Lance Armstrong and doping

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Palfrem

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,965
Location
Solihull, near Birmingham
Car
W124 E36 AMG, G 300 GEL his, SLK 200 hers
BBC Sport - Lance Armstrong: Usada report labels him 'a serial cheat'

Does anyone understand this please?

In the light of what appears to be somepretty solid evidence from a respected testing body Mr Armstrong still protests his innocence.

He's been stripped of his titles by TdF and his team mates have sided with the testers.

Can anyone explain why he feels hard done by?

..and my second question - who gets the Tour de France winners medals now?
 
its even more amazing if you read the US anti-doping paper where they include detailed testimonials from his former team mates...

The PDF is on espn

amazing reading, and I can see he why didn't contest the charges
 
Whilst all the witness statements point to his guilt I think an explanation is needed to explain how he "passed" the 100's of drug tests he has taken. I don't believe him or his sport are the only exponents of this trick if there is indeed one.

The TDF of which he may be stripped will be awarded to the next highest finisher
 
I think this known as the Richard Nixon gambit. When faced with incontrovertible proof that you have done wrong just keep denying it and hope it will " go away" What else can you do except own up. :rolleyes: la la la la not listening la la la la la still not listening etc. etc.
 
All of this just smacks to me of McCarthyism and politics. I don't see a high percentage of truth and good intention here.
 
Whilst all the witness statements point to his guilt I think an explanation is needed to explain how he "passed" the 100's of drug tests he has taken. I don't believe him or his sport are the only exponents of this trick if there is indeed one.

The TDF of which he may be stripped will be awarded to the next highest finisher


This does seem somewhat ridiculous that he can pass all the tests and was/is quoted as being the most tested athlete in sport.

How did he (and his team) manage it?
 
Any one who follows cycling (as i do) has known he is guilty as sin for years. Not having tested positive is irrelevant because the whole set up he operated under was geared up to one aim, and that was not failing a test.

Anyone who has followed his career will also know that he is a nasty vindictive individual who has made life hell for those who have crossed him.

There is no political angle here, the big issue is why the UCI didnt nail him, and hopefully this report will lead to change in an organisation that is renowned for vested interests and incompetence.
 
This does seem somewhat ridiculous that he can pass all the tests and was/is quoted as being the most tested athlete in sport.

How did he (and his team) manage it?
What I've read so far implies that his team knew when drug testing was due to be carried out and thus presumably stopped taking EPO for a period beforehand so as to avoid detection. What I haven't seen is anything about how long evidence of EPO remains in the bloodstream, nor how long its "positive" effects last. All TdF winners and stage winners are always tested immediately after each day's racing, so how come Armstrong was still able to perform at enhanced levels when his successes lead to more testing?

It's also curious how apparently all his team members knew about the drugs and were also taking them, apparently under duress. It's funny how they're all puportedly so moral now and "owning up", when they were seemingly prepared to participate whilst in the team. There are lots of other cycling teams they could have moved to if they didn't like the regime that they say was in place. Or was the Mafia involved and threatening to put horses heads in any rider's bed who didn't comply?

Cynics will no doubt already be saying that Armstrong either contracted cancer as a result of long-term drug use, or that he didn't have it at all. They'll say that it was either part of the alleged sophisticated doping programme to deflect attention from what was happening, or that it was just a ruse to gain more publicity (and hence more sponsorship money) for Armstrong and his team.

It's all beginning to sound like a Jeffrey Archer novel to me. I wonder if we'll ever know the truth. It's a shame that we're already presuming his guilt because he's said to have chosen not to spend millions defending himself. But for that very same reason there's no way we can ever know what really happened. It's even more of a shame that the sport of cycling will once again be damaged by reports of drug abuse.
 
Any one who follows cycling (as i do) has known he is guilty as sin for years. Not having tested positive is irrelevant because the whole set up he operated under was geared up to one aim, and that was not failing a test.

Anyone who has followed his career will also know that he is a nasty vindictive individual who has made life hell for those who have crossed him.

There is no political angle here, the big issue is why the UCI didnt nail him, and hopefully this report will lead to change in an organisation that is renowned for vested interests and incompetence.
I've participated in (at a very low level) but mainly followed cycle racing for nearly 50 years. I don't share that view. Of course I've read many of the reports on which you've based your views. But lots of them don't sit well when compared to the camaraderie shown to Armstrong by his team members and other competitors, particularly evident during the laps of Paris on the last day of each of his seven victories. Or is the implication that cyclists are not only drug takers, but also great actors?

I prefer to retain an open mind on this one, as opposed to hurling stones without indisputable evidence.
 
Weren't all of the others cheating too, this doesn't justify it but it does explain why he would do it and why his team and team mates were also wrapped up in it. Notwithstanding the cheating anyone who does well in the TDF has my utmost respect as its the toughest sporting event in world sport
 
There are two problems with the whole saga for me:

1. An FBI-led Grand Jury investigation could not find sufficient evidence to convict Armstrong or any of his team-mates.

2. Each of those who gave evidence to USADA were guaranteed immunity from investigation, and in some cases have had legal fees reimbursed.

Then there is the testing regime. OK, the technology back then was struggling to keep up, but the key test used stage to stage was the haemocrit level. Any stage winner had to report to testing immediately after the finish in order to provide 2 blood and urine samples. In these cases, it's impossible to stack riders with high levels in front of you, and no time to either dilute or transfuse.

Whilst I don't believe Armstrong or any top rider in the period he was riding was squeaky-clean, I do object to the way that he has been singled out for special treatment. What we have is an organisation who have ignored basic evidential procedure in their determination to get him, which doesn't do them any favours.

It's interesting that they claim to be able to disqualify Armstrong from results - only the UCI can do that, if they accept the findings of the USADA. Also comments such as that made by th judge who, although dismissing Armstrong's suit against the USADA ("USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives.") should go some way in at least questioning the investigation.
 
I've participated in (at a very low level) but mainly followed cycle racing for nearly 50 years. I don't share that view. Of course I've read many of the reports on which you've based your views. But lots of them don't sit well when compared to the camaraderie shown to Armstrong by his team members and other competitors, particularly evident during the laps of Paris on the last day of each of his seven victories. Or is the implication that cyclists are not only drug takers, but also great actors?

I prefer to retain an open mind on this one, as opposed to hurling stones without indisputable evidence.

I couldn't disagree more - he has spent millions going after those who crossed him, has ruined several careers of those in the prop peloton who questioned him.

The only camaraderie he showed was to those who did what he said.

I am not basing what I am saying on recent articles, but many years of being involved in cycling ( I go to watch the TDF each year), various clubs, and having read a lot of material on this subject.

He is an odious individual, read the Usada report and see if you still view him in the same light, or read Tyler Hamiltons autobiography, or Paul Kimmages reports, or any of the scientific analysis that have been done of his performance levels, or perhaps take into account that only one of the other riders who finished in the top 5 behind him in all the years he won the TDF has not been done for doping.
 
The report doesn't make for good reading from Armstrong's point of view. However, the fact still remains that the evidence was laid before a grand jury and no indictment was laid down.

The FBI were after a fraud charge based on the fact that Armstrong and the USP team were doping whilst receiving millions in federal sponsorship monies. Under the grand jury system, the accused has no right to a defense, and witnesses are not cross-examined by the accused. Under those very favourable circumstances, the jury decided that there was not enough evidence to pursue the charge.

Grand juries come under a lot of criticism in the US as they appear to be strongly biased in favour of the prosecution - some stats show that 98% of cases put before them result in an indictment...
 
I think this known as the Richard Nixon gambit. When faced with incontrovertible proof that you have done wrong just keep denying it and hope it will " go away" What else can you do except own up. :rolleyes: la la la la not listening la la la la la still not listening etc. etc.

I think it is now know as the 'shaggy defence'

SHAGGY - IT WASNT ME - YouTube

From what I had heard some of the things they were doing were at the time undetectable but are now tested for. Would still count as cheating.

Regular blood transfusions too which would help boost them quite a bit and flush out other chemicals.

Strange it is the US Anti-Doping agency going after him though. The US isn't normally that bothered (see Tyson Gaye the sprinter who got an 2012 Olympic medal despite being banned twice for cheating)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom