[Closed] Tyler Hamilton dobs Amrstrong in it!

Armstrongs denials are very cleverly worded. Never failed a test, never used illegal substances - well in 1999 there was no test for EPO and I am not sure it was on the banned list.

So if we banned something orange juice tomorrow and went back through old samples and found traces of orange juice then everyone would be a drugs cheat? Whilst I don't agree with the pushing of limits to what is legal/illegal, surely if something wasn't banned then you can hardly implicate someone for actually using it?

thats my point breatheasy.

So if we banned something orange juice tomorrow and went back through old samples and found traces of orange juice then everyone would be a drugs cheat? Whilst I don't agree with the pushing of limits to what is legal/illegal, surely if something wasn't banned then you can hardly implicate someone for actually using it?

If orange juice had a proven positive effect on performance that wouldn't be there for non-orange juice drinkers, yes.

You can't enforce a ban on a performance-enhancing drug for which there is no test available. That doesn't mean that use of the performance-enhancing drug is fair, does it?

He never actually denies taking drugs, he always just says he's never failed a test.

Still means that he was ahead of the game whether it was with substances or not and, knowing that most of the other riders were probably using at the same time, still puts him ahead of the game? I don't agree with cheating, or even trying to find drugs that are not yet banned etc so I'd hate to find out he did, but I find it slightly irritating that a man can't achieve greatness without everyone automatically questioning his honesty and judging him guilty until proven innocent.

I think that it is wrong to say EPO wasn't banned in 1999

here is a definition of doping from the 1960s

"The administration of or use by a competing athlete of any substance foreign to the body or any physiologic substance taken in abnormal quantity or taken by an abnormal route of entry into the body with the sole intention of increasing in an artificial and unfair manner his/her performance in competition. When necessity demands medical treatment with any substance which, because of its nature, dosage, or application is able to boost the athlete's performance in competition in an artificial and unfair manner, this too is regarded as doping.".[

if Armstrong to EPO as a systematic atempt to boost cycling performance he broke the rules as they were then

not geing able to test for something is not the same as being allowed to do it

If you were allowed to take EPO why did Pantani get a 2 week suspension for his red blood cell count (in 1999)?

I think UCI dealt with EPO poorly back then as they admitted they couldn't test for EPO and therefore monitored red blood cell count which didn't carry the coreect messages

so no its not like retrospectively banning orange juice

You can't enforce a ban on a performance-enhancing drug for which there is no test available

Surely you can? Blood testing is not the only way of catching people doing illegal stuff...?

But how would you prove it?
If team X is careful with how much EPO they have with them, and how syringes and empty packs are disposed of, i.e. no one outside the team has any idea that doping is going on in team X, how would you enforce a ban? Team Y says they're doping, and that's all the proof needed?

You could still bust them with the stuff on them, using old fashioned detective work like they did the other day.

Not as effective but still possible to do. Might as well add the drug to the list.

EPO was banned but enforcement was difficuilt

but it was banned so if it now turns out that you were using it its reasonable for people to say "you were cheating"

Bjarne Riis admitted using EPO and handed back his 1996 tour win. think Armstrong would do the same?

AND Armstrongs 1999 sample tested positive for Epo IN 2005. One of the bits of evidence - inadmissible for banning purposes tho

having read up on the 2005 testing of the 1999 samples its quite a long fragile train back to Armstrong. If it had really stood up this thread would not be here and Tyler wouldn't have a story...

Ampthill - what I read is very damming indeed. NO doubt the sample were his and no doubt the EPO was in them. Inadmissible for banning tho as it was a part of an academic study sop the protocols were not followed.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Lets just look at fact instead.

He never got caught
No amount of EPO would make me a tour winner
No amount of EPO would make you a tour winner
No amount of EPO would make David Miller a tour winner

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Lets just look at fact instead.

He never got caught
No amount of EPO would make me a tour winner
No amount of EPO would make you a tour winner
No amount of EPO would make David Miller a tour winner

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Don't underestimate the value of drugs. Their use is widespread because they work. There is no way a clean athlete can compete at their level if they're the only one who's clean. They'd simply come last.

Note that Hamilton corroberates the story that Landis told - that Armstrong failed a test during the 2001 Tour of Switzerland, (prior to his "donation" to UCI funds)

If you were allowed to take EPO why did Pantani get a 2 week suspension for his red blood cell count (in 1999)?

EPO was banned but enforcement was difficuilt

EPO was not specifically sanctioned at this time because no established testing procedure was available to identify EPO use. Instead, the authorities introduced suspensions on "health grounds" for riders with haemocrit values exceeding 50%.
When a testing procedure was developed later, EPO use became a doping offence. In practice it appears that offenders stayed one step ahead by using blood doping (transfusions) instead of dosing with EPO, or adopted EPO microdosing techniques to avoid getting picked up by the EPO test.

I believe that athletes involved in the Balco doping affair were successfully sanctioned based on circumstantial evidence and paper trails, so I don't think a failed test is necessarily essential to prosecute someone now?

Cadel Evans is clean. A bit nutty but clean.

EPO was banned in 1999, they just didn't have a fail safe test for it. However, if you had heamocrit >50% you were suspended for two weeks on health grounds unless you could show a genetic reason for high haemocrit levels.

1999 was the tour of redemption after the Festina affair in 1998 when loads of drugs including EPO were found in Willy Voets' car. As a result, Festina were kicked off the tour and their riders banned.

LA's postive 1999 "test" arose because as TJ said as part of the academic exercise needed to validate the new test for EPO they went back to a period when they knew EPO use was wide spread and lo and behold a number of samples proved positive. Some smart reporter at Equipe then managed to get the key to the samples from the UCI and cross referred them to the academic exercise. It transpired six of the samples (I think) that were positive belonged to LA.

It should be noted that Hamilton says he gave the same testimony to the Grand Jury a few months ago when he did not have a book out - does that make it more believeable?

If orange juice had a proven positive effect on performance that wouldn't be there for non-orange juice drinkers, yes.

FlyingOx - so if it was found out that person A training harder than person B had a positive effect on performance then by your reasoning they should be banned.

People drinking water will have better performance than non-water drinker. Should we ban water? And hang all cyclists who drank water in 1973?

Thanks TJ thats a good article better than the one I read before

Epo was covered by the genral description of doping in 1999, even if it wasn't tested for...

No amount of EPO would make you a tour winner

I dunno. iDave diet and some EPO, how hard can it be?

you got home safely then?

Yep, see the other thread 🙂 Set a new PB too!

I'd echo Crazy Legs comments.

Met him, ridden with him, shot the breeze, nothing but respect for what he had achieved both in cycling but more importantly for the fight against cancer. I could not care less about what Landis or Hamilton have to say. What have they to achieve other than publicity for themselves and a poor attempt to divert from their own misdeeds? When you watch Hamilton, look at his body language when talking about Armstrong and doping. Lots of shaking of the head and lack of eye contact. Hmmmm.

Ultimately, Armstrong's legacy reaches far beyond the confines of bike racing. If he did dope, I just don't care. Whether he did or not, I judge him by what he has done with the Livestrong Foundation and that to me is what counts.

I believe Hamilton!

You also believed an old spoon and some glue would make a disk brake mount. 🙂

Hincapie has come clean for the investigation. No book, nothing to gain, one of lances closest allies. It's pretty much all over for Lance, he Can't try to rubbish hincapies statement

Hincapie's comments seal it for me

Doper

FlyingOx - so if it was found out that person A training harder than person B had a positive effect on performance then by your reasoning they should be banned.

People drinking water will have better performance than non-water drinker. Should we ban water? And hang all cyclists who drank water in 1973?

Mr. breatheasy, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!

Hincapie's comments are only attributed to him by a third party. He has come out and said (via twitter) that he hasn't spoken to 60 minutes and has no idea where they got their information from.

Not saying that it isn't a leak from the grand jury investigation but just that it is unconfirmed and shouldn't be taken as any kind of evidence. Yet.

It's all a bit of a sideshow though. While ultimately I think all the cheats should be caught and punished I'm more interested in catching the cheats that are still a part of the peleton even if it means bringing down current grand tour leaders. The only useful thing I can see that comes from getting Armstrong is that it demonstrates that no one is untouchable and that may just add a little doubt into the minds of anyone considering doping as a career enhancer.

Hincapie on twitter:

As for the substance of anything in the "60 Minutes" story, I cannot comment on anything relating to the ongoing investigation.

surely if he hadn't said it he could of said so?

I'm more interested in catching the cheats that are still a part of the peleton even if it means bringing down current grand tour leaders

Totally agree, but Armstrongs arrogance has me really wanting him to be bought down.

as for Contador, do you think his dominance in the giro is a bit of a two finger salute to the UCI and WADA?

surely if he hadn't said it he could of said so?

Quite right. But at the moment we can't really go around attributing the words to Hincapie, at best we can say that someone said that Hincapie said, and without knowing the details of that someone it's not much better than gossip. May all turn out to be true but right now I'd be a little cautious about putting words in the mans mouth.

Contador's approach to the Giro is unusual to say the least. Says he doesn't want to defend the Jersey and then just rides away from world class climbers in there own backyard with apparent ease. I'm sure he is fired up for the giro and feels that he has something to prove but his performance is incredible. Bringing it back to Lance when he rode away from people at least he had the good grace to look like he was making an effort, Contador looks like he's out on a club run most of the time and that ain't right.

As much as I initially disliked the idea of Vaughters turning into cycling's Bernie Ecclestone and forming a breakaway racing body perhaps a clean break is the way forward. Form a new body with its selling point being clean racing and let the fans decide which way they want to go.

As for the substance of anything in the "60 Minutes" story, I cannot comment on anything relating to the ongoing investigation.

surely if he hadn't said it he could of said so?

That was referring to the substance of the program [the grand jury investigation] not whether or not he said anything
I'm not sure you are even allowed to even intimate what you've said or heard in a Grand Jury room anyway

Interesting both Hamilton and Landis tell same story about the failed 2001 test and subsequent 'donation' to UCI. wander what the fallout of this could be if an official comes forward and comes clean...

It does look like the trap is closing on Armstrong bit by bit

I guess if he was doping whilst on the Post team, that'll have been federally financed making the indictment a bit more serious?

not sure that is the case though - just thinking out loud

uplink, thats the whole case against him. They don't strictly care if he took drugs, but they do very much care if he used government money to do it

Jail time here we come 🙂

The US investigations have brought down some very high profile athletes. They amass a lot of evidence and they pursue any witnesses that perjure themselves. It looks like the cracks are starting to appear.

Hincapie is only denying speaking to 60 Minutes, anything related to Lance Armstrong is a straight "no comment".

if any case is bought against him and if he's found guilty he'll get jail time. but he's a very very rich man, don't underestimate the power he's got.

Sanny - Member

I'd echo Crazy Legs comments.

Met him, ridden with him, shot the breeze, nothing but respect for what he had achieved both in cycling but more importantly for the fight against cancer. I could not care less about what Landis or Hamilton have to say. What have they to achieve other than publicity for themselves and a poor attempt to divert from their own misdeeds? When you watch Hamilton, look at his body language when talking about Armstrong and doping. Lots of shaking of the head and lack of eye contact. Hmmmm.

Ultimately, Armstrong's legacy reaches far beyond the confines of bike racing. If he did dope, I just don't care. Whether he did or not, I judge him by what he has done with the Livestrong Foundation and that to me is what counts.

Posted 2 days ago #Report-Post

so because you're his best mate, think he is cleaner than a nun swimming in Fairy Liquid? I think your bias being as you’re mates with him.

I think he's been a clever, calculating professional. Of course he used EPO, how would he have achieved what he has without performance enhancing, illegal practises? The whole peloton in the early and mid 90s were clearly on something, given the sheer number of positive tests. Your mate wouldn’t have stood much of chance without alittle something extra in his training routine.

Even though you two are buddies, i bet you didn’t ask him if he'd ever taken EPO, or what he thought about the "crazy" accusations that his positive test had been covered up? I mean, cover ups and back handers in professional sport??? come on as if............

Even more damning is that la-la wasn't inducted into the Texas Sports Hall of Fame recently. When red-necks won't hold you up any more then it's pretty much over isn't it?

Personally I don't believe there has been a clean winner of the TDF ever and hardly a clean top ten finisher.

Personally I don't believe there has been a clean winner of the TDF ever and hardly a clean top ten finisher.

Greg Lemond

Don't believe it.

Don't believe it.

I know. You already said.

Personally I don't believe there has been a clean winner of the TDF ever and hardly a clean top ten finisher.

Bjarne Riis

I'll get me coat

You're going in circular arguments here. Saying that it's impossible to win the Tour clean then saying that Lemond was clean in an era where doping was far more prevalent than today (or even than in Armstrong's era).

What gets me is the inconsistencies in it all. Contador should not be racing at the moment (final ruling on a doping infringement still going through the courts) yet he's currently leading the Giro. Riis should have been stripped of his Tour win in the same way that Landis was yet he hasn't. Everyone is so desperate to find Armstrong guilty of [b]something[/b] that when another doper (Hamilton) comes out the closet, everyone says "yeah, so what, now tell us about Armstrong" and all this focus on one man is actually making it harder to catch cheats.

The stuff about Hincapie is just a diversion at the moment. An anonymous third party has alleged that Hincapie has spoken to 60 Minutes (which Hincapie denies). The "no comment" thing is becasue Hincapie has already been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury so he's just making sure that nothing he says can come back to bite him otherwise he'll be doing jail time for perjury. There's no new evidence against LA, just more wild rumours, claims, counter claims and internet gossiping.

Actually as I understand it, Hincapie has given evidence to the Grand Jury (last summer) and someone has leaked his testimony to 60minutes. His statement about not talking to 60minutes is correct as he hasn't, and because the federal investigation is still under way he is making no further comment.

Lets hope when he finally gets busted he hits the ground really hard, i hate the smug git, lets face it he must have been dopeing to go that fast. The fat lady is about to sing me thinks.

re Hincapie, aP has it right. I watched the 60 minutes doc this morning. doesn't look good for Armstrong. The papers supposedly confirming a covered up failed drugs test could be the final nail....

You're going in circular arguments here. Saying that it's impossible to win the Tour clean then saying that Lemond was clean in an era where doping was far more prevalent than today (or even than in Armstrong's era).

Although doping was possibly more prevalent in the Lemond era it was nowhere near as effective as during the EPO years. Therefore it was more rather than less possible that a clean rider could win. A lot of the stuff pre EPO was more placebo than actual benefit. Many may have taken products but they were of little benefit.

What gets me is the inconsistencies in it all. Contador should not be racing at the moment (final ruling on a doping infringement still going through the courts) yet he's currently leading the Giro. Riis should have been stripped of his Tour win in the same way that Landis was yet he hasn't. Everyone is so desperate to find Armstrong guilty of something that when another doper (Hamilton) comes out the closet, everyone says "yeah, so what, now tell us about Armstrong" and all this focus on one man is actually making it harder to catch cheats.

True.

"Riis should have been stripped of his Tour win"

....and perhaps not allowed to manage a pro cycling team.

Personally sad though it may seem I think the Grand Tours were more exiting to watch when they were all doped up.

they seem to be a bit boring now. 😐

I still don't get the obsession with proving a retired racer was doping. Should we not be focussing on Contador? Or anyone else in the pelaton who is winning and/or has some dodgy test results?

Lance has gone from the sport, he has retired and any findings that come out are only going to make the sport of cycling look ever worse than it does now. Move on people, lets catch todays cheats before they win anything else.

lunge - Member
I still don't get the obsession with proving a retired racer was doping. Should we not be focussing on Contador? Or anyone else in the pelaton who is winning and/or has some dodgy test results?

Lance has gone from the sport, he has retired and any findings that come out are only going to make the sport of cycling look ever worse than it does now. Move on people, lets catch todays cheats before they win anything else.

I'm sure that ongoing investigations into other riders don't stop every time Armstrong's name is mentioned?

IdleJon, I realise that, I'm focussing on the public's obsession more than WADA or the UCI.

As a cycling fan, spectator, rider, etc. I am more concerned/interested that a guy who tested positive in last year Tour has just won the Giro.

I am more concerned/interested that a guy who tested positive in last year Tour has just won the Giro.

Wow, Ganic, where did I write I was mates with him? I met Lance and rode with him when he did the Paisley Twitter ride. Had a good wee chat with him on the ride but oddly he hasn't returned any of my thousand or so stalker calls since! Ha! Ha!

Like I wrote, I just don't care if he doped or not. If that was the price (and I'm not saying it is, I prefer to let folk have their day in court before breaking out the pitch forks) for the amount of good that has been done with the Livestrong Foundation then on balance I think that would be a fair price to pay. Professional sport and drugs go hand in hand, always have, always will. There will always be someone looking for the edge.

What's more intersting to me at the moment is the fall out if the Pro Teams split away from the UCI, the publication of the suspicion list and what will happen should the Swiss meeting as alleged actually took place and the content of it.

As before, Crazy Legs sums the current situation up perfectly.

aracer, sorry, is about to win this years Giro. Either way, the point is still there.

TJ - Andy Schlek and Bradley Wiggans, clean or dopers? Anyone in the current peloton that you think is clean?
I'm (or have been) a die-hard LA fan, but have to face it that its looking increasingly likely that he's a doper. Sports biggest fall from grace if it happens...

Armstrong is under investigation by the US Food and Drugs Administration because there is a suspicion that he committed Federal offences. He rode for US Postal at the time, which was sponsored by the US Postal Service, an independent agency of the Federal Government

From Sports Illustrated:
"Because government sponsorship is involved, if evidence suggests that Armstrong was directing illegal doping activity, the inquiry could result in charges against him of conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, racketeering, drug trafficking and defrauding the U.S. government."

The sporting implications of the doping allegations are serious enough, but in Armstrong's case, it is much worse. The Feds are all over him because of potential criminal charges, and you don't get off with that just because you retired!

I'd like to think they were clean Neither of them have won the tour. I think there probably are more clean riders now than there have been but considering how many of the top ten of recent years have been caught doping I wonder. Not seen any evidence of them doping tho.

I found an interesting table the other day showing how many of the top ten either failed drug tests or were now know to be doping. Can't find it now

Neither of them have won the tour.

Hamiltons word is worth nothing!

Therefore anything he says has no value!

Cadel Evans is clean. A bit nutty but clean

I agree. Which I think is why he fades and then gets so ****ed off being asked about another bad day in the saddle. I think he would be right up there with a level playing field.

Their all at it! so it's a fair/level playing field 😉

for the amount of good that has been done with the Livestrong Foundation then on balance I think that would be a fair price to pay

there is some info on the foundations* accounts floating around the web about how much money was spent on legal fees, travel and non 'charitable' activities. it's a bit of an eye opener. (private jets, money for setting up the mellow johhnys bike shop etc)

*a foundation not a charity. livestrong is a publicity vehicle for lance armstrong. the 'foundation' would not pass the charity commissions guidelines on funding allocation if based in the u.k.

Let's see if I have this right.

A number of riders were so motivated by money that they took drugs to improve their cycling. (This is regarded as dishonest.)

They denied the drug taking vehemently, fought it through court and expensive PR campaigns.

But once convicted, they finally admit to taking drugs and sell their stories for more money.

Considering the amount of money on offer for good stories about any high-profile figures taking drugs, what do think is going to happen?

Amazingly, the dishonest dopers are somehow transformed into honest truth-telling pillars of society, and they're not doing this for the money, oh no.

Never believe a word that comes out of the lips of a money-grubbing doper.

a money-grubbing doper.

Like armstrong 🙂

How about Hincapie? What does he have to gain?

By all accounts Floyd Landis is bankrupt and anything he's getting money for now won't come close to changing that. IIRC similar for Tyler Hamilton.

Never believe a word that comes out of the lips of a money-grubbing doper.

Take with a healthy dose of scepticism but to dismiss outright is just silly.

TandemJeremy - Member

How about Hincapie? What does he have to gain?

Not going to jail?

for me, looking at the accounts of livestrong in 2009 has been a real eye opener. circa 15 million dollars spent on legal fees, compared to 9 million given to grants and programmes. The directors committed to donate 5 million (which is tax deductable), they only donated 900,000. 4.5 million spent on advertising, only .5 million of that used for fundraising advertising... make what you will of it.

Oddly enough, I've just started re-reading Jeremy Whittles book 'Bad blood'. I once admired (and felt inspired by) Lance Armstrong, but the more I read about him, the easier it is to dislike him. Putting the suspicions of doping to one side, it's the other aspects of his persona that make me want to give him a shoeing - the way that people end up on his 'list' and are cut out of his life so completely, the raging paranoia, the way he treated Simeoni in the 2004 tour, I could go on. Basically, he doesnt come across as a particularly nice bloke, but I'm pretty sure he speaks highly of me as well.

make what you will of it

Sanny - Member

Ha! Ha!

Just so you know, that was a wee bit of an alarming "Ha! Ha!" there.