Forum menu
Ah, but he hasn't been done for it. That's what makes him awesome and Contador a loser 🙂
anyone who thinks that Lance Armstrong has never doped is a naive idoit
🙄
maybe all these armchair critics should be employed as scientists to do all the drug testing, seeing as they seem to know so much about it
IanMunro, and he's done a lot of great work for charity, which has benefitted him in any way what so ever, no, not one bit.
His 'charity' doesn't pay him $200,000 per appearance at one of their events, oh no, it would never do that.. would it?
joao - have a read of this. this is one of the worlds top experts on doping who believes Armstrong did dope.
Inadmissible for banning as the sample was too old.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
warton - Member
IanMunro, and he's done a lot of great work for charity, which has benefitted him in any way what so ever, no, not one bit.His 'charity' doesn't pay him $200,000 per appearance at one of their events, oh no, it would never do that.. would it?
What has that got to do with guessing whether Armstrong has doped or not?
The reason that LA never failed a drug test is apparently because of a massive conspiracy involving the testing labs and the UCI. The evidence for this being the ravings of Tyler Hamilton on a US TV show.only because you know all [s]other[/s] arguments proclaiming Lance's [s]innocence [/s] guilt are laughable.
Hamilton countered Armstrong’s claim of having never failed a drug test, saying that Armstrong told him in a relaxed, “off the cuff” manner that Armstrong had failed a test at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland.
“People took care of it,” Hamilton said. “[b]I don’t know all the exact details[/b] but Lance’s people and people from the other side, people I believe from the governing body of the sport, figured out a way for it to go away."
rusty - just have a read of my link.
Armstrong did fail one test and got a retrospective exception.
the reason why he never got caught beyond this is he was one step ahead of the testers.
Look at all the american track and field folk now known to have been cheating who never failed.
CaptJon, nothing really, but it just sums up the man IMO. He has turned livestrong from a charity into a for profit organisation (which is pretty much unprecedented) and still tries to 'market'it as a charity, while all the time amassing a huge personal fortune.
45% of the money the company raises goees on his legal bills and other expenses, when it could be being used for fighting cancer.
TJ, don't waste your time, the 'believers' won't ever stop beleiving!
Anyhoo.
The most important question for me : Is the Lance Armstrong 'did he / didn't he' thing going to be like the 1966 World Cup? (i.e. some people will still be boring everyone to death about it 45+ years after the event).
I really really hope not.
at least justice has been done 'sort of' .Andy Schleck is now a T'dF winner. A sad way to win the yellow jersey.
Maybe other sports could follow suit and strip more proven cheats of their medals and much higher financial penalties as they have usually profitted hugely from deals directly off thAndy Schleck is now a T'dF winner. A sad way to win the yellow jersey.
e back of cheating
Innocent until proven guilty.
A belief in guilt without supporting evidence is lynch mob mentality. That never did any good.
How about we wait until Armstrong is proven to be guilty before proclaiming him to be a drug cheat?
Meanwhile lets hope that drug cheats get lifetime bans from professional sport in future (all sports).
It is possible to prove somebody did do something, there is evidence of some description, in the case of Contador at a very low level but within the legal parameters.
It is pretty much impossible to prove somebody didn't do something. How can you provide evidence that something didn't happen ??
Which is the problem Lance Armstrong is stuck with, if you accept the premise that he didn't dope (not saying that I do believe that, just that it is impossible for him to prove he didn't).
So he will never win this. Major world religions are founded on this premise.
Epicyclo - read my link above - thats pretty strong evidence.
anyway - back to Contador - its good he got done.
Its clear what he did as I said when the evidence came out.
He took clenbuterol in the off season
He thought the traces had gone from his system
He drained off blood
he retransfused this blood on the rest day in the tdf
New more sensitive testing found the traces of clenbuterol and importantly plasticisers showing the transfusion
he made up a cock and bull story about contaminated meat
It is possible to prove somebody did do something, there is evidence of some description, in the case of Contador at a very low level but within the legal parameters.
Clenbuterol is a strict liability drug - no level is allowed. He also had plasticisers in his blood showing transfusion had been done
In that piece, is he talking about re-analysing the results of a urine test from 1999, with greater insight into EPO with what we know now, or literally re-testing urine from 1999, years after it was taken? If it's the latter that's really not convincing IMO - the pish is too old to yield reliable analytical results, which is what seems to be the official position of WADA etc.joao - have a read of this. this is one of the worlds top experts on doping who believes Armstrong did dope.Inadmissible for banning as the sample was too old.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
Lance does have the ability to divide opinion doesn't he. I do feel a bit sorry for Contador, the amount found in his blood seems almost negligable.....but I suppose any amount means your guilty. something needs to happen though, the uci need to start handing out lifetime bans not just for riders but for directors, and team doctors or.....just ignore it and let them all dope....
Garry - which is why (rightly ) its inadmissible for bannings. Its evidence not proof maybe.
The answer to anybody who says Armstrong must have been innocent because he was tested lots and never tested positive:
Marion Jones
I've been busy editing Wikipedia with the correct winner of the 2010 TdF 🙂
Garry, TJ
although just how a synthetic substance appeared in his sample is anyones guess!
the uci need to start handing out lifetime bans not just for riders but for directors, and team doctors or.....just ignore it and let them all dope....
The thing is with Contador being caught using clenbuterol, which is a rather old school drug years behind other alternatives, and Rico(???) the Italian cyclist who nearly killed himself, self transfusing.
It does make me believe that the UCI stance, especially with the biological passports and the sanctioning of retrospective testing, is starting to have an effect. It is beginning to look like doping is no longer through the teams and the doctors, but now being done on an individual level by the athletes.
don simon - Member
I've always claimed that he had to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, he's now been proven guilty and will hopefully take the ban on the chin. I have no issue with this.
don simon - Member
Common sense has prevailed, based on the info available it can not be proven that the Clembuterol was taken to boost his performance, therefore he can not be banned. Simples.
8 of his samples - and before they were identified as his. and not in other samples
So all drug tests are useless then? If a rider tests positive it's because he's been doping. If he tests negative it's because he's been doping but getting round the tests somehow.The answer to anybody who says Armstrong must have been innocent because he was tested lots and never tested positive:
Marion Jones
Or does that just apply to Lance ?
My main problem with Lance is he seems like a bit of a ****. If the smart people at the drugs testing agencies can't catch him then it's beyond my ability to judge. However, I can judge the man and nothing I've read about him suggests he's anything other than a horrible person for the most part (obviously this may be untrue, I don't personally know Lance). I thought him slamming a bloke about to have cancer treatment because he asked people not to buy him "yellow wristbands" was particularly classy (ironically, he signed off with "Stay classy").
So all drug tests are useless then? If a rider tests positive it's because he's been doping. If he tests negative it's because he's been doping but getting round the tests somehow.
<whoosh>
I'm not suggesting that Marion proves anything about the guilt or innocence of anybody else - it simply removes the argument that the huge number of negative tests Lance gave shows he must be innocent. Kind of like I just said in the bit you just quoted.
What it means is that you have to to some extent ignore a history of negative tests and look at the balance of probability from other available evidence - Lance doesn't look all that good if you remove this presumption of innocence due to negative testing.
Both Contador and Armstrong have doped.
Bertie has tried to cover his up and gotten caught
Armstrong has paid to cover his up and bet upon his reputation. So far he's won
Anyone, ANYONE who believes that either of them raced clean is utterly naive.
From what I've seen of him I'd agree with that, but I guess nice guys don't have what it takes to win the TdF 7 times. It's a bike race, not a personality competition.My main problem with Lance is he seems like a bit of a ****
..... maybe, but just punishing the individual doesn't seem to stop them from risking it, mind you, half the directors have a suspect history.It is beginning to look like doping is no longer through the teams and the doctors, but now being done on an individual level by the athletes.
but I guess nice guys don't have what it takes to win the TdF 7 times.
That is unfortunately becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, it seems that all young athletes are now being taught to be ruthless bastards, but there has been enough nice guys who have won to show that it doesn't have to be that way.
By making the punishment so harsh it'll surely put folk off? no?
as said above, life time bans for the rider and the team boss.
life time bans for the rider and the team boss.
What if the team boss is innocent?
Anyone who thinks that LA didn't use EPO because he didn't test positive are only kidding themselves, a reliable test for EPO is a fairly recent thing, at the turn of the century when LA was cleaning up at the TdF it was common for dopers to get away with it, you only need to look at all those that have retired and since confessed, indeed David Millar never failed a test for EPO and was only banned after confessing.
I'm glad Contador was caught, although saddened at the same time because of the negative publicity for pro cycling.
It won't detract from my viewing of the tour or any other cycling. But for the Daily Mail reading majority it will be jumped on at a time when cycling seems to be on a wave of popularity which is a shame.
For me, doping is like F1 where teams use things outside the rule book to improve performance. There's a grey area where something could or could not be allowed. Teams exploit this to improve results, until its outlawed and they are subsequently fined/banned. On the flip side, some use substances that are known to be outlawed, which is clearly cheating. Having read Millars biography, it seems that a lot of 'fluid' replacement stuff goes on after the race which is allowed. Surely if you want to do it clean, all forms of 'replenishment' should be banned too? But where does it stop - should all performance enhancing products (energy drinks, bars, gels, IV's to re-hydrate) be on the list?
I don't think a blanket 'lifetime' ban can be slapped on everything. At the same time, I think more action should be taken against team managers, especially those with one or more banned riders on their teams.
Maybe this year Wiggins can show that you can be nice and still win?
Or will his negative drug tests and lack of a murder conviction prove that he's doped-up axe-wielding serial killer? 😀
Internet neds shit on a mans real achievements. Nice.
Yes of course in 2003 he could only use chemicals to aid his recovery from this fall on Luz Ardiden huh?
I think if it can be proven that an athlete has intentionally doped (so the onus is on the prosecution), they should be eligible for lifetime bans. If there's a positive test but reasonable doubt, then I think the current system can work. These are people who've worked their entire life for it and I don't think it's unreasonable for people to say that you will be excluded from your chosen profession for ever if you go and do this and we prove it. Perhaps the payoff won't seem like an adequate risk for a young cyclist who knows that at 21 his entire future could be over whereas now, a couple of years can be recovered.
Does anyone know if it's possible to ban from ALL sports for life? I assume that'd need major federations to agree. That way it'd stop the sport switching you occasionally see.
I believe all IV's have now been banned in cycling, you are not allowed to use an IV to rehydrate.
Atlaz - on the face of it, I agree. However, I don't think its as cleanly cut as you make out. A lot of the 'up and coming' riders are mentored by more senior members in the team. These are young impressionable lads who have dedicated their lives to being a pro cyclist, probably living away from home for the first time. If your director is saying that you should be using certain products or you'll be dropped from a 'difficult to get' contract you can see why some of them turn to it. Especially when contract renewals are performance based and everyone else is on the gear!
I think a banning of team managers/directors with a history of doping would make more sense. Rjis should have been kicked out long ago..
I've always said if its proven that a Sportsman has doped for competitive gain and hes convicted then he/she should be banned for life and stripped of all professional time results and titles etc.
That way you'd stop alot of the fringes from trying it- infact you'd stop all but those who are the most desperate/at the end of their career having won not much before.
What annoys me is a cheater coming out as holy/self-imposed redemption crap. Thinking he/she can talk from a position of 'knowing' on the subject.
Thinking he/she can talk from a position of 'knowing' on the subject.
But thats exactly what David Millar has done, and he's done more for anti doping thatn any other rider in the peloton.
i put to you all, if you do something at work that runs you the risk of being cought and sacked, would you do it? - i'd say some of you do this and or knows someone who does, ahem, bend the rules, but... if you were cought, sackd and then not able to work in that field again! would you risk it?
so, ban them for life. it is simple, no doubt in my mind.
Its not that black and white though is it Hora.
To me there's a difference between a top 3 senior rider doping to win, and a young naive pro who doesn't know any better.
If doping is endemic within a team, and they have espoirs racing professionally for the first time who are encouraged to dope or be kicked out, who is at fault? Without an influx new riders the sport would fizzle out and become dull to watch. It's these young riders that should be monitored and coached so that they don't think the only route is doping. More team Sky's in other words
but... if you were cought, sackd and then not able to work in that field again! would you risk it?
Not that simple, otherwise countries with death-penalties would be murder free.
Plus it's not just a case of the consequences of being caught, you have to add the probability of getting caught and the rewards of not being caught to get a feel of the risks involved.
flange unless your a bit dim even a 16/17yr old up and coming rider will know that taking a substance/offered an injection is bad.
Like I said conviction. If a team doctor is administering the drug unbeknown then there can be argued reasonable doubt against a ban.
However a blanket/no budge-stance would stop almost all attempts over night. I bet it still goes on, I bet theres synthetics etc not picked up, noted or checked yet...
There is no such thing as a "young naive pro who does not know any better" you know its wrong. you simply have to as its all over the sport so your exposure to doping as the wrong route to take surely must be 50ft high with flashing lights on!
ignorance is not an excuse