[Closed] Armstrong charged with doping.

Why dont we wait to see if he IS actually charged and convicted before slagging him off?

If he is it'll be a sad but fair day. Otherwise park the venom.

This, 100%.

He has been charged - there is a clue in the thread title.

So you think he probably cheated, but you don't think it's fair for him to get punished because you love him too much

Don't think I ever said that. Fair would be him getting punished, if he was guilty. Big if. Good for cycling is letting it be.

The fact that it hasn't been proven in court of law doesn't mean he didn't dope, it just means he was (relatively) good at it

I like this - if you're found guilty, then you're guilty. If you're found innocent, then you're smart and guilty.

Why is it good for cycling to allow a cheat to get away with it?

@ realman
yeah, sounds familiar doesnt it?
'throwe the witche in the well, if it be drowned then it be innocent, but if it floats, then burn it'

my 2p, theres a lot of noise being made about LA doping, personally i reckon he probably did, along with most of the pro peloton.
i would prefer to think he was just frickin awesome, but i doubt it tbh.
but if he doped, and most of the others did too, that still makes him the best of the time.
might he still have won anyway if none of them were doping?
theres (potentially) a big difference between something happening and something being proved in a court of law, so something which isnt proven could still be a fact.

but if he doped, and most of the others did too, that still makes him the best of the time

Not necessarily, he may simply has been able to avail himself of the best doping or his body may have reacted to doping better than anyone else's. That is the fundamental problem with doping, it robs us of the ability to judge who would have been the best within the rules.

fair point . . .

Here's how I see it ...

I reckon based on what we know now (and suspected at the time) of the endemic doping in that era of cycling then I would be amazed if LA hadn't doped at all (whether this was full on EPO, blood transfusions, 'prescribed' borderline meds etc is irrelevant)

However; it appears that they are going to attempt to persue this without an actual failed test and merely on witness testimony - which has far bigger ramifications: where does it stop if we start going on witness testimony ? We can't find Lance guilty and strip him of all his titles retrospectively without then applying that bar to all cyclists who raced in that era.

Lance is on a lose lose situation (and has been for a long time) - even if he is cleared; this (and other) investigations/accusations will forever be a taint on his career.

If he is found guilty of doping offences then WADA/UCI must surely retrospectively chase down other riders implicated in past doping situations / who've come clean about what they did or this will look very much like the witchhunt LA claims it to be.

I think the problem is that for most normal folk outside of their world it's difficult to comprehend. Doping=cheating, cheating=bad - it's nice and black and white. But inside the murky world of road bike racing the real "rules" they were actually playing to were a bit different to the ones that were being printed in the official rule book for us plebs to read. First rule of fight club and all that..... It was just so systemic that in the bubble of a world that they were living in it was just normal. If doping was such a bad thing to do, how could they possibly find 10 past riders with witness statements to seeing LA dope - it would be something you would be doing hidden away away from even your team mates prying eyes.

Let's face it, it was just totally systemic with everyone at the top doing it because they had always done it and stopping would have lost them the edge that kept them in work and most of the those that were young and starting out and wanting to make it doing it because the were either told it was just what happens or saw it as the only way to make it to the top. Terrible situation but not of an individuals making. The public got to witness superhuman performances and loved it making the sponsors love it too. Everyone turned a blind eye as everyone felt like it was doing them a favour.

It's a shame in a way they did not just come out en mass as a great big group of hundreds of pros and confess to it. That way you could just delete all race records for that era if you felt suitably moved or live with the fact that that's the way the game was played, keep the race results and move on. Going after individuals for what was a much bigger problem just seems to be personalising a much bigger issue.

The great thing is I genuinely believe a new generation of riders is out there, brought up in a different environment, with a different attitude. I don't believe charging or not charging LA will have the slightest effect now on how Wiggins, Cavendish and their ilk play the modern game - to them its history.

However; it appears that they are going to attempt to persue this without an actual failed test and merely on witness testimony - which has far bigger ramifications: where does it stop if we start going on witness testimony ?

It isn't starting with Armstrong, Miller never failed a test and neither did any of the riders banned as a result of Operation Puerto - Basso, Valverde etc. In fact, in recent years I think the majority of banned riders have not been banned as a result of failed tests.

despite what he says Armstrong has not faced charges realting to this before..

The first court case reagarding the payment of his winning bonus was solely to sort out the wording of the contract - the people paying were trying to say why should we pay when he could have cheated, LA's team argued and won, that the contract stated the bonus would be paid, end of, it doesnt stipulate anything about not payig if he cheated, which of course they won.

The second case (the jeff novitsky federal case) was solely to decide whether or not any federal/government money was used in the purchase of drugs. For some reason, still unbeknown to the investigators, was stopped just hours before LA was due to be served papers to appear. This gave the consipracist theorists plenty of ammo regards to LA pulling big strings to get it shelved.

The latest investigation is not solely aimed at LA (so can't really be classified as a witch hunt), it's aimed at the 'ringleaders' involved in supplying trafficking and implementing drug use, incl bruynell, ferrari, and others still involved in the pro peleton today, and also relates to incidents as late as 2009 (the 'clean comeback' year). As I understand it though this is not a criminal investigation, the worst that could happen as a direct result of this is that LA loses his tour titles (whcih is pretty pointless!) and those found guilty will lose the ability to compete or be involved in pro cycling. If the case is then taken up by other law enforcement agencies will depend Im assuming on the outcome of this.

I used to be a fan of LA, and used to defend the usual accusations but then when you look at his treatment of ex tem members, the Jesus & simeonni (sp??) incidents something is just not right, he appears to go out of his way to bully people to stop information coming out.

Regards to the UCI, if this does blow up they will be seen to be complicit in the cover up too... hiding failed positives, accepting bribes (donations?!)...

@mefty - Ok; maybe I should have clarified this a bit more - but surely this will be the first case based primarily on witness testimony from other riders

Millar was found to be in possession of used vials of EPO; the Operation Puerto scandal was about riders with proven links to the lab where physical evidence was found.

proven links

Sufficiently proven in the eyes and according to the burden of proof (which I understand are completely different to those in a court of law)required by the sporting bodies. I don't see this being a special case - the precise nature of the evidence is not important, it is its' quality that matters.

he may simply has been able to avail himself of the best [s]doping[/s] [b]training[/b] or his body may have reacted to [s]doping[/s] [b]training[/b] better than anyone else's

I don't know whether or not he doped but I just put this forward as I find it illogical that we worry that someone gains an advantage from a drug but not from a massive investment of cash which can secure you the best trainers and nutritionists, the best team-mates and the best team management. It also leaves some riders able to purely focus on only the events they want to win with no need to chase prize money in other races.

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. Yes you'll have athletes dying and being permanently damaged but that is the only possible way to have a competition in which you can be certain no one has cheated.

[url= http://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/portraits/armstrong.htm ]Plus facheux encore, il est contrôlé positif aux corticoïdes lors du Tour de France.[/url]

Those who believe Armstrong when he says he's never tested positive have obviously forgotten he tested positive for cortsone on the 99 Tour but was let off by the UCI against their own rules when he provided an ante-dated medical certificate. He has benefitted from the complicity of the sporting authorities who found his cancer "miracle" story was good for the sport's image.

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.