| Author |
Message |
    
Tom_b
| | Posted on Monday, September 03, 2012 - 06:48 pm: | 
|
the "witch hunt" against Lance Armstrong has done nothing but smear the name of a stellar athlete and what should be considered a national hero. not only for his athletic skill but his philanthropic achievements also. If he was dirty, nail him in a court of law. Until i see proof beyond a shadow of a doubt it will be just Bullshit. but then many people seem to love to kick a person when they perceive them as being less than themselves. ohh wait. i see no one on here even riding in tour de france.. much less winning it
(Message edited by tom b on September 03, 2012) |
Jaimec
| | Posted on Monday, September 03, 2012 - 07:01 pm: |
|
quote:I've read the drug results from those races are among the positive samples that USADA has. Time will tell.
Yeah, and Al Sharpton, C. Vernon Maddox and Alton Mason all had absolute proof that Tawana Brawley was telling the truth, too. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2012 - 08:07 pm: |
|
>>> Blake, the propaganda goes both ways.
Not from what I've seen. The man races and passes all drug screening tests, yet people like you are jumping to declare him a doper.
Unbelievable. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2012 - 08:12 pm: |
|
I'm thinking that it might be very telling to find how who instigated this investigation.
Here we are now living in an America where our President has killed off our space program in favor of handing his new chief of NASA a mandate to make the muslim nations feel better about themselves.
Can't have America being the over-achiever. Can't have a hero with more wins in THE single most prestigious bicycle race in the world. I'd not blink an eye to learn that this witch hunt originated in the Obama administration. Why the #$%@ else would it have ever been undertaken? Even the French support Lance's claim to his Tour championships.
It's very bizarre and reeks of politics to me. |
12x9sl
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2012 - 10:29 pm: |
|
Agree with everything Jaimec said!! |
Nobuell
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2012 - 10:46 pm: |
|
Coming from the bicycle racing world with my share of drug tests, the witch hunt upsets me. Now in the nuclear industry, when you pass the tests, you pass. No hearsay! |
Datsaxman
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2012 - 03:11 pm: |
|
Blake, and the rest of the LA defenders,
Yes, LA was - still is - an amazing athlete. He might have won a bunch of TdF races if everybody was clean. But they mostly were not. LA and his crew did two innovative things to guarantee his success: 1) They focused on the TdF and ignored the rest of the season. 2) They raised the standard of doping to new levels.
You could hardly be more wrong about the facts. The more the facts come out, the more LA the sociopath is revealed.
Failed drugs tests, bribes to the UCI, fake prescriptions written after the fact, conspiracy, intimidation of witnesses, and much more.
The evidence is not hearsay, it is the sworn testimony of ten former teammates. People who were there. I wasn't...you weren't...they were. The choice will becomes: either LOTS of folks were ALL LYING to smear poor ole Lance. Or Lance was the biggest liar in the history of sports cheats. |
Datsaxman
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2012 - 03:19 pm: |
|
Oh...
The recent move by LA's legal team to not contest the USADA was BRILLIANT, I must say. At least, if it keeps the testimony of his former teammates and staff from being heard.
There are two possible reasons for this move: 1) because the deck is stacked and LA can't get a fair hearing (as LA claims)...2) because the evidence is SO damning, and SO plentiful. Have you even read any of the things that folks who actually follow the sport are saying?
Blake, the Obama comment is priceless. This whole mess started when Obama wasn't even claiming to be a US citizen yet, so a little hard to follow. I am with you on Obama in general, though...good one! |
Sifo
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2012 - 03:36 pm: |
|
Interesting points about focusing on only one race, and the LA team. Was this true of the other riders on the team too? They tend to be unsung heroes of the cycling world. They ride in packs to maximize the draft, rotating the lead spot, but keeping the star mid pack for the break from the pack later in the race. It kind of sucks when part of your job description includes the word "disposable". This can lead to some hard feeling toward the star, especially when you never get your turn in the limelight.
This is a team sport too. Successful dopers don't do it on their own in most cases. The science is far too complicated for most people who haven't spent a lifetime studying medicine. That usually means successful doping is a team effort. Are these team members claiming to be clean, or claiming to know what was going on because they too were involved in team doping? As far as I know (and I'm not paying much attention to this) no one is claiming to have this first hand knowledge of what was going on.
Meanwhile, I believe there is supposed to be a standard for stripping someone of their victories. I don't believe that standard has been met. Even if he were proven guilty of this, I don't think that would be likely to meet the standard of "the biggest liar in the history of sports cheats". Cycling just isn't that big of a sport to begin with. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2012 - 04:41 pm: |
|
Interesting read... http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012- 09-04/Tyler-Hamilton-Lance-Armstrong-doping/575928 04/1
Most people will at first say "who's Tyler Hamilton". I know I did and was a pretty avid cyclist. He was one of the unsung hero's that helped to make Lance Armstrong a name that is know world wide. If one can't see, at least the potential to become embittered in this situation, I really don't know what to say. Of course it's equally plausible that this is not the case.
The article does detail some of the accusations against LA that Datsaxman has eluded to. A couple of things stand out though.
He does make the claim that other riders were involved, himself included. To me that at least does help his credibility.
He also claims that Lance admitted testing positive in the Tour of Switzerland. He claims Lance was able to make this go away with a $200,000 donation to the International Cycling Union. Is it really that easy to purchase a clean test? Wouldn't some cash under the table to the right person be MUCH cheaper than a donation that could eventually cast a shadow on the credibility of your organization? I don't doubt that a donation was made, but was it a bribe? I have a hard time with this one.
Then there's this point...
quote:"If you were careful and paid attention, you could dope and be 99 percent certain that you would not get caught," the book says.
If that's an accurate statistic then Lance should have about 5 positive tests under his belt. The Postal team should have dozens of positive test results. This has me thinking that either the quotes statistic is off by at least an order of magnitude, or the whole doping thing is just not true. I do know that dopers eventually tend to get sloppy because of the difficulties of their schedules and they get caught. To have an entire team do this year after year and not get caught really defies the odds.
The positive test for cortisone he mentions is also questionable. I've read elsewhere that this was still within allowable parameters, but did prompt Lance to be questioned. It does sound like an allowable substance was used without a prescription where a prescription was required by the cycling organization. Sounds like a pretty minor offense at worst. It's a bit messy, by getting the paperwork of a prescription done after the fact, but this really is a distraction from the performance enhancing accusations.
I still think that he should be presumed innocent unless some real evidence of his guilt is presented. He has tested clean enough times to provide a huge amount of evidence that he was clean. Nothing short of a kangaroo court would ever find him guilty without something more. Until then, I give him the benefit of the doubt. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2012 - 05:24 pm: |
|
Sounds like the bribe money may have only been $100K not $200K as reported in the article about Hamilton's book. This could be another ding in Hamilton's credibility. It also looks like the bribe was promised before the accused wrongdoing. Highly unusual. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-acknowledg es-accepting-armstrong-donation-a-mistake |
Sifo
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2012 - 05:33 pm: |
|
Or the bribe could have been $125K. http://road.cc/content/news/65453-usada-retest-lan ce-armstrong-blood-samples-proves-positive-says-fr ench-tv-show
The facts against LA seem just a little bit questionable.  |
Datsaxman
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2012 - 08:48 pm: |
|
Sifo,
Thanks for the many long posts. I will just hit some of the high points here that you brought up.
First, with all due respect, if you have never heard of the Olympic Gold Medal winner in your sport, you are not following it much. At all. I mean Tyler Hamilton.
Yes, the LA teams were ONLY concerned with his results. Not unheard of on other teams, but never to the degree that loyalty was demanded for LA's team. NO riders were allowed to have any personal ambitions, all were in the service of LA. Sounds like a good way to win. Some riders were genuine stars in their own right, and were brought in partially to have the best helpers possible, and partly to reduce the competition. Read into that whatever you want. Again, that sounds like a good strategy to me. See New York Yankees, right?
Hard feelings? Indeed. Some riders left to be a star on another team rather than continue being second or third man to LA. This is where it gets interesting. A rather stunning number of those riders got popped for doping. Hamilton and Landis of course, but Heras and a bunch of other guys you will not know of.
Others have admitted to doping quite recently, WITHOUT EVER HAVING TESTED POSITIVE. These guys - Vaughters, Andreu, Danielson, Zabriskie, VandeVelde come to mind, and there are more - were teammates of LA, were actively doping while they were members of LA's team, got tested and NEVER FAILED A DRUGS TEST. The last three are STILL RIDING AS PROS TODAY. Sorry for shouting. These are the guys that say that LA doped. Right when they were doping up.
The Hamilton "99 percent" quote is not a statistic. Obviously. He is just saying that (for example) intravenous EPO microdosing clears from the body quickly enough so the only way you would get caught is if you timed your doses poorly. People say "99% of the time" the way they say "one in a million". Those are euphemisms, not statistics. And, actually, the number of verifiable LA tests seems to be 236, not 500+. And he tested positive at least a half dozen times, counting the infamous L'Equipe expose'. So 2-3% positives. This is years old news, BTW.
Hamilton claims (in his brand new book) that LA had these guys scrutinized and leaned on by the Anti Doping authorities after they left the team. And that other guys on other teams were singled out for similar attention. Is that TRUE? Is that even possible that LA had that kind of pull with the UCI (intl. governing body of cycling)? I do not know. Chilling, IF TRUE.
$125,000 is the amount folks are saying. Two installments, $100,000 and $25,000. This is years old news, BTW.
"no one is claiming to have this first hand knowledge of what was going on." FALSE. Ten teammates, plus staff have testified. That is A LOT OF TESTIMONY. LA kept their testimony under wraps by his concession. See my earlier post. Truly a great chess move on his part. But the testimony is leaking out anyway, as it must. Add George Hincapie to the above list. He is the only teammate on all seven of LA's winning teams. He is not saying what he told the Grand Jury, but everybody wants to know. I know I do. Big George is sort of the last question mark. He just retired a week or two ago, and has literally not said a word to the press about anything.
"To have an entire team do this year after year and not get caught really defies the odds." FALSE. To have the whole sport riddled with pros doping, and the team MDs constantly several years ahead of the World Anti Doping Agency was - still IS - the status quo. No one team was defying any odds that the others weren't defying also.
The medical people on some teams were much more skilled and knowledgeable that on other teams. How did SO MANY dopers test clean while on LA's team, but then fail tests when they had left the team? LA's MDs were very very good. The other teams? Some were, others not so good. Like any other business, right?
You have the cortisone thing exactly backwards. It was a FORBIDDEN substance, but cycling has a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) program. A TUE is a prescription written by an MD, which must be on file IN ADVANCE, that allows a rider to be using an otherwise prohibited substance. To get busted for steroids and then be able to cover it up after the fact sounds like a pretty cozy relationship with the authorities to me. Careers have been lost in cycling for failing to have a TUE in place. Was LA the golden boy who was "too big to fail?" Does $125,000 buy you that kind of influence? If you can threaten the recipient(s) of the $125k with exposure, it can buy you a lot.
Opinion: I think the TUE program should be banned. It is amazing how many riders have a TUE for a substance that is typically used to enhance performance. Oh, and the TUE is written by the TEAM MD. Not to hard to see how that is going to be a problem, right? A legal scam, in other words.
Oh, and cycling IS that big in many countries in Europe. Belgium, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, etc.
One report says that LA made $80 million one of those TdF years. Not that big a sport??? |
Ljm
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2012 - 12:07 am: |
|
I have watched this with some interest. I am involved in another sport at the highest levels of administration, and I can say that it is possible to dope and get away with it in any sport. It is abundantly clear that those who want to cheat are well ahead of those of us who want to catch them for a host of reasons: unavailability, knowledge of clearing times, use of substances OR DOSES, or timing, or tapering all are factors. In some sports, there are those who simply aren't available to when they should be tested. They live remotely, they systematically miss out of competition tests a calculated number of times just short of failure.
Non-analytical positives are controversial. Many sports organizations have difficulty with them as they are a matter of reports. Many won't proceed even when the source of the information is the athlete him- or herself.
Add to that the overlapping jurisdictions. There are National Antidoping Organizations (NADO's), International ADO's (usually federations or sporting bodies themselves), and the World Antidoping Agency (WADA). No every agency at every level has the same commitment to catching positive athletes.
Into this mix, athletes and coaches who stand to win all or lose it will expoit every opportunity and there are still many governments who condone doping.
One athlete in my sport said we only catch the stupid ones. Probably true. Sad, but hard to argue. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2012 - 11:07 am: |
|
Datsaxman, No problem on the posts. I'm curious to know the truth on this. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to find out LA was doping. It's a known problem in the cycling world. I do have some very serious issues with what is being presented against LA though.
The cortisone issue really is meaningless. If he had a script for that medication before hand it would have been fine. It's really little more than a paperwork issue. Had he used a different cortisone product with higher concentrations, that would be prohibited. I just can't see how this plays into the EPO issue, other than to cloud things and try to make LA look bad. In a way it makes him and his doctor look a bit lax on the whole issue of keeping his blood tests clean. Kind of cuts against the idea that they were pro's at hiding the dirt in a way. Still it's not proof of anything related to the EPO question.
How many tests did LA pass clean? Sounds like that depends on who's counting. How many has he failed? That's the more pertinent question. You say he tested positive half a dozen times. Where does this come from? It goes against pretty much everything I've read about LA. I'd like to see a link on that if you have one. What some may call not passing may not be not passing. My wife recently didn't pass a per-employment drug screening. The sample was then sent to another lab to do more precise testing. Everything checked out just fine. It was all according to standard procedures, but did cause a delay in the results. It would be easy to spin this as failing the test though, simply because she did in fact fail the initial cheap, far from perfect test. If LA really failed half a dozen tests, how is it that he was never banned, or anything else? I have a feeling the details will matter on this.
On the bribe thing, the UCI says there was a single donation of $100K. I've pointed to at least 2 sources that disagree. One of them is one of the big guns against LA, claiming $200K. I just don't think that helps is credibility in the least. There's one other problem with how the bribe is supposed to work. If they can magically make LA clean, then it is just as easy to magically make him dirty as LA alleges may have been done on a single test in question long after the fact. His detractors point out how it's not possible do mess with the test results though. Either the testing procedure is corruptible, or it isn't. When one side says it's not corruptible, except in the case where they point to a "bribe", that seems to lack credibility to me.
Now we get to where they say evidence and testimony against LA won't be released because LA isn't going to defend himself. That's fine if they want to drop the whole thing, as was done by the federal government who decided they didn't have enough evidence to continue. If they wish to convict LA in his absence, that's OK with me too, but then make the evidence against LA public. Accusations are easy to make when you aren't going to expose them to cross examination of any kind.
I really don't follow this sport or most others very closely at all. I have done plenty of cycling, including some racing, and know plenty of people who have fallen on both sides of the LA controversy for years now. Please feel free to correct any information that I have presented that you feel is incorrect. I would be interested in the source of that information though. I'm more than happy to source my "facts" and I think I've already done that for most of what I've presented. Clearly not all the stories on this issue have the facts correct though. In the end it is all about making a judgment call. In my judgment, the accusers of LA still have plenty of ground to cover to make their case.
One of the problems I have is when you are trying to override physical test results with claims of knowledge of cheating. I know that tests can be beaten, especially with EPO. I also know that the benefits of that cheating tend to diminish greatly when brought down to levels that will pass testing. This tends to lessen the desire to cheat when weighed against the downside if caught. Still some will cheat to get that slight edge. It's unlikely to be enough of an edge to explain a career like LA has achieved though.
Let me throw something out there, and I'm in now way trying to imply that this is what happened in LA's case. It's simply a hypothetical that I would be a little surprised if it hasn't been done by some trainer somewhere. We all know that the placebo effect is real and can have some pretty impressive results. If a trainer or team doc tells an athlete that he has a way to beet the drug tests and puts that athlete on a placebo regime, it is very possible to get positive results from this "cheating". Of course, nothing can show up on drug tests from this, because nothing illegal has been administered. The athlete believes they are cheating though. They even benefit from this "cheating". Are they cheating? What happens when they later decide to come forward to clear their conscience? Just something to chew on.
BTW, thanks for the conversation. |
Nobuell
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2012 - 05:27 pm: |
|
To Sifo & all,
There is hope for discussion forums after all. Presenting different points of view without attacks is rare these days. I enjoyed the discussion and the various views on the subject. |
Skntpig
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2012 - 07:43 pm: |
|
Yeah Obama made him do it! Huh? |
Jaimec
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2012 - 09:46 am: |
|
Cortisone is hardly a performance-enhancing drug, though it is a steroid. As I recall, the cream used to ease saddle sores contains cortisone and the governing body cleared him of any wrong doing (the amount detected was miniscule in any event).
Again, it's all hearsay. Without scientific evidence (i.e. a positive test finding) he's innocent. |
Datsaxman
| | Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 - 02:40 am: |
|
Will the last Lance Armstrong defender to leave the planet turn off the lights on the way out? WOW, the stuff is sure hitting the air conditioning lately.
At this point, you kind of have a choice between:
1) EVERYBODY else is making up stories...that all seem to corroborate each other really well.
2) Lance Armstrong was at the center of the biggest fraud in sporting history.
WOW... |
Greatlaker
| | Posted on Friday, December 20, 2013 - 09:55 am: |
|
Just curious if anyone on this board wants to re-open this thread in light of Lance Armstrong's admission. Can his record still be regarded as a great American accomplishment for cycling? It's hard to believe it all happened just this year. |
|
