various manners about how Lance could have doped are pure speculation. Interesting though they may be, they aren’t purely relevant unless they lead to a testable thesis that helps to confirm or deny the main point. In effect, this issue is a zero sum question, either Lance doped or he did not. There is no middle ground on that question.

When answering that question, one must go with the preponderance of the evidence in the case presented, and given the sheer length of time and number of claims investigated it is safe to say that the preponderance of the evidence does point more convincingly one way or the other.

There is quite a bit to take in the entirety, but the four most commonly heard accusations are fairly standard and, I believe, reveal the preponderance of the facts that matter regarding Lance’s alleged doping. In no particular order, here are the most serious doping issues that Lance has been, and continues to be, accused of.

1. 1999 Tour: Lance's test shows traces of a corticosteroid, though the issue is not considered a positive test. A TUE is issued for the treatment of a saddle sore. However, the public uproar the year after the Festina Scandal coupled with huge time gaps that opened up in large part due to an accident involving GC contenders on the Passage du Gois, lead the UCI to publically exonerate Lance of any wrong doing.

To date no sanction or evidence of systemic doping with corticosteroids has been produced.

http://velonews.com/article/8740

The preponderance supports Lance.

2. 1999 Tour: Armstrong's test apparently come back positive for EPO in samples analyzed only as part of a research program for the detection of EPO. Interestingly enough, there is never a formal accusation, just a four page article in L’Equip about the alleged doping, further confusing the issue about what Lance is and is not alleged to have done.

http://velonews.com/article/8740

The back and forth continues and an independent investigation is ordered by the UCI. The final findings of the case are summed up as, “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.” An interesting note aside, and given the origins of the issue, both the UCI and WADA blasted Mr. Vrijman for making the results of the inquiry public.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5033672.stm

The report itself finds several specific faults with the procedures, but the ones that I find to be particularly relevant are as follows:

“There is some evidence that naturally-occurring (“endogenous”) EPO can undergo changes in storage that cause it to test positive for synthetic (“exogenous”) EPO, also called r-EPO (section 4.54, page 90). As a result, since 2005, labs have been required to perform an additional stability test on any EPO sample. There's no documentation suggesting that test was done on the Tour de France samples from '98 and '99.”

“WADA further spent six months twisting the lab's arm, until they finally provided the results with “additional information;” specifically the code numbers, which could be tied back to the rider through the doping control sheets.”

“The World Anti-Doping Agency has claimed a number of times that the samples were tested as part of a study intended to better calibrate the EPO test. That study has not been published.”

“The report suggests very strongly that WADA chose to [disregard] its own WADA Code (PDF link) in order to plant suspicion that Lance Armstrong doped. It did this even with the foreknowledge that the “evidence” thus generated rose barely above the level of innuendo, and couldn't be used as evidence in a real doping inquiry. That's pretty much the definition of a smear campaign.”
http://www.tdfblog.com/2006/06/thoughts_on_the.html

“Despite the recognition of the proper jurisdiction of the independent investigator by all individuals and organizations that were contacted, the French Ministry, the LNDD and WADA, all refused to provide the investigator with the documents and full cooperation necessary to reach definite conclusions on certain issues that remain unresolved.”

http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf

The report ends with a clear recommendation on the way forward regarding the issue, “In addition, a tribunal with authority needs to be convened, to provide a fair hearing to the individuals and organizations involved in the misconduct discussed in this report.”

http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf

WADA, under Pound’s leadership, finds the report to be utterly without worth, and demands that the independent committee investigate to get to the bottom. To date WADA also refuses to cooperate in any manner that would lead to a tribunal that could find the definitive answers and sanction the parties involved in unethical behavior regarding this issue. In sharp contrast, Lance Armstrong sent a note demanding that the IOC carry out just such actions and demanding that Mr. Pound be punished for the behavior exposed in the report.

http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-3-9-14736-1,00.html and for **** Pound’s version, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/06/02/sports/s145721D00.DTL&type=printable

To be fair, there is also a healthy dose of ego driven politics between **** Pound, whose connections within IOC allowed WADA to be created in the first place (which does not mean he ran it particularly ethically while leading it), and one Mr. Verbruggen then president of the UCI (which does not mean he ran it particularly well while he was leading it). However, the two were also involved in a heated and semi-public debate regarding doping in cycling, and neither was above using political connections to discredit the other.

The extent to which these connections were being used is probably one reason why the tribunal regarding this incident has never been convened. However, that both sides had a vested interest in using Lance and his alleged doping as a political football to try and discredit the other does tend to exonerate Lance from doping in such an unusual doping accusation.

My final read on this one, was that the EPO story was less about Lance than it was about a political battle between two very powerful and very proud men within the IOC.

The preponderance of the evidence supports Lance.

3. SCA Sports accused Lance Armstrong of doping and attempted to reclaim a promised $5 million bonus. The part that gets the most focus is the claim by Betsy and Frankie Andreu during a deposition that Armstrong had admitted using performance-enhancing drugs to his physician just after brain surgery in 1996. However, the eight, yes eight, other people present for this incident directly contradict this statement including Lance’s Doctor, Craig Nichols, and is further supported by 280 pages of Lance’s medical history.
http://velonews.com/article/10088

Lance himself speculates that Betsy Andreau may have been confused by possible mention of his post-operative treatment which included steroids and EPO that are taken to counteract wasting and red-blood-cell-destroying effects of intensive chemotherapy.
http://velonews.com/article/10091

In the end, the $5 million case is settled for $7.5 million to cover the lawyer’s fees and interest associated with the case. Mrs. Andreau may be a very good witness, but the fact that eight other people disagree with her assessment under oath, including the treating physician whose Hippocratic oath would preclude such an omission and whose conduct would have required him to alter key portions of a patients medical record then undergoing extensive treatment for cancer strongly suggest that she was at best mistaken in her analysis.

The preponderance of the evidence supports Lance.

4. The final one is Mr. Walsh’s book LA: Confidential. To date, there has not been an extensive investigation of the accusations before a legal body with sanctioning or decision making influence. Such an opportunity could arise except that publication of the book has been blocked in English pending almost certain litigation regarding from Armstrong regarding libel. To date, no publishing company or group has found the venture worthy enough to publish the book and take the results of the book before a judicial body to test the thesis of Armstrong’s doping.

Various bits do exist in English and French (And my French is not so good that I could comprehend the entire book in its original), but too date, no one has brought these allegation before a sanctioning body for full investigation. Certainly, SCA could have brought these allegations forward in its own case against Lance, and that they chose not to is telling. At this time, Mr. Walsh’s book remains purely speculative, and there have been no attempts to move the book into a realm where they would become something more tangible in terms of an actual anti-doping violation.

The preponderance of the evidence supports Lance.

There are of course other incidents, but most are infrequently mentioned and/or are based in hearsay or have some other problem that all but precludes the possibility that they will ever reach any sanctioning authority, be that civil, criminal, or regulatory. For example, the fact that Roberto Heras, Floyd Landis, and a few other riders who once rode for Lance subsequently tested positive while riding for different teams does not equate to an anti-doping violation on Lance’s part.

In the end, after ten years, no has been able to prove Lance Armstrong has doped, and the preponderance of the available evidence strongly suggests that he has not doped.

 

[Eva Maria]

The preponderance of the evidence supports Lance.

.

How much is Public Strategies paying you to write this drivel?

 

[gree0232]

How much is Public Strategies paying you to write this drivel?

Yes, yes, Lance is actually here holding a gun to my head right now, and his father Neil is mating with an alien on his faked moon landing stage in the other room.

 

[Eva Maria]

1. 1999 Tour: Lance's test shows traces of a corticosteroid, though the issue is not considered a positive test. A TUE is issued for the treatment of a saddle sore. However, the public uproar the year after the Festina Scandal coupled with huge time gaps that opened up in large part due to an accident involving GC contenders on the Passage du Gois, lead the UCI to publically exonerate Lance of any wrong doing.

The preponderance supports Lance.

Wrong. After they were given the news of the positive test Armstrong, The Hog the team doctor, and Emma O'Rielly were in a room discussing what to do. According to Emma the decision was to invent a back dated TUE, despite Armstrong's multiple claims to journalists that he had never had a TUE. After the meeting Armstrong turned to Emma and said "You now have enough to bring me down"

2. 1999 Tour: Armstrong's test apparently come back positive for EPO in samples analyzed only as part of a research program for the detection of EPO. Interestingly enough, there is never a formal accusation, just a four page article in L’Equip about the alleged doping, further confusing the issue about what Lance is and is not alleged to have done.

The preponderance of the evidence supports Lance.

Wrong. The perponderance of the evidence says Armstrong used EPO. Ashenden, Parisotto, and the ASO all say he did. Please dispute Ashenden's views
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

3. SCA Sports accused Lance Armstrong of doping and attempted to reclaim a promised $5 million bonus. The part that gets the most focus is the claim by Betsy and Frankie Andreu during a deposition that Armstrong had admitted using performance-enhancing drugs to his physician just after brain surgery in 1996. However, the eight, yes eight, other people present for this incident directly contradict this statement including Lance’s Doctor, Craig Nichols, and is further supported by 280 pages of Lance’s medical history.
http://velonews.com/article/10088

Lance himself speculates that Betsy Andreau may have been confused by possible mention of his post-operative treatment which included steroids and EPO that are taken to counteract wasting and red-blood-cell-destroying effects of intensive chemotherapy.

The preponderance of the evidence supports Lance.

Wrong (Again) 8 people did not say that
Nichols was not Armstrong's Doctor at the time of his admission. Armstrong's Manager and stephanie Mcelvaine are both on tape admitting the hospital incident did happen and they heard Armstrong's admission. Betsy is very clear on what she heard, she is not mistaken

4. The final one is Mr. Walsh’s book LA: Confidential. To date, there has not been an extensive investigation of the accusations before a legal body with sanctioning or decision making influence. Such an opportunity could arise except that publication of the book has been blocked in English pending almost certain litigation regarding from Armstrong regarding libel. To date, no publishing company or group has found the venture worthy enough to publish the book and take the results of the book before a judicial body to test the thesis of Armstrong’s doping.


The preponderance of the evidence supports Lance.
.

The book "From Lance to Landis" was published in English in the US. It contains the same essentially information as LA confidential. Armstrong never filed a liable suit and was never successful in any of his LA confidential legal actions. I have a copy of LA confidential in English, if you would like to read it

You forget to mention the dumping of Actovign by team staff, Mike Anderson finding PED in Armstrong's apartment, his Hct of 46.7 in Ferrari's files, His use of the top doping doctor in the sport....and many other incriminating information that supports that Armstrong doped.

 

[Eva Maria]

Yes, yes, Lance is actually here holding a gun to my head right now, and his father Neil is mating with an alien on his faked moon landing stage in the other room.

At least you have a good explanation as I would not expect a person to embarrass themselves like that voluntarily.

 

[gree0232]

Wrong. After they were given the news of the positive test Armstrong, The Hog the team doctor, and Emma O'Rielly were in a room discussing what to do. According to Emma the decision was to invent a back dated TUE, despite Armstrong's multiple claims to journalists that he had never had a TUE. After the meeting Armstrong turned to Emma and said "You now have enough to bring me down"


Wrong. The perponderance of the evidence says Armstrong used EPO. Ashenden, Parisotto, and the ASO all say he did. Please dispute Ashenden's views
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden


Wrong (Again) 8 people did not say that
Nichols was not Armstrong's Doctor at the time of his admission. Armstrong's Manager and stephanie Mcelvaine are both on tape admitting the hospital incident did happen and they heard Armstrong's admission. Betsy is very clear on what she heard, she is not mistaken


The book "From Lance to Landis" was published in English in the US. It contains the same essentially information as LA confidential. Armstrong never filed a liable suit and was never successful in any of his LA confidential legal actions. I have a copy of LA confidential in English, if you would like to read it

You forget to mention the dumping of Actovign by team staff, Mike Anderson finding PED in Armstrong's apartment, his Hct of 46.7 in Ferrari's files, His use of the top doping doctor in the sport....and many other incriminating information that supports that Armstrong doped.

Eva, maybe you didn't read what I wrote? None of the sources you have listed, which are few indeed, are bodies capable of issuing a sanction of any kind. For example, ASO has no power to sanction anyone.

ASO has a very strong anti-doping stance, and yet for some reason, they allowed him to race this year? A man they have 'convicted of doping? Seriously?

Mike Anderson's accussation isnit supported by any evidence, it is called hearsay and falls into that catageory listed where it will never be taken before any kind of sanctioning authority. It is a non-starter.

Again, you heard how Lance wanted the Confederate Flag to be on the Texas State flag? (That is right Darth Armstrong is pure Evil). He actually travelled back in time, on a time machine barrowed from his father Neil's alien girlfriend no less, and linked up with John Wilkes Booth and helped stage the assassination of Lincoln in the hopes that this would induce enough change that the confederate flag would remain on the Texas State Flag. This obviously failed, but Neil's alien girlfriend Rhonda found out that Lance had stolen her time machine and moved it safely out of reach to one of Jupiter's moons so that Lance cannot go back and undo the damage his actions have caused.

That too is an accusation, hearsay if you will. Will this obviously criminal activity result in a criminal trial regarding Lance's alleged conduct?

Printing rumors does not equate to an anti-doping violation. And in a politically driven envronent involving WADA, Various sports Ministeries, the UCI, and the IOC, you can bet there are a fair amount of rumors circulating at any given time. Shall we follow each one with criminal procedures?

If you don;t believe me, then please explain to my why Hamilton's eight year ban is being appealled to CAS to change it to a lifetime ban? By the time Hamilton's eight year ban ends, he will obviously not be competing again. Might it have something to do with the fact that Hamilton actually stood up to them? Might there be some genuine pettiness behind the egos driving that decision from the safety of unexlpained anonimity?

Please bear in mind, the guy that accussed Roger Clemens of doping produced syringes and bloody tissues to back up his words. No such luck with any of the Lance accussers.

And so we are equally clear, From Lance to Landis, is not LA: Confidential. Two very different books.

Also, several different sources, including Lance himself (the guy holding the gun to my head - he just confirmed it again while yelling at me to type faster and hitting me with the **** of his pistol) say that Dr. Nichols was Lance's doctor. I am not sure why that would even be debated?

NEXT!!!

 

[BroDeal]

If anyone knows a link to the English version of 'David Walsh's' book, I'd love to read it, if you don't mind posting the link.

PM me. ..............

 

[BroDeal]

Mike Anderson's accussation isnit supported by any evidence, it is called hearsay and falls into that catageory listed where it will never be taken before any kind of sanctioning authority. It is a non-starter.

If you are going to throw around words in an attempt to make you argument sound better, you might want to actually learn what the words mean so you don't look like a fool. Apparently the Armstrong talking points use the word "hearsay" to dismiss any evidence they don't like, even though the evidence is clearly not hearsay.

Anderson found steroids in Armstrong's bathroom. That is not hearsay. He helped Armstrong avoid OCC tests. That is not hearsay.

 

[gree0232]

If you are going to throw around words in an attempt to make you argument sound better, you might want to actually learn what the words mean so you don't look like a fool. Apparently the Armstrong talking points use the word "hearsay" to dismiss any evidence they don't like, even though the evidence is clearly not hearsay.

Anderson found steroids in Armstrong's bathroom. That is not hearsay. He helped Armstrong avoid OCC tests. That is not hearsay.

Well, I have gone through both sides of the arguement, and allowed the evidence to point to a conclusion. There are indeed two sides to the issue, but in the cases examined the quality of teh statements being made are not equal.

I went through and sourced the four main acccusations, even including **** Pound's statements. In short I made a case.

Your response is to insult me and lecture me about what hearsay is and is not. Let me make teh distinction before you. In three of the four cases presented, Lance's statements were taken before a court or panel and a decision was rendered. In the fourth case, Walsh has made a fairly convincing arguement, but for some reason, no one will take that accussation before a body to render a decision on its validity. Lance is certainly prepared to do so should the title be published in English.

That stands in stark contrast to Mr. Andersen's statements which are unlikely ever to see a court room. Thus, they are not only hearsay (in a legal sense this is bad because it is he said she said, 50-50 if you will, and you need 50.1% to win), they are irrelvant to an anti-doping finding involving Lance.

At least make an attempt to keep up as you blast my logic.

NEXT!!!!

 

[CrueTrue]

Let me quote someone from a different forum:

Let's see...

First there's the cancer that methastasized waaay too fast for it to be possible in anyone not taking HGH.
There's also the fact that the cancer should've been picked up much, much earlier than it was because in the early stages of testicular cancer, certain markers show up in doping tests and are so obvious they are impossible to miss.....unless you're using masking agents to conceal drug use.
In which case those markers are masked as well. In his case, they were masked.

Then there's Betsy Andreu testifying that she and Frankie Andreu (Lance's long term friend and teammate of many tours) were there in the room when Lance told his oncologist "Yes, I took corticosteroids, EPO, HGH, testosterone, cortisone(...)", but I guess she's lying, huh? After all, who wouldn't throw away her and her husband's career, friendships and basically destroy their lives just for 5 minutes of "fame" in specialized cycling media Rolling Eyes?

There's an e-mail lance sent frankie andreu in december 2003 about frankie and his wife being quizzed by David Walsh. Here's a quote: "I know Betsy is not a fan, and that's fine, but by helping to bring me down is not going to help your situation at all. There is a direct link to all of our success here and I suggest you remind her of that."

There's the team soigneur (Emma O'Reilly) that testified she found corticosteroids in Lance's luggage. Also that during a massage armstrong said "My haematocrit is 41%, way below the max allowed (50%), so I'm gonna do what everyone does"

There's the statement of the team's mechanic (Mike Anderson) that he found a box of steroids in lance's apartment.

There's lance's "misterious" millionaire "donation" for some misterious blood machine

There's Steve Swart's statement that he (swart) and all others on the team were doping.

There's the fact he chased down Simeoni for testifying in court what everyone already knew and had been proven in several cases before: that Dr. Ferrari, the italian Fuentes, (with whom armstrong has admitted time and time and time again to working with and defended ) is no more than a dope salesman. Incidentally, the list of Ferrari's clients that have tested positive is quite big.

There's the fact that he chased down Christophe Bassons, the rider who Virenque, Zülle, Moreau and the others testified was the only clean rider on the Festina team. Armstrong went up to him and flat out said "Why don't you just go away?", then proceded to yell at Bassons in detail just how his public acknowledgement of widespread doping in the peloton was bad for everyone involved and how Bassons should shut up and leave cycling.

There's the IM conversation between Lance's long time teammates Jonathan Vaughters and Frankie Andreu where they detail Postal/Discovery's doping practices in some detail.

There's the re-testing of 1999 Tour samples where Lance tested positive 6 different times for EPO, in ways in which, with the doses of EPO being as they are in each individual test, the samples being contaminated is impossible (high dosage on the morning of each important stage, lower doses in between, just as you'd expect from a normal doping regimen).
I'd like to point out that the usual blind lance fan's argument against this is the stupidest ever: "the samples were kept for 6 years before being re-tested. they were no longer proper".
First of all, clinical trials were started in 1972 by preserving samples to see for how many years they would still be reliably testable. We're in 2009 and still counting, and that's far longer than 6 years.
Second of all, even if the time for a sample to be reliable were extremely short, say for instance only 2 weeks, exogenous EPO doesn't "magically" appear in urine out of thin air.

There's Lance consistently denying that he had any TUEs to declare several times during the first two weeks of the Tour, only for his teammate Kevin Livingston to run into the room in a hurry screaming "****! they're testing us for corticosteroids!" two weeks later, at which point Armstrong coincidentally "remembered" that he had a TUE to declare after all, and...what a coincidence...a TUE for corticosteroids precisely. One that was later established was in fact a backdated prescription. Needless to say Lance tested positive. But he got away on account of having a prescription.

There's, to anyone who's familiar with the climbing performances of riders throughout the years in scientifical terms, it's painfully obvious that Lance's regular climbing power in his Tour winning years is far, faaaaaaaar beyond what is possible clean, even for the theoretically perfect athlete. I don't care that he's "a freak of nature", or that "his heart is as big as a plate" or he "produces much less lactate" or that he has only one ball and is thus more aerodynamic. All those excuses are just that....excuses. His climbing power isn't a little over what's believable in the most extreme case....it's aeons above it.

There's the fact that at the 2001 Tour, when the EPO test was new and feared by the riders, when by the admission of several now retired riders "everyone was so scared that they were riding pretty much clean", lance's (as well as everyone else's) climbing powers are light-years below their performances of other years.

There's Armstrong working for years with doctors such as Ferrari, constantly defending them, constantly stating they were not supplying riders with doping products....until it was proven they were and Lance suddenly stopped talking about them or training with them.

There's Armstrong making a living hell out of the lives of anyone who tried to come to public with evidence that he was doped, using his political leverage to make people lose their jobs (his Oakley liaison Stephanie, anyone?), credibility, race wins, contracts. heck, he flat out told Vaughters that if he gave Matt DeCanio a contract with Garmin, armstrong would have Trek withdraw sponsorship of the team.

There's countless of his teammates leaving his team, only to test positive despite their performance not increasing even a slight bit compared to when they were riding for him.

How come he's sued everyone that wrote even the slightest bit of innuendo about him, but not random house? Simple. He doesn't want to open up a can of worms. Not to mention that whenever he sues someone for saying he doped, he's NEVER let it go to court. He's always either settled or withdrawn the lawsuits.

More obviously, there's the fact that lance and his cohorts can't even get their goddamned stories straight. Their court statements are contradictory. Bill stapleton's statements even contradict himself!

There's surely more that I'm forgetting. But I guess that will do for now.

Armstrong is the face of the omerta. he's the one most concerned with upholding it, and has demonstrated it time and time and time again.

By the way, my personal favorite in all this is when Betsy Andreu was testifying in court what lance had said to his oncologists (see above), Tim Herman (lance's legal counsel) jumps up and yells "YOU MISUNDERSTOOD THEM! HE SAID HE WAS USING THAT STUFF TO FIGHT THE CANCER!"...................so how did she misunderstand the doctors if lance's entire defence is based on saying that that meeting never happened and those doctors are fictional people made up by Mrs. Andreu?

 

[Digger]

In the fourth case, Walsh has made a fairly convincing arguement, but for some reason, no one will take that accussation before a body to render a decision on its validity. Lance is certainly prepared to do so should the title be published in English.

Lance tried and failed to get From Lance to Landis from publishing. He also tried and failed to get an insertion into each copy, just inside the cover. He tried and failed a number of times in a French courtroom, and in the end had to pay over 1500 Euro for wasting the court's time.
ALL the main points from LAC are in FLTL. And yes I've read both...in fact the latter is far more revealing, simply because there was more information in the public domain at this stage.

Incidentally you talk about him being vindicated in certain cases, L'Equipe called him a liar and asked him to sue them in relation to the 99 EPO samples. Nothing by Lance...maybe the words of his manager Bill Stapleton rang true: "Because for us the best result is that this all goes away, because otherwise it goes to court and blows the whole f***ing sport apart". Bill Stapleton, with Frankie and Betsy, and Stephanie all admit the hospital room took place.

 

[keen_but_slow]

gree ... I have a question for you.

I'm assuming you're on the LAS payroll (I don't know why I keep calling him that - it just seems like a natural shortcode for him don't you think?) in some sort of legal / PR capacity. I'm not a lawyer, but I know that you have to be careful what you say on a forum, because the publisher can be pursued for libel.

This forum is littered with some pretty serious suspicions presented as fact, particularly about your client. Why has he not brought legal action? I appreciate that he's a busy man with his sporting and charity (livestrong.com is a charity, right?) commitments, and cannot be expected to rise to every stupid little story that appears on the web, but this is one of the main websites dedicated to the sport that brought him fame and riches, and which would be the foundation of a political career, should he embark on one.

Surely he could establish for once and for all that all those crushing victories were achieved clean by bringing a high-profile case against cyclingnews.com and getting everything out in the open?

For the record, I don't care whether he doped or not - he's brought more and more people into the sport and made it easier for me to get away with watching the tour on tv at work all day. I think he's a bully, and I care a lot about that which is why I can't bear the man. If you get me the opportunity, I'll tell him that to his face.


Paul.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Eva, maybe you didn't read what I wrote? None of the sources you have listed, which are few indeed, are bodies capable of issuing a sanction of any kind. For example, ASO has no power to sanction anyone.

In three of the four cases presented, Lance's statements were taken before a court or panel and a decision was rendered...

You are apparently collapsing arguments. You are saying that because no sporting body has sanctioned Lance, and no legal court has found him guilty, he what? Must be clean? That he never doped? Is that what you are saying? Is that what you really believe, and are saying we should believe?

 

[unsheath]

It's also very pertinent that Lance himself declined to have the 99 r-EPO samples retested for validity. The question is why wouldn't you retest them if given the opportunity? Doesnt seem like a man who hasnt got anything to hide. Akin to giving your DNA. If you're clean, you're hand would be up in a millisecond.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Unless you had a very good reason to not trust the system, as Lance most directly stated in the Larry King interview.

However, if Lance doesn't trust the system, why is he back racing now?

 

[Eva Maria]

Eva, maybe you didn't read what I wrote? None of the sources you have listed, which are few indeed, are bodies capable of issuing a sanction of any kind. For example, ASO has no power to sanction anyone.

ASO has a very strong anti-doping stance, and yet for some reason, they allowed him to race this year? A man they have 'convicted of doping? Seriously?

Mike Anderson's accussation isnit supported by any evidence, it is called hearsay and falls into that catageory listed where it will never be taken before any kind of sanctioning authority. It is a non-starter.

Again, you heard how Lance wanted the Confederate Flag to be on the Texas State flag? (That is right Darth Armstrong is pure Evil). He actually travelled back in time, on a time machine barrowed from his father Neil's alien girlfriend no less, and linked up with John Wilkes Booth and helped stage the assassination of Lincoln in the hopes that this would induce enough change that the confederate flag would remain on the Texas State Flag. This obviously failed, but Neil's alien girlfriend Rhonda found out that Lance had stolen her time machine and moved it safely out of reach to one of Jupiter's moons so that Lance cannot go back and undo the damage his actions have caused.

That too is an accusation, hearsay if you will. Will this obviously criminal activity result in a criminal trial regarding Lance's alleged conduct?

Printing rumors does not equate to an anti-doping violation. And in a politically driven envronent involving WADA, Various sports Ministeries, the UCI, and the IOC, you can bet there are a fair amount of rumors circulating at any given time. Shall we follow each one with criminal procedures?

If you don;t believe me, then please explain to my why Hamilton's eight year ban is being appealled to CAS to change it to a lifetime ban? By the time Hamilton's eight year ban ends, he will obviously not be competing again. Might it have something to do with the fact that Hamilton actually stood up to them? Might there be some genuine pettiness behind the egos driving that decision from the safety of unexlpained anonimity?

Please bear in mind, the guy that accussed Roger Clemens of doping produced syringes and bloody tissues to back up his words. No such luck with any of the Lance accussers.

And so we are equally clear, From Lance to Landis, is not LA: Confidential. Two very different books.

Also, several different sources, including Lance himself (the guy holding the gun to my head - he just confirmed it again while yelling at me to type faster and hitting me with the **** of his pistol) say that Dr. Nichols was Lance's doctor. I am not sure why that would even be debated?

NEXT!!!

Look, I understand....you are embarrassed. You spent all that time writing all that stuff, only to have it quickly pointed out you were wrong.

No need to embarrass yourself more by writing more babble

 

[Digger]

Unless you had a very good reason to not trust the system, as Lance most directly stated in the Larry King interview.

However, if Lance doesn't trust the system, why is he back racing now?

Yes and one year previous to the 2005 story in L'Equipe, Lance praised the lab in question for their professionalism and integrity. So they are professional when the samples are negative, but part of a conspiracy, when positive.

Also, Lance fans can't have it every way. They talk about all the tests he has passed, yet here we have a positive test, and they disregard the results so flippantly.

 

[R.0.t.O]

jeeeez... We've been here a few times before...

3 things to add: Firstly, the confusion of the legal and the moral. Legally Armstrong has not been convicted of doping and almost certainly never will be. But if part of your being a fan, a follower or an admirer or the man is related to thinking that he didn't dope, then technicalities aren't relevant. Whether tests are still legally valid a decade on is irrelevant if you're thinking about whether he is 'good' or 'bad' based on whether he doped or not. If you choose to make that moral judgment, then there is no statute of limitations or jurisdiction limit on that moral judgment. You can't get off a moral judgment on a technicality.

Leading on from that, I'm not sure why Armstrong fans seem to find it so difficult to say that he doped. His is still an amazing story. He still beat all the other best riders who were on massive medical programmes. In the confines of a mature and informed group of cycling followers it takes nothing away from his achievements to acknowledge that he also used a huge medical programme.

And finally: if you really don't think that Armstrong doped, then consider the layers of plausibility that are behind his story. It's full of unlikely things, some related to doping and some not, some more likely than others. Stop and think about the list, from the amazing return to pro sport after cancer to another amazing return to be competitive at age 37. There's a whole list of things which all seemed incredible at the time... stop and think whether your credibility really stretches to the idea that, as well as all those incredible triumphs against the odds, he was also the only top-level Tour contender not to have been on a big programme.

 

[Roninho]

About 6-7 years ago i thought LA didn't dope, mostly because i couldn't see someone who survived cancer to dope (again?).

However, 10 years after his first win one can look back at the top contenders. Here is a list of all the riders that finished top 5 in the TDF in the years that Armstrong won the TDF. Next to their names i've added if they were caught for doping or involved in operacion puerto.

Zulle - admitted Epo use
Escartin - X
Duffaux - admitted Epo use
Casero - Operacion Puerto
Ullrich - Operacion Puerto
Beloki - Operacion Puerto
Moreau - admitted Epo use
Heras - Blood doping
Kivilev - X
Gonzalez de Galdeano - Salbutamol
Rumsas - Epo
Botero - Operacion Puerto
Vinokuorov - Blood doping
Hamilton - Blood doping
Zubeldia - X
Kloden - X
Basso - Admitted involvement in Operacion Puerto
Azevedo - X
Mancebo - Operacion Puerto

Of this list one could question Escartin (riding for Kelme which according to former kelme-rider Manzano had an organized doping regime), Kivilev (riding for Cofidis which according to former cofidis-rider Gaumont had an organized doping regime) and Kloden (being accused by former teammate sinkewitz).

That leaves Zubeldia & Azevedo without doping implications.

For me it seems very unlikely that LA comes back from cancer, wins 7 tours, riding circles around everyone in all except 03, while all these riders doped and he didn't.

 

[Cloxxki]

When is anyone going to realize that there is more to be done that train and dope. There's a whole world of nutrition additives which can really give an additional edge, even to reigning world champs. I know, first hand, what some super champion are trying, and won't go without after having tried. 100% legal additives which they'd gladly show to any doping tester, as long as they don't tell the competition. This stuff will never make it to "the list", because it's harmless, and to some extent part of a regular diet anyway.

If I am to return to competitive sports, I will be sure to have THE best pharmaceutical knowledge backing me, suggesting me only WADA-legal additives, in any dosage. You can raise your testosterone, albeit less than with the illegal stuff, significantly, if you get informed.

Realize this : some professionals make sure to be well informed. Some, think that is too complicated, and refer to the front page of l'Equippe for their medical shopping list.

Lance, in his books, made clear how he struggled to learn all he had to know (being everything) about his illness, to get what he needed from his docs. To get treatment that wouldn't render him a lungless weakling, should he happen to survive. He probably also realized that talent and hard training doesn't bring the VERY best of your potential. Being informed is just as important, if you're a top-10 candidate with winning ambitions.

Me, I'll take my chances using various legal additives over one illegal one, any day. With EPO, etc, you'll get a greater boost, surely, but one you'll hardly dare to use, knowing the winner gets tested.

BTW, really, Kohl got tested 200 times? By whom? Was he targeted so severely? If true, it just shows that they know who to test.

 

[boalio]

When is anyone going to realize that there is more to be done that train and dope. There's a whole world of nutrition additives which can really give an additional edge, even to reigning world champs. I know, first hand, what some super champion are trying, and won't go without after having tried. 100% legal additives which they'd gladly show to any doping tester, as long as they don't tell the competition. This stuff will never make it to "the list", because it's harmless, and to some extent part of a regular diet anyway.

For example?

Can you show me an example of just one legal nutritional supplement that has an effect that is even close to that of EPO or blood doping and at least one peer reviewed scientific study showing it. I hate to be harsh but I think you are living in a dream world.

If there are these supplements then why are they more closely guarded secrets than illegal doping. Would an ex-pro be willing to admit to doping and not to using a legal nutritional product? Why would someone like Lance attribute his performance improvements to preposterous things like high-cadence and saddle height changes if it was just a nutritional supplement?

Keep in mind that many people on this forum are, or have, raced at a pro level, so this isn't a bunch fat guys hypothesising for 3 weeks a year. There are also quite a few people with a very high level of medical knowledge.

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

Leading on from that, I'm not sure why Armstrong fans seem to find it so difficult to say that he doped. His is still an amazing story. He still beat all the other best riders who were on massive medical programmes. In the confines of a mature and informed group of cycling followers it takes nothing away from his achievements to acknowledge that he also used a huge medical programme.

Can't do, because we all know that doping is uneven, in its results or the access to drugs. We all know "they all dope, so it doesn't change anything except the speed" is not true. Admitting to that means that you cast into jeopardy all his achievements.

You would also admit he is a liar, a massive one as he was adamant and very talkative on this issue.

Armstrong himself will never admit. He is now cornered on the matter. It would shatter his image, it would taint his caritative effort, and I believe he would be lynched in the US media, to the extent he was idealized. I don't like the guy, but if I was in his shoes I reckon I would probably play the comedy to the bitter end. Then again with his comeback, he is taking a lot of risks.

I guess I could be labeled as being part of the "Armstrong express-hate-train", since the 2000 Hautacam climb. I agree he probably did a lot of harm on the anti-doping issues and to the sport. However, if we believe the riders are partly victims of the system, we should grant him the same pity. He probably engaged in doping for the same reason than most riders: it was being clean or being competitive.

 

[R.0.t.O]

Can't do, because we all know that doping is uneven, in its results or the access to drugs. We all know "they all dope, so it doesn't change anything except the speed" is not true. Admitting to that means that you cast into jeopardy all his achievements.

You would also admit he is a liar, a massive one as he was adamant and very talkative on this issue.

Armstrong himself will never admit. He is now cornered on the matter. It would shatter his image, it would taint his caritative effort, and I believe he would be lynched in the US media, to the extent he was idealized. I don't like the guy, but if I was in his shoes I reckon I would probably play the comedy to the bitter end. Then again with his comeback, he is taking a lot of risks.

I guess I could be labeled as being part of the "Armstrong express-hate-train", since the 2000 Hautacam climb. I agree he probably did a lot of harm on the anti-doping issues and to the sport. However, if we believe the riders are partly victims of the system, we should grant him the same pity. He probably engaged in doping for the same reason than most riders: it was being clean or being competitive.

For sure. But what I mean is: here, amongst an informed cycling community that accepts that drugs use is prevalent, even if we're not happy about it, why be in denial? We also accept that riders will lie about doping because they have to; because the 'outside world' will never accept the reality of pro sport. To non-cycling people sometimes I will say that 'I don't know' whether Armstrong dopes, because I know they're not sophisticated enough in the operation of the sport to understand that doping is normal; but I'm not going to be in denial amongst knowledgeable people.

Doping doesn't produce a level playing field of course, but many other things also change the playing field (and the playing field was never level to start with) - you don't win without the right genetics. Drugs are a part of the sport in the same way as the mountains are. To say a win is less valid because the winner is a hyper-responder is like saying that a win is less valid because the rider is naturally very lightly built so has an advantage on the uphills.

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

R.0.t.O, we're now headed for another discussion about doping.

I think the answer to your question might lie in your most recent message. I am not trying to be condescendant, it's just that a lot of Armstrong fans are maybe not really cycling fans (casual or not), hence why they will not admit.

 

[gree0232]

About 6-7 years ago i thought LA didn't dope, mostly because i couldn't see someone who survived cancer to dope (again?).

However, 10 years after his first win one can look back at the top contenders. Here is a list of all the riders that finished top 5 in the TDF in the years that Armstrong won the TDF. Next to their names i've added if they were caught for doping or involved in operacion puerto.

Zulle - admitted Epo use
Escartin - X
Duffaux - admitted Epo use
Casero - Operacion Puerto
Ullrich - Operacion Puerto
Beloki - Operacion Puerto
Moreau - admitted Epo use
Heras - Blood doping
Kivilev - X
Gonzalez de Galdeano - Salbutamol
Rumsas - Epo
Botero - Operacion Puerto
Vinokuorov - Blood doping
Hamilton - Blood doping
Zubeldia - X
Kloden - X
Basso - Admitted involvement in Operacion Puerto
Azevedo - X
Mancebo - Operacion Puerto

Of this list one could question Escartin (riding for Kelme which according to former kelme-rider Manzano had an organized doping regime), Kivilev (riding for Cofidis which according to former cofidis-rider Gaumont had an organized doping regime) and Kloden (being accused by former teammate sinkewitz).

That leaves Zubeldia & Azevedo without doping implications.

For me it seems very unlikely that LA comes back from cancer, wins 7 tours, riding circles around everyone in all except 03, while all these riders doped and he didn't.

The fact of the matter is that lots of riders having doped does not mean that Lance doped. It certainly raises suspicions, but it should also lead to a testable method that can answer what is essentially a aero sum question. Either Lance did, or he did not. It cannot be both ways.

Let me give you just one name in response: Erik Zabel.

He admitted, tearfully, to using EPO 1995. He claims, and I believe him, that he did not use performance enhancing drugs thereafter. In fact, if he had claimed that he stopped using them in 2000 right on the cusp of where he could have been sanctioned for it, I would have been far more suspicious.

Somehow, Zabel won his first green jersey in 1996. He won Milan-San Remo and Paris-Tour a combined seven times without using performance enhancing drugs at a time when, apparently, nearly all his opponents were dopped to the hilt.

Apparently, we must tarnish nearly all of Erik Zabel's accomplishments as almost all of them were achieved after his experiment with EPO. He simply could not have beaten the other riders without the continued benefits of using EPO and other drugs. There is simply NO WAY that it is possible.

Except that, Zabel apparently did it. Clean.

Interestingly enough, I saw an interview a few years back where a Festina rider was discussing both the performance effects and, more importantly, the psychological effects of performance enhancing drug use. The initial benefits were quite clear, but at some point the drugs became a crutch and belief that no results could be achieved without them forced dependancy. Over time that dependancy lead to loss of work ethic, and a fear that the wrong drug combination rather than lack of training would equate to bad results.

Can someone really definitively draw the line at the point where drugs, psychology, and pysiology is drawn in a general sense, much less on an individual basis? I certainly cannot, and I doubt that experts in, even in all three disciplines, would have a tough time drawing that line for an individual, much less for a general population.

Drugs alone cannot turn you into a grand tour winner, nor indeed can they keep you there for a sustained period of time alone. The steady deterioration of Ullrich is a case in point.

That many, many riders were doped in and of itself does not equate to guilt of doping to any one single rider in the peloton. The only way that such mass guilt can be addressed is through mass punishment. The entire peloton from the period of rampant drug use would have to found to have collectively violated the anti-doping rules, and they would all have to serve a two year ban.

At that point, we could then say, officially, in that zero sum question that Lance Armstrong was a doper.

I don't think that is going to happen though.