[Closed] How did Lance Armstrong pass his drug tests?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Qui tacet consentire videtur!

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

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

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

is it the USADA or UCI or both?

Whoops double post.

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.

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

[img] [/img]

Qui tacet consentire videtur

Ecce! In pictura est puella, nomine Cornelia.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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 ]

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

I didn't ask how he [i]can[/i], but how [i]would[/i] he.

How [i]would[/i] he prove it?

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

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 [u]know[/u] he's guilty without being privy to any evidence of that.
So produce the evidence USADA and then we'll ALL know.

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/

To be honest I'm not really interested in reading any old articles.
When I see proof from the USADA I'll make up my mind.

Just reading John Fahey's comments and tbh if that's what WADA consider to be an impartial response, I can see why Armstrong wouldn't want much to do with them... "Yeah, I'm not going to attempt to understand why he would do this. Though in the next sentence, I will totally say it can only be because he's a cheat. Cheat cheat cheat. Also, USADA- LOVE YOUR WORK! Let's do lunch" The comment about how there's been no previous tribunal/hearing, therefore this is the first part of the process and there's nothing for him to be tired of- that just seems absurd tbh.

Don't get me wrong- the logical assumption for many reasons does seem to be that he was a doper. But that's not enough, and the ruling bodies should be acting and talking based on the evidence not on "well it stands to reason" And tbh, stuff like this does make me slightly sympathetic to him- there's bull**** on both sides.

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 suspect in time the evidence will come out but I do not know what the actual process is tbh. One of those accused is fighting so i assume it will be during or after that trial

the ruling bodies should be acting and talking based on the evidence not on "well it stands to reason"

Junkyard - Member

If the Crown prosecution Service charge you with an offence because they feel they have enough evidence to convict you and you choose not to defend it what would you expect them to say ? Oh drop the charges they must be innocent?

No- but neither do they say "Oh you must be guilty then, stands to reason!" Declining to defend yourself isn't a good idea, but it's not an admission of guilt.

Now guilt would be an obvious motivation, but not the only possible one. Armstrong's claimed motivation seems less credible to me, but still plausible. There's certainly room for doubt, unfortunately.

At the end of the day- "I'm loaded, I'm retired, I'm fed up of this, I don't like or trust you lot, and I've got other **** to do" might not be the best response, but I don't think you can just dismiss it outright.

And having the chief of the world governing body speak like this before the dust has settled is not encouraging, IMO. I'm left trusting neither.

There is no comparison with the crown prosecution service charging us. There are simply no issues of jurastiction in that case. If you were charged in britain you would not be told that failing to attend would lead to an assumption of guilt.

I'm very suspicious of LA but that doesn't mean that the way he is being dealt with is fair

I'm interested to know whwther this sentence is true..

"Given the assertion of jurisdiction and authority by the Union Internationale Cycliste ("UCI"), and its mandate that no one associated with UCI or USA Cycling should participate in such an arbitration, which was confirmed by USA Cycling, Mr. Armstrong cannot proceed into the arbitration."

OK a bit of googling found this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/24/lance-armstrong-uci

It looks like the next step is for usda to submit stuff to UCI....

Oh you must be guilty then, stands to reason!" Declining to defend yourself isn't a good idea, but it's not an admission of guilt.

Armstrong's claimed motivation seems less credible to me, but still plausible.

it is damage limitation with a plausible denial angle and well thought out by his team

If you were clean why would you stop? Like I say whatever anyone thinks of LA we all know he is no quitter

There is no comparison with the crown prosecution service charging us. There are simply no issues of jurastiction in that case

But the Usada chief executive, Travis Tygart, is confident that is not the case. He told velonation.com: "They [Armstrong and his legal team] have already taken legal action and the federal judge told them we do have authority and our process is the process where those complaints can be made.

Junkyard - Member

If you were clean why would you stop?

As above- if you don't have faith in the process or the judges, you may not wish to submit to them. You may even believe that this would give them credibility- "no smoke without fire" Even if you win, it won't be fun, and you can look forward to news headlines of all the allegations.

I don't think there was any way he'd get through this without having his name muddied, even if found innocent. And it'd have a major impact on his life in the meantime. So again- reasonable doubt.

And frankly, it's all such a total mess, there's plenty of room for grey areas. And the responsibility for that lies with the governing bodies, who we're now supposed to put total faith in to resolve it?

I don't think we can trust or rely on either party tbh.

Which is the best[reasonable doubt] LA could achieve once charged so job done IMHO

Many will side with him or remain unsure and it will be a greater number than if he had been found guilty so damage limitation with plausible deniability.

LA is not a quitter though and I was very surprised by this and really did take it as both an admission of guilt and defeat tbh or as good/close as we will ever get from him.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance-armstrong-lets-down-single-person-who-still,29313/

Isn't refusing to defend yourself the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la la la"?

Whatever happens, there's a book or two in this, probably being written now by people claiming to have the full story.