How did Lance Armstrong pass his drug tests?

Home Forum Bike Forum How did Lance Armstrong pass his drug tests?

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 120 total)
  • How did Lance Armstrong pass his drug tests?
  • He rejected the court procedure – why?

    My repost

    The issue for me is that we’ll never know for sure which and he has now ensured that by refusing to mount a defence which I think is the point of not mounting one.
    He did take every test asked of him but, as alluded to in the article, there is supposedly strong evidence that would have been produced in court that he did actually Fail several of these tests but managed to get them covered up or discounted for various reasons.

    Personally I think he was hoping that by aggressively defending his corner up to now that no case would ever be brought. Now that’s it’s obvious that this would be going to court then his best strategy is to do as he has an offer no defence which means the evidence will never be laid out in front of a court where a judge will have to take a view on it’s veracity.
    Should any of the evidence come into the public domain without it having been tested and ruled upon by a court then he can still deny everything and claim that “they’re out to get me!”.

    munrobiker
    Member

    The bottom line is, though, regardless of what you think, it’s still not been proven. It looks fishy, but it has not been proven beyond all doubt in a court. Until that time you must assume innocence.

    It will never be proven because he knows what will be discovered. Anyone who is innocent would go to court (and be advised this by all legal representatives) to clear their name. It’s the actions of a guilty man

    He may be your hero, but now stripped of all his titles

    Didn’t rio Ferdinand put a similar argument up? “I’m innocent and it’s not been proven”

    Premier Icon Garry_Lager
    Subscriber

    The cheaters are ahead, but it’s not often they’re ahead in the chemistry lab. Seems rare to hear of someone getting done for an unknown. It’s almost always a legit pharmaceutical thats being abused.
    And exception would be steroid in the ‘clear’ that’s balco were pedalling. That’s was a steroid modified by a clandestine chemist IIRC.

    rs
    Member

    I don’t doubt he was doing something along with the rest of them but his full statement and his lawayers suggest that the evidence is submitted to the UCI for their review…

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrongs-full-statement-on-usada

    so he’s not exactly hiding.

    Premier Icon imnotverygood
    Subscriber

    So because he refuses to attend court to answer the charges which might have provided proof of his guilt he is therefore innocent?

    proven beyond all doubt in a court

    Criminal burden of proof- beyond all reasonable doubt
    Civil burden of proof- balance of probabilities.

    Which court are you hoping to see him in?

    Premier Icon ampthill
    Subscriber

    How did Lance Armstrong pass his drug tests?

    This is my understanding of the situation

    EPO was developed as a drug to treat very ill people. It was not detectable in tests and had clear benefits for cyclists. It first surfaced in the media as a cyclists started dying in the night. It turned out they had very high red blood cell counts. It was assumed that they were taking EPO

    So the sport had 2 problems. Cheating with a drug they couldn’t detect. Athletes dieing in the process

    A pragmatic approach was taken. A cap was put on red blood cell limits. If you went over it was just a 2 week ban until things returned to normal

    This I think reduced or eliminated the deaths but was seen by many as a nessage that EPO is OK if you stay within the limits

    Thats from my memory of the media at the time. Please point out the effors

    Since then

    Witness have come forward to say Lance Doped and we have the B sample scandal.

    Again from memory. In order to validate new EPO tests labs were allowed to test old tour urine B samples. Lots of these were found to contain EPO. Some one then did some clever digging and showed that some these anonymous samples came from Lance Armstrong

    No idea exactly how true the b sample bit is

    But in summary Armstrong’s critics claim

    He passed the first time as EPO couldn’t be detected
    When they checked the B samples with newer technology he failed

    zerocool
    Member

    So by the standards of most of you on here who are saying that he couldn’t have been better without cheating that means that Usain Bolt must be guilty as he is so much faster than all his competitors.

    Maybe he didn’t get caught because he didn’t cheat

    globalti
    Member

    For me the most telling interview I’ve heard was with a sports scientist who said that this year professional cyclists including Wiggo, are putting in performances which are merely credible after 10-15 years of incredible. Says it all really.

    cynic-al
    Member

    Luke – your hero has denied the world of the opportunity of your “fair trial” by declining to defend the claims, because he’s a bit tired of it all.

    You think that makes him innocent?

    Given his resources, I can’t see why anyone who could defend his reputation would do this.

    cynic-al
    Member

    Actually, I think you are right to compare it to criminal proceedings.

    If you don’t mount a defence then you effectively admit guilt.

    rs
    Member

    So by the standards of most of you on here who are saying that he couldn’t have been better without cheating that means that Usain Bolt must be guilty as he is so much faster than all his competitors.

    Maybe he didn’t get caught because he didn’t cheat

    Crap argument, Usain Bolt is presumed to be competing against clean athletes and is the best of them. Lance was known to be competing against doping cyclists and was better than them.

    Premier Icon Sandwich
    Subscriber

    Qui tacet consentire videtur!

    JohnB
    Member

    There is an old motor sport saying…..” You must be cheating because I am and you are still faster than me!”……..

    Premier Icon billyboy
    Subscriber

    The PM takes large bungs from the building industry and then just happens to provide enhanced planning regs to favour more building. nothing happens to the PM.
    The Met Pol Commissioner takes thousands in gratuities from a company suspected of multiple criminal activity and the investigation is left at just a minimal of prosecutions. The Commissioner resigns but otherwise gets off scotfree.
    Numerous MPs swindle the country out of hundreds of thousands of pounds and most of them just get to pay it back with no hint of prosecution.

    ON AND ON AND ON THE EVIDENCE HITS EVERYONE IN THE FACE DAILY

    IT IS A VERY CORRUPT WORLD….

    That’s why he got away with it.

    SO if you see corruption…… DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. If enough folk engage these mothers then things might get better. If everyone does nothing, things won’t get better

    Premier Icon cookeaa
    Subscriber

    So which body or bodies have actually banned/revoked LAs TDF wins then?

    is it the USADA or UCI or both?

    Premier Icon cookeaa
    Subscriber

    Whoops double post.

    Premier Icon crazy-legs
    Subscriber

    So which body or bodies have actually banned/revoked LAs TDF wins then?

    is it the USADA or UCI or both?

    At the moment, USADA (acting, so they claim on the authority of WADA).
    The whole thing is still a mess. UCI could still feasibly refuse to acknowledge the sanction citing jurisdiction rights.

    As others have alluded to above, the whole trail to catch a cheat has to be watertight, from the moment the athlete is notified that s/he is required for anti-doping to the final pronouncement on that sample. More numerous and advanced tests are great but they’re rarely done due to time and money constraints. He was able to get off a lot of the early stuff (eg B-sample retrospectively testing positive for EPO) on the grounds that one finding is not proof – it’s an “adverse analytical finding” and requires back up. In this case, it wasn’t possible to back it up so the test is invalid no matter what it shows. So technically, it’s not a fail and his claim that he has not failed a drugs test is true (for that particular example).

    Landis managed to find a whole load of holes in the testing process to get him off some of the accusations and delay the proceedings by months. Same with the lab – the “leaked information”. Labs shouldn’t leak, if they do you can easily get around the legalities of it all by claiming sample spiking, breach of privacy/trust etc.

    Premier Icon Moe
    Subscriber

    Agreed Billyboy, in a nutshell ‘All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to stand by and do nothing’.

    Spin
    Member

    Qui tacet consentire videtur

    Ecce! In pictura est puella, nomine Cornelia.

    Premier Icon kennyp
    Subscriber

    I am intelligent enough to not have to use multiple question marks and believe he’s clean. I will believe this until a proper trial with evidence has proven otherwise, which is the mark of a civilised society, no?

    I’m with you on this one. And I don’t see what right the USADA has to claim to have stripped him of his titles. Smacks of arrogance on their part.

    Spin
    Member

    I’m with you on this one. And I don’t see what right the USADA has to claim to have stripped him of his titles. Smacks of arrogance on their part.

    They feel their right comes from the fact that LA registered with them and agreed to abide by their code.

    Also, why all the talk of a ‘proper trial’? Now that the Federal investigation is closed there will be no ‘proper trial’ just potentially a number of sports tribunals.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    Spin – Member

    They feel their right comes from the fact that LA registered with them and agreed to abide by their code.

    So is there any truth to his allegations that they’re not abiding by their code?

    Premier Icon cookeaa
    Subscriber

    That was kind of my thinking. The USADA are actually out on a bit of a limb here. The vast majority of testing was governed and administered by the UCI right? LAs TDF wins were effectively given by the UCI. So surely the UCI are the only body with the authority to revoke any of LAs wins or right to compete.

    Without a UCI endorsement of this USADA judgement its pretty much toothless right?
    The news were presenting it as an actual ban and making relatively little of any need for UCI endorsment of the ruling…

    I’m not sure it will actually stick TBH… What am I missing?

    I heard that the UCI have signed up to the USADA Code, which gives them jurisdiction? Interesting to hear what UCI and ASO say though.

    Spin
    Member

    So is there any truth to his allegations that they’re not abiding by their code?

    I don’t know. What we’re all waiting for is the UCI to look at the info that USADA is required to present them with under their agreement and then comment on the case.

    Might be a while.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    That doesn’t all come down to the UCI though. Frinstance, just wading through his statement…

    “USADA has lodged charges over 17 years old despite its own 8-year limitation.”

    “As respected organizations such as UCI and USA Cycling have made clear, USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring these charges.”

    “The international bodies governing cycling have ordered USADA to stop, have given notice that no one should participate in USADA’s improper proceedings, and have made it clear the pronouncements by USADA that it has banned people for life or stripped them of their accomplishments are made without authority. “

    All seem very fact-based and easy to refute if untrue.

    Junkyard
    Member

    I am intelligent enough to not have to use multiple question marks and believe he’s clean. I will believe this until a proper trial with evidence has proven otherwise, which is the mark of a civilised society, no?

    So you do the trial and the defendant decides not to bother turning up or contesting your claims…what would you do then assume they are innocent?

    BTW this is clearly what LA wants lots of people to do and believe as it was his only way of being able to keep the myth going. Clearly he does not fancy his chances in court and clearly he wants you all to think it is because it is a witch hunt and not because they actually have any evidence against him and of they did they all sang rather than do time so they are all liars etc.

    The only reason there is no trial is because he accepted [ by refusing to contest] the claims not that he wants you to think this it was just so weighted against him.

    Imagine it was a AN Other person using this to deny a crime. Why would anyone support them?

    When I read the “charge” letter:

    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf

    it seemed to me that doping was the least of the guys worries, and that USADA must have some testimony / evidence that he and some testing/governing body conspired to cover up test results.

    And the “drug trafficking / administration to others” allegation – that’s a bleak movie script right there.

    Junkyard
    Member

    USADA has lodged charges over 17 years old despite its own 8-year limitation.”

    I dont know what there rules are tbh

    “As respected organizations such as UCI and USA Cycling have made clear, USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring these charges.”

    WADA – who are the ultimate people to decide disagree. The Spanish cycling folk did this re Contador hence why it went above them. Contador is still a drug cheat though he could say this as well. So true but it does not mention that the highest authority for drug doping in sports WADA supports and authorises USADA. It is alleged LA has clout with both the UCI/USA cyclcing organisations as well. I would say carefully worded spin to make it sound like it

    “The international bodies governing cycling have ordered USADA to stop, have given notice that no one should participate in USADA’s improper proceedings, and have made it clear the pronouncements by USADA that it has banned people for life or stripped them of their accomplishments are made without authority.


    As above spat between UCI and WADA which the later will ultimately win.
    I dont know of the claims are true as “international bodies” could mean anything and I suspect he means his mates in UCI and the USA.

    If they had ordered them then they would have but clearly they dont have the authority so an interesting choice of word to add weight to his claims

    I imagine LA wrote a rant and a lawyer changed it for legalese that is neither fully accurate nor an actual lie

    mudsux
    Member

    the original epo tests were actually crude tests to measure and monitor the red blood cell count of cyclists. a measure of something like 50% was deemed abnormal and an indication of epo abuse.
    these tests were carried out with a blood sample and a centrifuge.
    the tests were easily manipulated and riders often had fair warning of the test. simply drinking vast quantities of water could alter the haemocrit count.
    careful planning of epo useage could allow a rider to peak at the right times.
    the wheels falling off the armstrong bandwagon is of no surprise. you don’t have that much success without making a few enemies. and by all accounts he is not the nicest of guys to cross should you differ in opinion.
    its been well documented his treatment of riders like Simeoni, Basson, LeMond and journalists like David Walsh, Jeremy Whittle and Paul Kimmage.
    pretty much his entire US postal team has been implicated or admitted to doping. riders like Landis, Hamilton, Andreu and speculatively Hincapie.
    LA has been the dark enforcer for the peloton’s omerta for whatever reason. some might say to protect the peloton and cycling itself. others might say to protect his win at all costs mentality.
    maybe LA got to big for his own boots and this is payback. his lack of defence, a queue of witnesses waiting in the wings and technology having finally caught up with his same repeated rebuttals.
    cycling desperately needs closure on this dark chapter.

    mudsux, totally agree and eloquently put.

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    Say, for the sake of arguement, that Armstrong didn’t dope and was clean when he won the TdF.
    How does he prove that now?

    Junkyard
    Member

    As he turned down the change to face his accusers in a trial I very much doubt he ever will or can – I ignore the fact you cannot prove a negative.

    One of the claims was he failed a Dope test in the tour of Switzerland so i suspect he wanted to avoid that being discussed as I imagine he will repeat his mantra that he has never failed a test [ he has but he got a retrospective med cert- i wonder of that broke their own rules of ]

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    As he turned down the change to face his accusers in a trial I very much doubt he ever will or can

    I didn’t ask how he can, but how would he.

    How would he prove it?

    Junkyard
    Member

    If he cant he wont
    Sorry if that was unclear
    You cannot prove a negative so he cannot anyway irrespective of this case.

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    Right, so what’s the point of him carry on with this trial?
    So they can prove him guilty?
    Why don’t they just do that anyway without him?

    I really don’t care if he’s guilty or not, but I find it weird that so many people know he’s guilty without being privy to any evidence of that.
    So produce the evidence USADA and then we’ll ALL know.

    kcr
    Member

    To try and answer the question originally posted:

    1. Earlier in Lance’s career, the assumption would be that the main drug of choice would have been EPO. As described above, there was no test for the presence of the drug itself, only a test for elevated red blood cells. So riders could use EPO with impunity as long as they kept below the red cell limit set by the UCI. This could be done by careful management of your EPO dosing, or diluting your blood by drinking water or using a plasma injection in an emergency.

    2. When a test for EPO was introduced, the best organised dopers generally moved to autologous (self) blood transfusion. Extract your blood during the early season, and store the red cells for use in competition. Transfusion of the stored cells would have the same effect as using EPO. Again, there was originally no test for self transfusion.

    3. It has also been suggested that Armstrong manipulated the bureaucracy of the testing process to avoid positive tests (by obtaining a TUE certificate for exemption on medical grounds, or by using his financial and personal influence to suppress the results of testing.

    The assumption is that these were the main techniques used by Armstrong if he doped. I don’t know enough to comment on how tests for other substances could be countered, or how riders avoided detection of autologous transfusions when a test for this was introduced.

    Interesting article on how often Armstrong was actually tested here:
    http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 120 total)

The topic ‘How did Lance Armstrong pass his drug tests?’ is closed to new replies.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks are open.

Skip to top