Lance, latest have we done it yet.

You can’t bust only the people you have viable samples for. To legitimise the process you would have to have samples for everyone. Otherwise it would be pure luck whether or not there was a viable sample for you.

I think pro riding has been on a journey from endemic and prolific doping towards (one day – soon hopefully) no doping at all.

Perhaps we should say “Right, from (eg) 1 September we will take samples from the top x finishers in all races and test them. Anybody found with [Proscribed List] will be banned for life. We will also retain your sample for a period of y years, and reserve the right to test retrospectively from time to time for any new substance which may be added to the Proscribed List”.

That Athletes Passport thing sounds like a good idea too. Protects those who are keen to stay clean.

Perhaps we should say “Right, from (eg) 1 September we will take samples from the top x finishers in all races and test them. Anybody found with [Proscribed List] will be banned for life. We will also retain your sample for a period of y years, and reserve the right to test retrospectively from time to time for any new substance which may be added to the Proscribed List

that has already been proven to be of little use if you have friends in the UCI.
vocal commentators who have written about LA doping for years are saying that the reasons he got away with it also have to be investigated, the job is only half done. All the time McQuaid has the hot seat at the UCI the cover up will continue.

I’d like it to be clean. I just doubt it ever was or will be.

Like I said though, still impressive.

What do you expect from a sport that idolises numbers & pain & requires little technical skill.

Interview with usada CEO Travis Tygart. Sounds like a reasonable argument for going after LA and his teammates
http://www.danpatrick.com/2012/08/24/usadas-tygart-comments-on-decision-to-strip-armstrong-of-tour-de-france-titles/%5B/url%5D

What do you expect from a sport that idolises numbers & pain & requires little technical skill.

Yes American football and baseball have had their fair share of doping scandals too.

We will also retain your sample for a period of y years, and reserve the right to test retrospectively from time to time for any new substance which may be added to the Proscribed List”.

Test people for things that weren’t proscribed at the time, but subsequently are? That’s not really on.

Do you mean test retrospectively for things that were proscribed then and now there are decent tests for them?

Yes, use better tests in the future and yes, add to the proscribed list eg if a specific performance-enhancing drug was accurately named on the list but subsequently modified slightly it could technically be possible to say that the new compound is allowed because it’s not absolutely the same as defined, however, the aim and intention is the same so it should be capable of being proscribed.
By the way, I am a Lance fan and drugs or no drugs I think he is an outstanding cyclist.
Also, I’m not buying the ‘it was in my dinner’ defence. That’s a crock of shit IMO.

By the way, I am a Lance fan and drugs or no drugs I think he is an outstanding cyclist.

Its true he is because of all the drugs cheats of that era he was the best at drug cheating as he won and he took the longest to get caught…..like you say OUTSTANDING

Out of interest why do you care about current and future testing if you still think the cheats are outstanding?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Now you have confused me Hora. Is it International Richard that you totally agree with? i.e. that Armstrong’s response to the USADA “screams guilt”?

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

I believe the USADA have applied the full extent of punishment available to them (future and retrospective (from 1998) ineligibility to compete). I don’t think he could have come off worse by going to arbitration.

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

Of course they would.
However…
“The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
For many of us on here Armstrong, Ullrich, Pantani etc are part of our world and our experience (I was in Morzine and on the Col du Ranfolly to watch Landis’ magnificent but dirty ride in 2006).
Simpson, Coppi, Anquetil and even Merckx are from the past and we treat them more sympathetically.

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?