[Closed] Lance, latest have we done it yet.

http://store.theonion.com/p-5045-cheat-to-win-bracelet.aspx

Have to agree Junkyard. I have to say i get quite annoyed at all this 'Everybody doped and he was still the best' rubbish. There is a reason the top 5 in all of Armstrong's TdF wins were in the top 5. They all doped. He was the best of the dopers, not necessarily the best out there. Chris Boardman was from a slightly earlier era. He was a hugely talented cyclist who was widely recognised to be clean, and he was very much an also ran when it came to the GC when he tried the Tour. Lance was also an also ran until something amazing suddenly happened to him???

Paul's comments:

http://www.98fm.com/2012/category-news-sport/category-sport/paul-kimmage-armstrong-2012-2408/

As there have been no tests[scientifically verifiable with athletes] done the other argument is that we cannot be sure that the drugs affect everyone equally.
if you and I have the same injection of EPO we will not necessarily get an equal improvement from this

It is possible that the reason he was the best cheat was because he got the best physiological response from the drugs rather than , as some seem to imply, that if they were all clean he would still have done the 7 wins.

The blood test results Armstrong published when collaborating with Catin showed he was at a haematocrit of 39 in December IIRC. He could therefore increase his haematocrit by 20% by transfussion or EPO use without going over the 50 limit.

Some guys are naturally over 45 and have little scope for improving their performance with EPO. even if they would normally perform better than someone with a natural 39.

IMO the ranges accepted for biological passports are far too wide. My own experience has shown me that my own haematocrit is stubbornly stable even if I spend long periods at the same altitude as the French altitude training centre. An athlete I know came back from the centre bragging about a high 40s haematocrit (the person was normally very low 40s) and showed accute embarrassment when I expressed surprise/disbelief at the improvement. The last result Armstrong published was an already suspect result over 45.

why? Because I believe that back in the day everyone or almost everyone doped - therefore it was a level playing field. I think it was widely known about, I think it went on with the unspoken agreement of the UCI and Tour organisers etc. I believe it was normal and natural at the time. Should we stop admiring Tommy Simpson? He doped. It killed him. Doping was the thing to do then, now it isn't. Like smoking - when I was young everyone smoked. It was cool and sexy and sophisticated. You could smoke everywhere too, at your desk at work, buses, trains, the cinema. Sportsmen smoked publicly -tobacco companies provided a lot of sponsorship

Except that, anyone who didn't either failed or was run out of town 👿

Karinofnine

There's a big difference between the stimulants that Tom Simpson/Anquetil et al where using and EPO

I didn't say it was good (or bad) merely that it existed and riders operated within that culture. It's different now.
Piemonster are you saying it's ok to use amphetamines but not ok to use EPO?

I believe that back in the day everyone or almost everyone doped - therefore it was a level playing field.

As not everyone cheated it was in no way shape or form a level playing field as some cheated and some did not.

Karin, I clearly did not suggest anything of the sort.

But the stimulants in use before the designer training drugs came along are very very different things and should be treated as such.

I believe that back in the day everyone or almost everyone doped - therefore it was a level playing field.

so it was not level for the ones who did not dope then like say cadel and Boardman.

As not everyone cheated it was in no way shape or form a level playing field as some cheated and some did not.

The 'level playing field' argument assumes (a) that everyone doped to the same extent and (b) that the doping had the same effect on all.

Despite the personal/witch-hunt slant that LA's PR machine want to put on things, this wasn't an investigation onto LA, it is an investigation into US Postal's doping regime and it isn't finished - Bruyneel is still unresolved. The view is that USP's doping programme was consistent, thorough, endemic and more effective than the rest.

I have no doubt that LA had talent and put the training in but it is my view that was the 'best' (TdF rider of his generation) because he doped the best.

http://store.theonion.com/p-5045-cheat-to-win-bracelet.aspx

Piemonster. I'm not getting your meaning. Why should they be treated differently? You're either cheating or you aren't. Can you have "only cheating a bit because the drugs are different/older"?

It's certainly a very interesting area, this whole performance thing - where do shakes, powders, creatinine, caffeine, cocktails of vitamins, electrolyte drinks etc end and drugs start? And if the banning of drugs/having a transfusion of your own blood is to make things fair - well things aren't fair (firstly because there is no such thing as fair anyway) and secondly because a rich team from a rich country will have an advantage over a poor team from a poor country.

Anyway, I'm not defending doping but I am getting a bit philosophical and have certainly strayed from the OP, for which I apologise!

Maybe the leniency showed to the Simpson era drugs is because they had no long lasting improvement value, possibly the opposite as Tom's tragedy eloquently demonstrates.
Use of EPO and other drugs can have long lasting physiological effects that will still be benefitting those that used them even now they are off them.

Heyup Karen

The Tom Simpson case is a good example, he died whilst using amphetamines. Allowing him to push himself to, and sadly beyond his physical limits. Way way way back in the tours history there are accounts of wine being used for a similar purpose(didn't catch on). The general thinking is that the stimulants used before designer drugs where used to allow people to "survive" the race.

Eddy Merckxx tested positive for a drug that's not far off being a really really strong cup of coffee.

EPO, allows you to become fitter and stronger than is naturally possible. How it does this is something you should google search at the very least.

They are both cheating. But to lump them together as equally bad is a bit like comparing that bloke down the road flogging a telly nicked from work with a full time burglar. There both naughty, but one is more naughty than the other.

It'll also be worth looking at Gene doping

Also worth reading is http://elpais.com/diario/2011/04/03/deportes/1301781615_850215.html

Karen, this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Lies-Handlebar-Tape-Remarkable/dp/1845963016

Is both a good read, and also gives some insight into the drugs they was using and what they where used for.

Several days worth
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years

In Tommy Simpson et al's day amphetamines could be considered to be the pinnacle of drug technology, now EPO could be considered to be the pinnacle (except I think there is something newer now but the point is the same).

If we were comparing them in the same timeframe there *might* be a difference but we are not comparing them in the same timeframe, they are separated by time and, taken in their own, discrete, contexts, are equally bad.

Yes and No

It's easy to look back and make a judgement by modern standards. But it's important to view what was within the rules 'back in the day' that now would be viewed as doping.

There are accounts of Tour winners receiving hormone injections during the event. But it was within the rules. It's also worth remembering that you used to be able to buy amphetamines from a pharmacist with no more hassle than you would today for cough medicine. Think those days may have passed by Simpsons time though.

I seem to remember reading accounts of Tour riders stopping at chemists en-route. And it was allowed and accepted, which was odd as there was some funny old rules about spare wheels and spare bikes that is now perfectly acceptable but then would be a disqualification.

But to reiterate my own view, EPO allows you to go beyond your natural limits. Amphetamines only make you feel like you can. Which is why designer drugs are naughtier as they allow an athlete to be more than should be possible. I suspect we will just have to agree to disagree.

Funny I don't see any retired older pros running up to stake a claim for 1 of the 7 tdf titles. Bottom lime is the LA won them, and he was the best in that era. I'm not sure you would find many who were riding with him to say otherwise.

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree - especially as amphetamines DO allow you to do more than should be possible - but it was a very good discussion and I am enjoying reading those links you posted.

Why are you called Piemonster?

I'm not sure you would find many who were riding with him to say otherwise.

Bassons and Simeoni would be at the front of the queue.

Most of you posters have played right into LA hands. He wants people to argue he's innocent as there will be no court case, therefore no proof (innocent till proven guilt). If he went to court then he and all his fans wouldn't be able to cling onto this as evidence would be presented that the prosecutors believe is worth the cost of a trial. He on the other hand feels the opposite

[b]How would you all feel to be accused of a crime and offered the chance to clear your name only to reject it?[/b]

If I'm innocent then I want to clear my name in the highest court available. If I was guilty I would balk at the idea of court. I have no proof, but the probability of his stance screams guilt to me. Add other evidence (super human feats beating others found to be dopers) and I'm (and the doping body) feel his 100% guilty. Shame really cos I want to stop slating him but with the short sighted nature of stw posters I feel I have to play devils advocate

Totally agree. Totally. However there will be another accuser next year, libel comment year after..

Saying this he stopped knowing he'd lose everything. What was the worsecase scenario that he was facing if he had gone to arbitration?

Inter national Richard you've been suckered by the usada's witch hunt. You've been ttaken in by what is at best circumstantial evidence and at worse rumour and malice. By waging a war of attrition they have forced Lance into a corner as he knows he will never win and will be fighting the latest allegation as long as he lives. He can never prove he was clean beyond the dope tests he did in competition and the usada know this. 😉

To suggest anyone has been taken in by an arguement and is a fool just because you disagree makes you the fool. See any thread on politics and the Tory bashers.

Also Simpson et all would have used epo if it were available. They were trying to use drugs to improve performance. They just didn't have access to more modern variants.

Totally agree. Totally.

What was the worsecase scenario that he was facing if he had gone to arbitration?

Also Simpson et all would have used epo if it were available.

Totally agree. Totally. However there will be another accuser next year, libel comment year after..
Saying this he stopped knowing he'd lose everything. What was the worsecase scenario that he was facing if he had gone to arbitration?

Progressively worse worst cases...
Disgrace, loss of titles
Bankruptcy, handing back winnings, claims from sponsors
Jail - he owns up and the FBI step in again re US Postal and public money.

To me, this is why his legal team CANNOT sanction any public admission, and Lance does not want evidence made public.

You mention future libel claims - I thought he had stopped threatening libel a few years ago, again suggesting a less than strong position...

And where are the positive test results for LA?

How would you all feel to be accused of a crime and offered the chance to clear your name only to reject it?

You fellate Natterjack toads, and other sex acts on various other amphibians. And I've got testimonies from witnesses to back this up. If you want to clear your name, come join me on the Jeremy Kyle show to hear the evidence against you, and defend your sordid sex acts.
Jeremy.

I'm in disbelief at the no. of presumably intelligent people that have been sucked in by LA's "poor me" show.

I CBA posting against it any more.

And where are the positive test results for LA?

Ask Verbruggen, Ashenden and McQuaid

And where are the positive test results for LA?

You don't have to have positive tests to be a drug cheat.

Although for Lance there is the:
~ Cortisone test for which he produced a retrospective medical cert (despite no place in the procedures for retrospective certs)
~ EPO found in his '99 TdF samples (although not found as part of formal doping controls)
~ EPO found in his 2001 Tour Du Suisse samples (part of the USADA case that he chose not to contest)
~ Evidence of blood management in 2009 and 2010 (part of the USADA case that he chose not to contest)

I'm in disbelief at the no. of presumably intelligent people that have been sucked in by LA's "poor me" show.

I CBA posting against it any more.

I can understand why.

It's certainly not an informed debate, people are still banging on about 'his day in court'' and 'never tested positive' because all they know about LA is a plastic yellow band and the fact that he beat the france tour and cancer.
That's understandable if you are a patriot with little interest in sport beyond Super Bowl and indycar, and take your news in a NBC sound bite but the real story is out there if you know where to look.
But I guess it's easier to do a hora and just mask your ignorance by asking another glib question instead of taking it on the chin and accepting he was a lying, manipulative, egotist, doper with friends in high places and lots of money.

Jonba - To suggest anyone has been taken in by an arguement and is a fool just because you disagree makes you the fool

Who called who a fool?

You fellate Natterjack toads

That was a long time ago, no need to mention that now 😯

all they know about LA is a plastic yellow band and the fact that he beat the france tour and cancer.

Over the last day or so I've had lots of folks who fall into that camp telling me it's a disgrace what's happened to him. So this is certainly part of the issue.

What I take from this though is the power of a good legal team and flat denial to maintain an element of doubt in the face of pretty convincing evidence.

Blood management?

A B sample but no A

[img] [/img]

Yesterday I saw a roadie covered head to foot in Livestrong yellow kit.

Impressed. Today for the first time in years I wear my Livestrong band.

Foxtrot Oscar to all those who hate L.A.

Surely it's not possible to say who won fairly and who didn't? I can't see the French stripping any titles from French riders. Isn't it best to say, as mentioned sbove, the past is different, some of these results are suspect. I know that's not fair on the clean riders, but can they claim a victory if anyone on their team used drugs?

Whoops used the wrong pic
[img] ?4c9b33[/img]

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/08/why-does-the-usada-want-convicted-dopers-to-win-the-tour-de-france/

Foxtrot Oscar to all those who hate L.A.

Oscar Sierra Tango Romeo Indigo Charlie Hotel

Thats ok Gary. You can hold a sweepstake on who is clean in todays Pelatons and when they will be caught.