[url] http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-charged-with-doping-by-usada [/url]
Will he admit it this time? Or deny, deny, deny - again?
[url= http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armstrong-responds-to-usada-allegation ]Lance Statement[/url]
i think it is fairly clear
Wowsers.
In it, the agency alleged that some of Armstrong's blood samples from 2009 and 2010 were "fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions."
I find that hard to believe but I am less convinced that he was so good he was able to beat superb athletes who were cheating earlier in his career.
Anyone bored of Lance and the circus that surrounds him.
will no doubt degenerate into another Lance haters v Lance lovers thread and run for 12 pages.
I do hope they have some good evidence that he cannot squirm out of.
While there is a huge pile of evidence against him so far none of it is rigourous enough to convict.
tis better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent convicted.
Clear as mud, that's the same line he's been towing since 1999.
In it, the agency alleged that some of Armstrong's blood samples from 2009 and 2010 were "fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions."
I find that hard to believe but I am less convinced that he was so good he was able to beat superb athletes, who were cheating, earlier in his career.
Is he up for doping whilst riding for USPS?
That would be pretty serious if he was also cashing a pay cheque from the gov
It'd be guaranteed jail time if convicted
is better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent convicted.
Innocent until proven guilty. As yet, 500 tests or more, he's innocent.
I just don't see why they are bothering, what will this achieve? Why haven't they gone after Carl Lewis, and striped him of his olympic golds? Equally pointless this long after the event.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay ]Carl Lewis.[/url]
Not proven CFH -
I hate his lies - he is not the most tested athlete ever
He has failed tests ( but got a retrospective exemption)
there is a mountain of evidence he has doped but nothing to convict upon.
Many now known to have doped never failed tests.
Keep believing, Flasheart.
Why haven't they gone after Carl Lewis, and striped him of his olympic golds?
Because Armstrong was being funded by the US gov?
Did I say I believed? No. I said innocent until proven guilty. As yet, he's still in the former category. Not proven. Therfore, until proven either way, innocent.
As mrmo says, why haven't USADA chosen to go after admitted dopers instead?
I find that hard to believe but I am less convinced that he was so good he was able to beat superb athletes, who were cheating, earlier in his career.
Ullrich, Mayo, Basso, Pantani, Zulle, Rumsas, Garzelli.........oh, and Vino
teammates (Landis, Hamilton, Basso, Andreu, Contador)
watch Armstrong in Fleche Wallone in 96, shades of Vandenbrouke, big ring up the Mur.
(failed tests are irrelevant during these times..read Matt Rendalls
biog of Pantani and the ridiculous and systematic drug abuse throughout his career - what did he ever get dione fior , haemocrit values. I am sure LA's UCI donations would have done him no harm)
read M Ashendens interview after testing LA's bloods (albeitt he didnt know they were LA's)
LA Clean ....bolleaux.
The real problem is there is still no definitive test for r-EPO. The testing and assessment regime is circumstantial evidence only.
You have to face it, they were all on something mid-nineties to mid-noughties. Those that weren't didn't win anything.
When one of the senior officials of the TdF says openly - if you want a Tour raced at 25kph rather than 15kph, then the athletes must 'prepare' - it's pretty obvious carte blanche (just don't get caught). BTW I probably haven't got the quote 100% right, but read 'Bad Blood' and you can do your own research.
Lance was/is just better protected and orgainsed than the others that have been caught. Simple.
Technically you may be correct CFH, that's meaningless to me tho.
if you want a Tour raced at 25kph rather than 15kph, then the athletes must 'prepare'
Where do I sign up?
Bad Blood's a good read, and incidentally J Whittle wrote Millars biog which IMO wasnt particularly sympathetic towards Millar.
Interesting peice in that re LA's and Millars relationship after Millar became vocal post doping.
so Cancellara too, then ?big ring up the Mur
I can't believe that anyone can do what these people do without a little help.
has cancellara won Fleche Wallone ???
Dont think so.
Or do you mean Mur de Grammont in Flanders ??
Cancellara - clean as ****ing whistle. Been awesome all way through his career with steady development from his start with mapai and fassa to the awesome rider he is now.
Why are they bothering going after a retired Athlete? It just seems like a vendetta now. Whether or not the guy did dope, he no longer competes professionally, so even if they did convict him, it won't change anything. Seems like a huge PR stunt when they should be worrying about current doping in professional sport.
I think that pretty much every pro sportsperson is taking supplements, things like IV vitamins, water, etc have know been banned, The use of Creatine or Caffine is ok, if your an asthmatic then inhalers are legal, otherwise they are not.
The whole thing about drugs in sport is very very messy, yes there are definite boundaries but in a lot of cases they ride pretty close to the rules.
But the thing that gets me, LA, his career is over, just let it go, use the time and money to go after the current dopers, to educate the next generation. Everyone knows that the 80s,90s, were rife with drugs. So what is the point?
ootflaps - MemberWhy are they bothering going after a retired Athlete?
He has just won the half ironman in Hawaii at the weekend! What about the poor chumps that had just had a bowel of weetabix, instead of a bag in intravenously injected blood for breakfast?
[i]LA, his career is over, just let it go, use the time and money to go after the current dopers, to educate the next generation. Everyone knows that the 80s,90s, were rife with drugs. So what is the point?[/i]
The point is that the most well known, influential, succesful cyclist of the past 10-15 years may have been doping, just like all the other cyclists that he beat.
Pro cycling is defined by its tradition and history, just like mountain biking, and if that history is false, is founded on doping, is not as clean as is portrayed, then the people who support it have a right to know.
Floyd Landis; flawed, liar, has an interview on-line with Paul Kimmage. It is worth a read.
i stopped believing in Armstrong after he chased Simeoni down in 2004. Ferrari was not a man to have as an acquaintance let alone a Doctor. So much circumstantial evidence now, and interesting that this new charge relates to more recent stuff as well.
And he dumped Sheryl Crow
The point is that the most well known, influential, succesful cyclist of the past 10-15 years may have been doping, just like all the other cyclists that he beat.
exactly, a doper beat dopers, so? I would much rather they draw a line, move on. Is Contador clean, was it meat or was it drugs? the Schlecks, Cancellara, et al. spend the money on improving tests, talk to the drug manufacturers, develop tests and clean the sport now. Shall we strip Fignon of his titles? Are we to believe that Merckx was clean, what about stripping Anquetil as he has admitted to doping?
He has just won the half ironman in Hawaii at the weekend! What about the poor chumps that had just had a bowel of weetabix, instead of a bag in intravenously injected blood for breakfast?
He was winning Triathlons when he was 17. Whether he doped or not, he still is a phenomenal athlete and always will be.
He may have cheated all along tho.
Kind of tarnishes it.
Certainly a line needs drawing under it all but the truth needs to be out first or at least best efforts to get to the truth
Had he been French and won seven tours, would anyone be after him now?
I'm not sure anyone will ever know with certainty whether he doped or not (other than Lance) and so whatever this particular investigation decides, it won't end the matter. The pro and anti Lance camps will be just the same. The whole thing just seems a bit pointless...
Certainly a line needs drawing under it all but the truth needs to be out first or at least best efforts to get to the truth
If we could get the truth maybe your right, but too many interests on both sides, just feels like a witch hunt now. Throw him in a lake, if he drowns he was innocent, if he swims obviously guilty so burn him.
Who cares?
He's used his fame and position to do more for cancer charities than a majority of squeaky clean athletes/celebrities...
He may have cheated all along tho.
Yet nothing conclusive. Since when did someone of the legal profession be happy with 'may have'?
Who cares?He's used his fame and position to do more for cancer charities than a majority of squeaky clean athletes/celebrities...
+lots
Other than "he couldn't be that good without....." what is the evidence against him?
I am less convinced that he was so good he was able to beat superb athletes who were cheating earlier in his career
I've seen him beaten plenty of times, but those athletes weren't consistent (which arouses suspicion). Armstrong was consistent and had good team support, therefore won. I'm not especially a fan, just don't understand the vitriol.
He say's USADA pursuing him is motivated by spite.
You can't help feeling that if he wasn't such a C U Next Tuesday he might have got away with it.
Also, he has used his fame to raise millions for charity - far more than pretty much the rest of the peleton combined over the history of the tour and yet there seems to be such a desire to bring him down at any cost - it just seems like irrational hatred. I just don't get it.
TooTall - Member
He may have cheated all along tho.
Yet nothing conclusive. Since when did someone of the legal profession be happy with 'may have'?
Did I say he was guilty? Am I a judge in his case? Don't be a ****. I just doubt his innocence. And I'm not working just now...
You can't help feeling that if he wasn't such a **** he might have got away with it.
If you want to be the best, it helps to be of a certain personality.
You can't help feeling that if he wasn't such a **** he might have got away with it.
Got away without being spitefully pursued?
Do we want everyone to be like Gary Lineker? Cavendish comes over as a bit of a wanger at times too.
I only ever watched him ride his bike, and he was at times awesome (to use a nasty Americanism). Not really interested in his personality - that's what my mates are for.
Cancellara - clean as ****ing whistle. Been awesome all way through his career with steady development from his start with mapai and fassa to the awesome rider he is now.
So something similar to Armstrong who was World Road Race Champion long before he ever rode the Tour.
So where do you draw the line? Everyone knows Bjarne Riis doped, strip him of his titles?
Pantani, Vinokourov, Anquetil - how far back do you go? The crusade to get Armstrong is doing the sport more harm than good. By all means clean up the sport, I'm all for that (all sports, not just cycling) but FFS look forwards, not back.
And besides, you take away Armstrong's Tour wins, how far down the list do you go before actually awarding the Maillot Jaune.
Here's the top 6 from 2000:
Lance Armstrong
Jan Ullrich (Operation Puerto and known blood doper)
Joseba Beloki (implicated in Operation Puerto but never charged)
Christophe Moreau (tested postive for steroids)
Roberto Heras (tested positive for EPO)
Richard Virenque (took pretty much every performance enhancing drug under the sun)
Hmm, long way down the list before you can find a clean winner... Utterly pointless to pursue it.
So something similar to Armstrong who was World Road Race Champion long before he ever rode the Tour.
And then having cancer turned him from being a decent one day rider into a tour winner.
If you want to be the best, it helps to be of a certain personality.
This is true to a degree but not a given.
Surely time would be better spent ensuring current athletes aren't doping rather than going after a retired one?
And then having cancer turned him from being a decent one day rider into a tour winner.
Why not? After you've witnessed real pain and suffering having a gentle bike ride around France might be considered to be a walk in the park, no?
why isn't professional sport full of cancer-beaters then?
Dunno mate, I guess it would depend on whether they were world class athletes before the cancer too.
Why not? After you've witnessed real pain and suffering having a gentle bike ride around France might be considered to be a walk in the park, no?
Or perhaps it instills in you an insane desire to leave an idelible and immortal mark on your chosen field of endeavour whatever the cost to you and those close to you?
If you want a literary correlate for Lance's story then check out Faust.
Also, he has used his fame to raise millions for charity - far more than pretty much the rest of the peleton combined over the history of the tour and yet there seems to be such a desire to bring him down at any cost - it just seems like irrational hatred. I just don't get it.
You may want to read this:
[url= http://fraudbytes.blogspot.fr/2012/01/lance-armstrong-investigation.html ]clicky[/url]
Don't care about the charity work or how long ago it was, If it can be proven that he used performance enhancing drugs to win races then he deserves to be outed as a doper.
If no other good comes of it perhaps it will lead to a drop in the number of overweight middle aged men in livestrong jerseys clogging up the lanes on a Sunday morning.
Yeh, different Mu(u)r, same phenomenon - esp as he rode Boonen off his wheel and made him look about as slow as mehas cancellara won Fleche Wallone ???
Dont think so.
Or do you mean Mur de Grammont in Flanders ??
FWIW, I susepct Armstrong was at it (among plenty others of course) but I doubt they'll get him anytime soon
Draw a line. As said above how far back do you want to go. Might aswell tear up the results sheets for 40 years.
Yes look at making testing more rigorousness but aim for those racing now. If Armstrong fails a test doing the Tri then he fails.
There probably needs to be some limitation on this stuff.
100% in favor of clean sport but sometimes we need to start looking forward or risk missing whats going on in front of us.
What we don't know is what info usada have. IF they have sworn testimonies from Hincapie et al saying that Lance doped then he may well be done. After Marion Jones and various others got jailed, people are running scared of lying, especially the US riders.
It's certainly going to be revealing eight way.
There probably needs to be some limitation on this stuff.
How far back do reliable blood and urine samples go?
There's your limit.
How far back do reliable blood and urine samples go?There's your limit.
doesn't matter, we know Anquetil doped, we know tom simpson doped, Even Coppi Doped, although i am not sure drugs were banned then. Which raises another question, do we ban riders for using drugs that we now ban but didn't know were in use then, or hadn't got round to banning.
It won't go away will it?
Why won't they just leave it be. The bloke had been tested for all illegal substances at the time and has passed each one. Some people can achieve goals without the need for drugs. He's also done a hell of a lot with the whole Livestrong charity work so don't understand why he gets such a flaming on here
do we ban riders for using drugs that we now ban but didn't know were in use then, or hadn't got round to banning
I think bust any one for whom there is a valid sample for any performance enhancing drug now on the list. Regardless of whether it was banned at the time they were engaged in trying to attain an unfair advantage and so are guilty of perverting the rules of fair play.
How far back will that take you? 15 years?
We'll have to see but it doesn't sound good for him.
and regarding the charity bit, that may well not be so clear cut either
http://fraudbytes.blogspot.com/2012/01/lance-armstrong-investigation.html?m=1
[url= http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf ]http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf[/url]
I think bust any one for whom there is a valid sample for any performance enhancing drug now on the list. Regardless of whether it was banned at the time they were engaged in trying to attain an unfair advantage and so are guilty of perverting the rules of fair play.How far back will that take you? 15 years?
And for those who have confessed? which takes us back in pro cycling as we know it at least 70years, and if you take 6 day racing back to its roots over 100years. Cycling, and sport in general, has never been 100% clean. hence you need to draw a line and worry about the here and now and stop witch hunts that achieve nothing.
If anyones interested in reading the letter sent to Lance and the others by the USADA.
[url= http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf ]It's here and it's worth a read[/url]
nice of them to give out email addresses...
why isn't professional sport full of cancer-beaters then?
Did someone call? 😉
For the record, I'm down on him ever since I emailed him about my story and the arse didn't even send a stock reply back...
Kind of agree with the drawing a line angle, the scale of doping is widely acknowledged and it's difficult to believe that any of the beneficiaries of stripped jerseys are clean either.
If Armstrong is cleared then maybe we'll see the last of these retrospective investigations, if he's found guilty it could open a whole new can of worms?
nice of them to give out email addresses...
Yeah I thought that too.
The charges against Bruyneel look pretty damaging too. Can you ban a DS?
Can you ban a DS?
🙁
Why so sad?
Can you ban a DS?
have a read up on Manolo Saiz, i think that will give you the answer.
Shame from a triathlon perspective - his progress was shaping up nicely for some high profile smackdowns with the great and good of the sport.
Not long now - these stories seem to pop around july like pics of chubby bathers on british beaches
Re personality: I agree this aspect is not for judging, but the character of the guy is - and doping is supremely relevant to that?
I hope actually he is innocent. I don't wish to 'go for a pint' with him - but he has been awesome nonetheless and stands out as an individual.
jamesy01 - Member
Who cares?
He's used his fame and position to do more for cancer charities than a majority of squeaky clean athletes/celebrities...
Errmm - Armstrong is getting richer of his "charity" Its a money making venture for him
Same names, same shite, same debate. Nothing would convince those who already have their minds made up whichever "side" they're on.
Curious - How does he benefit- Is it Terry Wogan style getting paid for appearing - or more structural?
In the interest of the thread I ask the question earnestly, but am quite capable of using google 🙂
there is a link further up into analysis of it
IIRC he basically takes huge fees for appearances and anything else he does for the "charity"
charities should IMO be assessed on their efficiency - of every £ donated how many p actually reach the charity recipients and how much gets absorbed in costs.
It can vary tremendously from near on 90% to just a couple. again IIRC livestrong does not score well but read the link above