Armstrong charged with doping.

Do we want the truth though? Can cycling handle the truth?

Everyone else can it would seem.

A damning indictment if true BUT it needs to be proved in a court of law, NOT STW..

It doesn’t need to be proved in a court of law for most sensible people to think it’s probably true. Do you reckon OJ Simpson killed his wife?

it needs to be proved in a court of law

Part of the reason he quit the blood passport review panel was because he’s been blocked from speaking about cases and giving evidence (including Contador and Armstrong) in court.

Read here for the proof he had about Contodor doping that he wasn’t allowed to mention in court.

You can be guilty of something without it being proved in court.

If he’s found guilty, it will be a sad day for cycling.

Now this is the first thing you’ve said that I’ve agreed with. Although I imagine we’d disagree as to where the blame for that sadness originates.

It doesn’t need to be proved in a court of law for most sensible people to think it’s probably true.

You can say that, its a fair comment. On the other hand I like to give people the benefit of the doubt till proven otherwise & thats REGARDLESS of who they are & what they are alleged to have done. Hence why I will defend LA’s innocence till proven otherwise.

I think thats the way we would all want it if we were if a similar situation no?

For the record Ill say I think he probably doped..its endemic in pro-cycling sadly & the majority of those that he did beat have at some time been caught..yet he still managed to beat them. That means either he was on better drugs or he wast just plain fickin awesome.

I would like to believe hes the latter.

edit: Oj? I would say a catalogue of errors led to him getting off, not one isolated action. From what I know of it, its very complex..

For the record Ill say I think he probably doped..its endemic in pro-cycling sadly & the majority of those that he did beat have at some time been caught..yet he still managed to beat them. That means either he was on better drugs or he wast just plain fickin awesome.

I would like to believe hes the latter.

+1, all of that.

I cannot believe some of the stuff that RealMan is saying. Not many people who cycle got into it because of Lance and the ones that did are collectively some of the worst humans on Earth.

+1, all of that.

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. 😕

That means either he was on better drugs or he wast just plain fickin awesome.

I would like to believe hes the latter.

Probably some combination of the two.

So if the top blood doping expert thinks he cheated based on seeing the blood work, what more proof do you need?

Some proof, perhaps, rather than an opinion? That Ashenden interview’s been around for 3yrs and is regurgitated approx 3-4 weeks before the start of the TdF.
I for one would love to see Armstrong talking plainly about it, rather than in riddles. But at the end of the day, the federal case was dropped and this looks ‘small claims court’ in comparison.

it needs to be proved in a court of law

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

Some proof, perhaps, rather than an opinion?

AS: So out of the 87 usable samples that they gathered, they got 13 positives and 6 of them belonged to Lance Armstrong.

MA: Depending on which criteria you applied. Yes, six of them failed the definitive criteria. There were another two samples in fact where the EPO was visually there in the gel. You could see it was there, but for one reason or another, the percentage isoforms weren’t calculated, or had to be re-analyzed, or it was a little bit too faint to get a definitive result. Yes, there were six samples with EPO in it, and there were another two samples where it was pretty plain to a trained observer that there was synthetic EPO in those as well.

So 6 failed tests is opinion?

who near enough invented the test for EPO

Well, if I were looking to publicise my invention, I’d pick a high-profile candidate and sling some shite that can neither be proved or “un”proved too. 🙂

So 6 failed tests is opinion?

Well the “failures” weren’t enough to convince the federal investigation. And this evidence/ supposition/ opinion (call it what you want) has been around for a while now, once more resurrected conveniently before a major race. Its getting a bit boring.

I think the point is this is the first time that they have 10 witnesses ready to step forward, many of whom are credible and nothing to gain, such as George Hincapie, all of whom will testify that they saw Armstrong dope.

Up until now it’s been always been a case of a single person vs Armstrong, most of whom, rightly or wrongly, he’s managed to silence due to his wealth/power/legal team.

As stated before, the original Jeff Novitzky investigation was about fraud, not merely doping. This new investigation is as a result of what the original investigation uncovered from a doping perspective.

buffalo bill – those tests were only intended as research. You cannot convict on retrospective testing nor should you be able to – the chain of documentation and the age of the specimens is not right for this apart from the fact it was not against the rules to have EPO in your urine at that time

New(ish) on the BBC site

link

Might help to alleviate some of RealMan’s anguish

“The public will hopefully understand soon that because of professional doping, support systems like the organised doping in the former East Germany – the organised doping in case of Balco, the organised doping in certain Tour de France teams, the athletes that dope are not only cheaters, but are also victims of professional systems that, for the sake of profit, corrupt sports.

tj – but they have charged him against epo use, have they not?

RealMan, for sport to work as a sport it has to be cheat free. Now, in the future and in the past.

Sadly however very few sports are cheat free. In fact you’ll see less cheating in 3 weeks of the Tour than you’ll see in a 90 minute football match with all the diving, fouling, spitting, play acting and that sort of rubbish that goes on.

And rugby (much as I love it almost as much as I do cycling) has plenty of dodgy stuff going at every ruck, maul or scrum.

That doesn’t justify taking drugs in cycling, but it does annoy me when it’s condemned by people who turn a blind eye to cheats in their own sports.

Oh, and for what it’s worth I don’t believe for a minute Armstrong doped. However he may well have turned a blind eye to others doing it, in order to get a strong team around him.

tj – but they have charged him against epo use, have they not?

But not just (if at all?) on the basis of the tests to which TJ refers.

Some proof, perhaps, rather than an opinion?

Do you need to actually see the blood samples yourself?

it was not against the rules to have EPO in your urine at that time

So your saying LA wasn’t doping then, just using chemicals that weren’t banned?

Oh, and for what it’s worth I don’t believe for a minute Armstrong doped. However he may well have turned a blind eye to others doing it, in order to get a strong team around him.

ROFLMAO.

Oh, and for what it’s worth I don’t believe for a minute Armstrong doped. However he may well have turned a blind eye to others doing it, in order to get a strong team around him.

Haha.. needs a bump. So he assembled an incredibly strong team, allowed them to take drugs to become even stronger, decided against doping himself but was still head and shoulders above them (and all of his doping rivals) in terms of performance?!

Kenny – read the ashenden interview. I have no doubt Armstrong doped

Im quite amazed at the level of loyalty LA has clearly instilled in some of the previous posters. Im also shocked how this means you can believe the most unlikey if not impossible.

Its almost as if Lance was a religion rather than just a bloke that rode a bike.

Oh, and for what it’s worth I don’t believe for a minute Armstrong doped. However he may well have turned a blind eye to others doing it, in order to get a strong team around him.

Haha.. needs a bump. So he assembled an incredibly strong team, allowed them to take drugs to become even stronger, decided against doping himself but was still head and shoulders above them (and all of his doping rivals) in terms of performance?!

THIS

There is not doubt LA was the premier cyclist of his generation and , to some degree, head and shoulders above the others. It really is incredible to believe he did all this against other superb athletes who were cheating…perhaps they only cheated so they could wheel such LA 🙄

I started off thinking he was clean but the evidence is pretty damning these days …FFS they were all cheating, even his own team.

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 doping training or his body may have reacted to doping training 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.

Plus facheux encore, il est contrôlé positif aux corticoïdes lors du Tour de France.

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.