[Closed] Armstrong charged with doping.

I find it illogical that we worry that someone gains an advantage from a drug but not from a massive investment of cash

You can see no difference from excellent training and excellent illegal drugs ?
I am not saying that you dont get an advantage from the former nd from money but you may as well call training cheating, on a par with taking EPO, if you go down that route.

If you can't catch everyone who is using doping and we know you can't then you can only come to one logical conclusion if you want a so called level playing field and that is to allow athletes to use whatever methods they see fit to achieve results.

That wouldn't produce a level playing field though.

You can see no difference from excellent training and excellent illegal drugs ?

That training is not open to everyone at that level. Why have we not seen a major tour winner from those African countries that have produced the best endurance runners the world has ever seen. It sure as hell isn't because they are not physically capable it's economic. You might just need a pair of shorts to run at the highest level but your not going to compete in a bike race without a serious investment of cash.

but you may as well call training cheating,

There was a time when many an amateur athlete would have looked down on specific training as at the very least the behaviour of a cad! 🙂

That wouldn't produce a level playing field though.

That's why I used the words so called, with an open market those who have the best controls in place to mask their drug use will lose their advantage.

I don't like the idea of people using these drugs but I do know it will never go away and therefore you will never get a fair competition until it's easier for everyone to have access.

Amateurs will emulate the pros - if you let the pros take drugs, the amateurs will too. And then when everyone is dying early or becoming infertile or suffering from ODs and the like..

if you let the pros take drugs, the amateurs will too

🙄 If there complete idiots, lets hope he doesn't put his hand in a fire then.

Take one extremely well-trained and fairly talented clean athlete, then add the protocol de Lille (the Festina doping protocol) and you get 10-15% more power(and the athlete suffers less to produce that power). That was the result of an experiment by a French federation. Since then riders have got even faster.

Just my thoughts:
Road cycling is an incredibly dull sport, and it's very dullness is also why cheating reaps such rewards, and is so common. It's basically about spending several weeks in a state of constant exertion and agony, with a relatively tiny skill requirement. The only meaningful increases in performance are in the ability to burn more calories.

But I don't think these people can be taking half of what they're accused of cos if they were they'd be giant walking lumps of heart muscle covered in testicules by now.

Thanks for sharing 😀

The Lille trial revealed riders were taking more than they were accused of. To counter the undesireable side effects (death) of the doping products a further twenty or so drugs were being used.

RealMan - Member

Amateurs will emulate the pros - if you let the pros take drugs, the amateurs will too. And then when everyone is dying early or becoming infertile or suffering from ODs and the like..

But you think its bad for cycling to pursue Armstrong even if he is doping

[img] [/img]

But you think its bad for cycling to pursue Armstrong even if he is doping

Is? We're talking about the past here. Not the present. If you want to go after him right now with respect to his triathlon performances, go nuts. Leave the history of cycling alone though, it's had enough scandals already.

Realman it's still like talking to a kid with his fingers in his ears.

This is about the future of cycling. Armstrong still has a great deal of influence over cycling, Bruyneel still works in cycling, and if guilty of these charges will probably still be using these methods with current and future riders.

I appreciate it's not nice reading bad stuff about your heroes, but ignoring it won't make it go away.

The whole point of this investigation is to look at an alleged conspiracy. That's why it's not just aimed at wonderboy, but at others who are still active in cycling. It also impacts on the people who are running the sport right now.

It's not so much about the past, and rather more about the present.

Then go after Bruyneel.

If you think Lance is so evil that it's worth cycling taking a massive knock just to strip him of a win or two, then go for it. But I don't.

And do you really think that Lance is pushing current riders into taking drugs?

I think Lance is human, like everyone else, and if he cheated, then he deserves the same punishment as everyone else. USADA wouldn't charge him without believing they have a strong case - and if Armstrong is innocent then he has nothing to fear, and will be glad to put this issue to bed once and for all.

therefore you will never get a fair competition until it's easier for everyone to have access.

It still wouldn't be a fair competition in that case, so what's the point of bringing it up. A drugs free for all would be neither fair nor desirable for any number of other reasons.

I personally think "they" are using the "if you throw enough %^&* some will stick" method.

Bit sad really.

If you think Lance is so evil that it's worth cycling taking a massive knock just to strip him of a win or two, then go for it. But I don't.

I personally think "they" are using the "if you throw enough %^&* some will stick" method.

Bit lucky that they have found so much mud.

if you think Lance is so evil that it's worth cycling taking a massive knock just to strip him of a win or two, then go for it.

It will be fantastic, hopefully all those people who started cycling because of him will give up and we will revert to the old days when cycling wasn't fashionable, when men were men etc. Brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it.

Realman, it's hard to know where to start to address your naivety.

How old were you in 1995?

[i]Steven Swart, a New Zealand rider said this in court;

In [b]testimony[/b] in the case, Swart, a retired rider from New Zealand, said top riders on Motorola discussed EPO in 1995. He testified that Armstrong told teammates that there was “only one road to take” to be competitive. In a [b]sworn deposition[/b], Swart said the meaning of Armstrong’s comment was clear: “We needed to start a medical program of EPO.”

EPO, cortisone and testosterone were common in European cycling, Swart said in a telephone interview. He said using cortisone, a steroid, was regarded as “sucking on a candy stick.” Cyclists acquired the drugs from European pharmacies and took them in private, Swart said. “You basically became your own doctor,” he said.

He said signs of drug use were widespread at the 1994 and 1995 Tours, when there was no testing for EPO.

“Everyone was walking around with their own thermos, and you could hear the sound — tinkle, tinkle, tinkle — coming from the thermoses because they were filled with ice and vials of EPO,” Swart said. “You needed to keep the EPO cold, and every night at the hotel, the guys would be running around trying to find some ice to fill up their thermos.”[/i]

Now go and look at how careers develop in cycling, look at how Johan Bruyneel used to be a rider, and then continued on as a DS.

Cycling is all about history and tradition, and the big riders of yesterday are the team managers and influences on the riders of today.

Look at the BS written about how it was Armstrongs weight loss and spinning style which enabled him to win. Look at the farcical VO2 max 'research' which suggested he was winning because of physiology.

Look at the Science of Sport webpages and read about the magical watts per kilo that were being churned out in the EPO days.

Or stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and pretend.

Then go after Bruyneel.

If you think Lance is so evil that it's worth cycling taking a massive knock just to strip him of a win or two, then go for it. But I don't.

And do you really think that Lance is pushing current riders into taking drugs?

cycling will not take a massive knock when he get's proven as a doper.
it didn't when rassmusen, vino, basso, contador or landis and numerous others got caught.

lance getting caught will send a message to the pro's that you can't get away with it.

it's actually a problem for the Tri world now as he's no longer a cyclist but plenty of his cronies are still in the sport and should serve bans, it's also a problem for tennis as one of the spanish doctors named in the USADA report has been 'helping' players on the pro-tour.

In a sworn deposition

I could swear that I'd never eaten meat just as easily. It would still be a lie.

Means nowt. It's not even circumstantial evidence.

So Ashendens EPO tests? Circumstantial?

The tests were done on stored samples, and showed EPO. The lab didn't know the samples were Armstrongs. A journalist managed to match the sample numbers with Armstrong.

Armstrongs own blood figures? Circumstantial?

The figures he put up on his website, ostensibly to show he was clean, that were subsequently removed when they came under scrutiny.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I think I would have to conclude that the likelyhood of duckness is high.

Crikey - none of that is anything but inference and circumstantial - none passes the standard for criminal proof for sure.

I agree with you about the duckness quotient - there is piles of other evidence as well - just none of it is the smoking gun needed as its clear he will not fess no matter how damming

one thing that is interesting he has stopped threatening to sue folk who call him a drug cheat - as to defend a libel claim you only have to show on balance of probabilities you were right or that you had reasonable grounds for saying it - and he knows that can be shown

It is not a criminal case it is a doping case, where the burden of proof is considerably lower - [url= http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=1821960 ]see attached[/url] On this basis there is a pretty high likelihood he will be banned and perhaps some results lost.

The statement by the USADA states the position very clearly and simply:

USADA only initiates matters supported by the evidence. We do not choose whether or not we do our job based on outside pressures, intimidation or for any reason other than the evidence. Our duty on behalf of clean athletes and those that value the integrity of sport is to fairly and thoroughly evaluate all the evidence available and when there is credible evidence of doping, take action under the established rules.

As in every USADA case, all named individuals are presumed innocent of the allegations unless and until proven otherwise through the established legal process. If a hearing is ultimately held then it is an independent panel of arbitrators, not USADA that determines whether or not these individuals have committed anti-doping rule violations as alleged.

That's an unambiguous description of their responsibilities. It's not spite, or a vendetta, or speculative, restrospective fishing. USADA are doing their job, and eventually we will see the outcome of the process.

Re the comments about "amateurs" using drugs; read the link I posted previously about Dan Staite, the non-professional English rider who was caught using EPO.

I've been racing for about 25 years now and I still love competitive cycling, but I lost interest in pro-cycling a long time ago because of the failure to take the drug problem seriously. Catching and sanctioning cheats, whoever they are, can only be good for the sport. I can make my own guesses about Armstrong, but I don't have access to the evidence, so I'll leave the investigation and prosecution to the experts, and await the outcome with interest.

Ta mefty

...and, regardless of the evidence, ignoring all the misdirection, the threats, the bluster, the arrogance, the whole sorry shitstorm leaves me saddened.

I understand Realman; because I was that guy, I never thought for a minute about drugs while I was watching Armstrong win that first Tour. I saw a brilliant young athlete who had defeated cancer come back and show the world how good he was.

I believed all the platitudes, read all the magazines, listened to Phil Liggett and wanted it all to be true.

Then I started riding with a few old professional guys who put me straight. Straight about the drugs they used, straight about the drugs the riders I was watching used.

I stopped watching the Tour for 3 or so years because I felt cheated, because I knew it was a circus.

I had a mate who went off to France to ride for a big club in the hope of turning pro; he told me what the top amateurs were using.

Shame, because it's a great but essentially flawed sport.

I did the Tour of Flanders sportive and the day after I spoke with a few Belgian cycling fans who said that even on the sportive, the fastest guys would be doped up; no testing, see?

I could swear that I'd never eaten meat just as easily. It would still be a lie.

Means nowt. It's not even circumstantial evidence.

Judges: evidence dismissed it means nowt it is not even circumstantial

The issue is whether you believe what they say, as you note it may be a lie, but to claim it means nothing is simplistic.
There are now a lot of liars[ I agree some are not great witnesses as they are clearly liars - Landis for example] and one honest LA.

I give up.

The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences. You might as well go after other riders like Voigt, Geraint, and Hincapie, among others, as well.

Then go after Bruyneel.

If you think Lance is so evil that it's worth cycling taking a massive knock just to strip him of a win or two, then go for it. But I don't.

And do you really think that Lance is pushing current riders into taking drugs?

Realman - You think Lance was just a pawn in Bruyneel's evil schemes? He was part owner, THE rider of the period and the person that ensured that people who spoke out against doping were ostracised from the rest of the community, to the point that they left cycling altogether in some circumstances.

The USADA charges are MASSIVELY important to cycling because they show that anyone involved will be chased down, even after the team has gone away and their livelihoods may well be put in jeopardy for the rest of their careers. I'm willing to bet that if they're found guilty there may well be civil and criminal cases to follow.

To answer your last point, I think the fact we have a 7-time champ who avoided censure for doping but is widely accepted to have doped is a VERY bad example to the cycling community. It would suggest that all you need to do is be clever enough, pay the best doctors and be famous enough and you can duck everything. Hell, look at Contador. The rules were explicit but his own federation bypassed them and let him off before it was appealed and he got the ban almost two years after the fact.

I don't understand why you think allowing him to get away with cheating is acceptable - if that is what he has done

I give up.

The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences. You might as well go after other riders like Voigt, Geraint, and Hincapie, among others, as well

Oh come off it.

And it seems likely that Hincapie is one of the witnesses and is likely to have doped too. So what I guess your viewpoint is is that Lance is too big to be made low no matter what he's done. So you're not denying he may have doped, just it's too big a problem if he's shown as a cheat.

RealMan - Member
I give up.

The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences. You might as well go after other riders like Voigt, Geraint, and Hincapie, among others, as well.

It's almost as if your idea of honesty and integrity is different to everyone else's.

The world, not even the cycling world, is not going to come crashing down if it is proven that Armstrong doped. Lots of people already believe he did, lots more suspect he did, and only a proportion of cycling fans are adamant that he didn't. So it's not really going to affect anyone apart from those who's wellbeing relies on Armstrong being some sort of saintly superhero.

You'll get your heart broken a lot more times before you die Realman, face up to the facts fella...

The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences.

[img] [/img]

I give up.

The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences. You might as well go after other riders like Voigt, Geraint, and Hincapie, among others, as well.

[img] [/img]

The world, not even the cycling world, is not going to come crashing down if it is proven that Armstrong doped.

If it had happened while he was in yellow, a few days off from Paris then yes it would.

You look at the fallout from the Festina affair, from Rasmussen being kicked off the Tour while in yellow, Landis and Contador. None of them are even a 10th as big as Armstrong.

Really difficult call - there's the issue of how he became a multi-millionaire off the back of what is potentially one huge conspiracy balanced with the exposure and media coverage of the Tour that he generated (especially in America) but there's also the balance that, if he did dope, if he was engaged in a big conspiracy with doctors, DS, the team, then he certainly wasn't the only one. Festina, Astana (before Amstrong/Bruyneel), T-Mobile were rotten to the core, almost everyone was in on it - organised drug trafficking and taking, blood doping, the whole structure was rotten. So why go after a small select group? Why just target Bruyneel as DS when there's a much more solid case against Bjarne Riis (who still works as a DS)?

Targeting the most famous cyclist of the modern era just smacks of some desperate publicity for the anti-doping agencies. I'm all for justice being done but the whole media circus around it and the lengthy drawn out denials, counter allegations, trials, hearings etc make the whole process a farce. Look at Contador - allowed to race in major Tours while under investigation and with a doping charge hanging over him before finally being convicted and having those victories taken away. It makes the whole process look woefully inadequate and incapable.

The whole road race scene is in chaos about this. Armstrong is ostracised, yet you can buy Pantani T shirts from Cycling Weekly. Where's the consistency ?

The whole road race scene is in chaos about this.

they will be throwing selves off alpe d'huez once the reality hits home.
the shame will be unbearable.

They may give up riding as it will be a total shock to everyone....its not like we have had years to get our heads round this news

WHAT A SHOCK

ps Panatani was never found guilty either nor did he technically fail a drug test as they could not test for EPO at the time.

Landis is going to start a charity to support disillusioned lance fans.

RideJuiced™

Quote of the week has to go to Realman for this little gem

The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences.

Pretty sure we're being trolled here guys.. first all the classifieds "discussion" over refunds, now this.. no way is Realman actually a real man and actually exist. AICMFP.

I do worry what affect this would have on the Livestrong foundation if he was found guilty.

Also, I'm not sure I could watch THAT scene in Dodgeball ever again.

Yes what will we do if he does not promote cancer eh

It is a vanity project largely IMHO and does little of any real good/value. If it was a proper charity it would not be so intrinsically linked to his image

Pretty sure we're being trolled here guys.. first all the classifieds "discussion" over refunds, now this.. no way is Realman actually a real man and actually exist. AICMFP.

he's one of LA's cronies they are all over the internet telling us how he killed cancer and is the most winningest tour cyclist of the road cycling world championships of france ever.

[url= http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do/Our-Actions/Programs-Partnerships ]What they do[/url]

First, no one can be too big for the sport if the sport is to be sustainable. Professional cycling has existed for more than 100 years before he came on the scene and I am sure it can survive. The allegations are fundamental to sport, and whilst sports can survive without integrity, their value to society in my view is greatly diminished. It is alleged that he was effectively protected by the UCI presumably because of their commercial ambitions for cycling - but what is the point of those ambitions if it is not to develop a sport with integrity. I fear that it was for the personal aggrandisement of the individuals in the sporting bodies themselves rather than for the benefit of sport itself. It is about time these international sporting bodies were held to account and if this is an opportunity to do it - fantastic.

Second, whilst raising funds under a false premise will undoubtedly cause his charities issues, they can survive and indeed thrive if he comes clean and explains why he did it. He recovered and still achieved hugely on the basis that he thought was necessary. If he is big enough to come clean, he will still be capable of being highly regarded if handled well, he is still an extraordinary individual, albeit not so extraordinary that he is not flawed like the rest of us. If he truly believes in his cause, then this is what he will do if he is banned, I can't imagine him doing before but one can live in hope.

The mans a ****

On the cahrities Just had a google around on his critics - even his critics cannot find any personal enrichment of his directly but there is no doubt he uses it to improve his image and has used the image created to make money in other areas.

I'm pretty sure the whole of the peleton is doping, so it sort of makes it fair in a way. Lance seemed so much better than all the others in his time so even if no one them were doping I still think he would have won.

TJ - I think your view on charity fund raising expressed earlier is a bit simplistic. Whilst I recognise the importance of keeping running costs low, what is better a charity that raises £1m with running costs of 50K, or one that decides to spend an additional 100K on marketing but raises £2 million in total as a result. The first has admin costs of 5% but only has raised £1 million, the second has 50% more in admin expenditure as a percentage but can do a lot more good. Simple measures of efficiency are not always best. I do however appreciate your concern about significant admin expenditure by some charities, including Armstrong's.

the magical watts per kilo that were being churned out in the EPO days.

A good measure of wats per kilo is climb rate and that has never gone back down to pre EPO levels. I yhink you'll find Cantador holds the record on a Tour de Swisse climb not long ago.

VAM for schleck and contador were notably lower in 2010 when the biological testing came in, edukator. not sure which tour de swisse you're referring to. not this years and last year contador was struggling at the tour.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/search/label/doping

Lots to read.

VAM for schleck and contador were notably lower in 2010 when the biological testing came in, edukator. not sure which tour de swisse you're referring to. not this years and last year contador was struggling at the tour.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or.html

More specifics, and power outputs examined..

In Richard Moores' book [i]The Dirtiest Race in History: Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis and the Olympic 100m Final[/i]
he says only 2 out of the 8 runners in the final have not been brought down / disgraced by failed drugs tests.

BBC Radio Scotland Sportsnation
Interview with Richard Moore and others; discussing Armstrong, Millar etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jxwg0

In Richard Moores' book The Dirtiest Race in History: Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis and the Olympic 100m Final he says only 2 out of the 8 runners in the final have not been brought down / disgraced by failed drugs tests.

Same in the TdF, you look back at the winners from the last 20 years and the only two not implicated in any kind of doping is last years winner, Cadel Evans and Carlos Sastre who won in 2008.

a thought, Lance won the tours from 1999 - 2005 inclusive.

From reading the letter the only tests i see mentioned relate to 2009 and 2010? so aren't relevant to his tour wins, there are witness statements that say that say he cheated, but they are just bitter old men who got caught and are kicking out trying to blame everyone else for their stupidity.

read it how you like, he probably cheated, but what does it prove? shall we just rip up the tour results for the last 100 years because most winners, in-fact a good proportion of all the riders were on something.

[url= http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12134/Italian-investigators-reported-as-tracing-465000-payment-from-Armstrong-to-Ferrari-in-2006.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+velonation_pro_cycling+%28Cycling+News+%26+Race+Results+|+VeloNation.com%29 ]Italian investigators reported as tracing $465,000 payment from Armstrong to Ferrari in 2006 [/url]

he probably cheated, but what does it prove? shall we just rip up the tour results for the last 100 years because most winners, in-fact a good proportion of all the riders were on something.

If we take this attitude we may as well give up on the TdF as a sporting event and just enjoy it as entertainment/spectacle.

If we take this attitude we may as well give up on the TdF as a sporting event and just enjoy it as entertainment/spectacle.

All i am saying is going after the past to me is pointless, at some point you have to say enough is enough. Where do you draw that line? I said far earlier in this thread that it is common knowledge that many racers that have admitted to doping long after the events.

67 1980 Joop Zoetemelk
68 1981 Bernard Hinault (3)
69 1982 Bernard Hinault (4)
70 1983 Laurent Fignon
71 1984 Laurent Fignon (2)
72 1985 Bernard Hinault (5)
73 1986 Greg LeMond
74 1987 Stephen Roche
75 1988 Pedro Delgado
76 1989 Greg LeMond (2)
77 1990 Greg LeMond (3)
78 1991 Miguel Indurain
79 1992 Miguel Indurain (2)
80 1993 Miguel Indurain (3)
81 1994 Miguel Indurain (4)
82 1995 Miguel Indurain (5)
83 1996 Bjarne Riis
84 1997 Jan Ullrich
85 1998 Marco Pantani
86 1999 Lance Armstrong
87 2000 Lance Armstrong (2)
88 2001 Lance Armstrong (3)
89 2002 Lance Armstrong (4)
90 2003 Lance Armstrong (5)
91 2004 Lance Armstrong (6)
92 2005 Lance Armstrong (7)
93 2006 Óscar Pereiro
94 2007 Alberto Contador
95 2008 Carlos Sastre
96 2009 Alberto Contador (2)
97 2010 Andy Schleck
98 2011 Cadel Evans

If you look at this list of tour winners and think how many have admitted they used drugs it changes a tad, and if you consider that this isn't the list of tour winners who stood on the top step of the podium as it has already been amended.

From the excellent [url= http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.co.uk/ ]bikesnob nyc[/url]:

As someone who finds the subject [of Armstrong and doping] incredibly tedious, I react to these news stories like I do when I hear the Red Hot Chili Peppers have put out a new album--that is to say with a combination of total disinterest and utter disbelief that anybody is still paying attention. I also think it's especially absurd that he's now been banned from triathlon, a sport which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with cycling and more to do with getting changed.
Just let the guy dork out during his golden years. Seriously, they might as well ban him from backgammon.

If you're so disinterested don't post.

In that list of winners I draw a line between Lemond and Indurain. Before the line clean athletes had some hope of achieveing something in cycling, after that no hope.

[url= http://cozybeehive.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/8-things-on-lance-armstrong-from-other.html?m=1 ]http://cozybeehive.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/8-things-on-lance-armstrong-from-other.html?m=1[/url]

Edukator - really? I don't think there has been a clean winner ever.

Given that all the premier contenders in the TdF are [i]probably[/i] doping at some point, i can't help but find

86 1999 Lance Armstrong
87 2000 Lance Armstrong (2)
88 2001 Lance Armstrong (3)
89 2002 Lance Armstrong (4)
90 2003 Lance Armstrong (5)
91 2004 Lance Armstrong (6)
92 2005 Lance Armstrong (7)

pretty fekking amazing!!!!!!

I have no idea if there has ever been a clean Tour winner TJ, I think there were a handful of clean major race winners pre 91, I'll risk quoting a couple: Charly Mottet and Giles Delion. Greg Lemond is perhaps your best bet for a clean Tour winner.

Fairy snuff

I don't think there has been a clean winner ever.

This is the absolute point. The 3 week tours are barbaric circus events, not bike races.

Funny how we draw our own conclusions, I always (wanted) to believe Indurain was clean, but always thought it likely LeMond was drugged up to his eyeballs.

This is the absolute point. The 3 week tours are barbaric circus events, not bike races.

Surely the whole point of three week tours is endurance.

So if we are working on the assumption that the whole peleton was/is doping, including LA and all the other winners, doesn't that mean that the winner is still the outstanding athelete amongst the peleton?

All things being equal, will the most talented still come out on top, dope or no dope?

Or will it be the biggest dope user?

Things have always been less than equal as far as the sporting authorities go. Some athletes benefit from complicity if their face fits while others are banned sans état d'âme. Brochard tested positive after his world championship win but an ante-dated medical certificate was accepted. His face fitted. Armstrongs face fitted after his cancer saga but doesn't anymore.

Armstron also was allowed to use a post test medical certificate when caught with steroids in his urine