Lance, latest have we done it yet.

As for saying LA ia abrasive no one GAS what he is like just whether he cheated.

As for your link it is no where near as interesting as the one you are refusing to read
The only point there of note was that they USADA offered immunity to folk or testimony, except LA. However it is not that silly to target the biggest fish though is it ? Better to go after the Mafia Don rather than his lackies?

If they had no evidence on the little fish they would not have needed to sing

read the link above it is what finally convinced me re LA – why wont he have his stored samples tested if he is clean as we have a test for EPO – what possible reason can you give for that refusal?

the problem with the article linked Hora linked, albeit quite good, is thatthere are alot of inaccuracies and misleading facts in it.

The first the 500 drug tests – He never did that many tests – the number of tests he did is public record and if anyone wants look it up – if you dont its approx 240 tests – less than half what he claims, in a 20 year timescale.

As for clean tests:

Alleged Positives:

•In 2005 L’Equipe reported that Lance Amstrong’s tests from the 1999 Tour were retroactively tested and that 6 samples from the ’99 Tour tested positive for EPO

•In 2011 it was reported that in 2009 US Cycling requested reports on tests conducted on Armstrong between ’93 and ’96. Five of these tests could not be recovered, but three showed abnormally-high levels of testosterone. Sports Illustrated reported “a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1 from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996. Most people have a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio was lowered to 4.0-to-1.”

•Lance tested positive for Cortisone during the ’99 Tour, however a backdated TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) notice was provided.

The Jeff Novistsky investigation they refer to was halted on the day that they were about to charge LA and others. Why – no one has actually explained that – Novitsky’s boss literally called him told him to close the investigation, no explanation no arguments. To this day no explanation of why the case was closed has been forthcoming, and novitsky and his team are still in the dark.

”While these types of repeated, tired and baseless accusations against Lance have been proven false in the past, ” – Lance has never actually been accused legally before – the last court case which he won actually had nothing to do with drugs, it was to do with the wording of his contract (re the payment of his bonus for winning the tours) – the contract stated we will pay you $xxmillion for winning the tour – there was no clause in there saying if you cheat we wont pay you. In theory LA could have stood up in court and said yep I took epo to help me win every title, buttheres nothing in the contract about how I win and he would still have won that case.

Unfortunately a lot of what we hear about allegations about LA come straight from his ‘team’ who spin it all in his favour, this case is the calssic example – a witchunt, a conspiracy against one person – no it never was it was charges against 5 people always was, its just the one with the most to lose has made it look like its a personal vendetta against himself, and he also has the biggest pockets to do that.

Im not a Lance hater, but I am someone that loves cycling. I actually had Cancer myself 97/98 and took a lot from the fact that heres someone whos been through what Ive been through and is still doing well on an a bike – do I feel cheated, no I actually feel sorry for the guy because Ive always believed that cheats never prosper, and unfortunately it looks like a house of cards could come tumbling down.

what’s your post going to be hora when he finally gets what’s due? are you preparing your Edinburgh defence?

not read all the tail end of this thread but have we done Vaughters admission yet?

I think certain points are being missed here as to why Armstrong should go down for the good of the sport.

In 1998 The Festina scandal happened. Teams got caught with their pants down in a doping sense. People went to jail, riders were banned, the sport got a huge amount of bad media and the French police and courts took a hard line on drug use in cycling. After Festina there was a turn around in the peleton a lot of them wanted to go cleaner (not clean). At the time there was no test for EPO, but the teams realised that the proverbial would hit the fan big time if they were caught bringing controlled substances across borders again (especially into/out of France. EPO was a controlled substance and apparently the majority of the Peleton started to think it might not be worth the risk.

Roll in a brash American who felt he had to make it at all costs. He had friends on the inside in the UCI (Armstrong and Verbruggen are business partners! Conflict of interests?)He managed to convince his team that EPO was the only way to go and then came up with a full programme for those who wanted to make the tour team. Those who didn’t want to play ball ended up going elsewhere (Vaughters, Andreau). Suddenly there is a team dominating a somewhat cleaner peleton. Everyone see’s what Postal is doing and suddenly the pressure is back on all the other teams to keep up or ride in the wake of postal. Armstrong forced the sport back a decade in terms of Anti-doping. He stuck his finger up at clean sport and made a joke of riders who wanted to try and do it clean. He needs to be made an example of and hopefully his going down implicates the corruption in the UCI which allowed all this to happen. The sport needs a new beginning without corruption and with a clear set of rules that everyone agrees on.

BTW… This will go down like a lead brick on this forum… but there is a certain amount of Deja Vu these days with Sky. Postal revisited?

Why stop at accussing Sky? Why not the GB track team?

I’m glad you lot don’t work as judges, JP’s or Magistrates…

hora – we’re equally glad you don’t. Any chance of answering my question from way back about what those 5 named riders have to benefit from by implicating themselves while they implicate Lance? I mean other than ensuring they don’t get done for perverting justice by lying under oath.

Hora can you read the article if you wish to criticise people’s judgement- I read the one you linked to

Personally i think you have and cannot refute anything in it so you take the ignorance defence and wont even comment on it.

BTW… This will go down like a lead brick on this forum… but there is a certain amount of Deja Vu these days with Sky. Postal revisited?

I say they’re just **** ****. I cannot be doing with people like that.

It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can’t ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives.

It’s easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of shit, rather than get off their arses in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something. And that’s ultimately it. ****.

APPLAUSE

Yes I think the tour is relatively clean theses days and they just work hard with some exceptionally talented riders

I’m glad you lot don’t work as judges, JP’s or Magistrates…

Why is that? Presumably you are commenting on the strength of the evidence?

For a (UK) criminal prosecution the “beyond reasonable doubt” test may not be likely to be satisfied by what is in the public domain. Scientific evidence rarely meets this test (IMO), as it generally comprises some “facts” that then require expert witness “interpretation”.

On the other hand, where do you think that same evidence stands regarding a civil case – a “balance of probabilities” test of 51:49??

Well done guys. You’ve brought down a Caribou

but there is a certain amount of Deja Vu these days with Sky.

No different, really.
If Wiggins gets exposed as a doper then he will deserve to have his reputation and achievements tarnished – and like LA / USPS doubly so for talking the talk on racing clean.

Interesting that Ashenden’s comments suggest that the 99 TdF peloton might have been largely “clean”

So hora you are admitting you have not read the article but you are going to continue to mock
Brilliant 🙄

JY – It’s a long article, took me best part of a day to go through it all.

I’m sure that hora is working his way through it 😉

hora – I’m not in any way mocking here – I really would like to know whether you think Ashenden is out of line or whether you think he makes a level headed argument. From a fan’s perspective, do you think he is being reasonable? I can accept that you may want to qualify comments with words such as “unsubstantiated” etc.

but the teams realised that the proverbial would hit the fan big time if they were caught bringing controlled substances across borders again…

And I bet that, of all the teams, US postal would know the best way to transport stuff across borders, cutting through customs red-tape, etc.

Ashenden – again I don’t want to see analysis or opinion. I want to see bloody facts, either tests presented, caught and done by a professional body. So I will WAIT.

atlaz – Member
hora – we’re equally glad you don’t. Any chance of answering my question from way back about what those 5 named riders have to benefit from by implicating themselves while they implicate Lance? I mean other than ensuring they don’t get done for perverting justice by lying under oath.

1. Not getting done themselves.
2. Money for interviews and tv on “why I grassed on Lance”.
3. To be able to carry on in the (any) sport in some capacity.
4. Self justification.

Any or all of these would do. Not saying they are lying though but given the justice system in the US, an admission of guilt with a guarantee of short sentence is much better than bankruptcy and a long jail term.

Ashenden – again I don’t want to see analysis or opinion. I want to see bloody facts, either tests presented, caught and done by a professional body. So I will WAIT.

Sorry, but you realise this is a joke don’t you? In the last 20 years the majority of dopers have been caught by police intervention rather than tests. There are so many ways to fool the tests and the dopers are almost always one step ahead. A clean test does not mean the athlete does not dope… as is evidenced by the retrospectively positive tests from Armstrong for the 1999 tour.

Basso, Ulrich, Virenque, Miller, didn’t get done for positive tests, they got done by police intervention. They all managed to fool the tests. (Well Ulrich did test positive for partying too much, but I’m talking about performance enhancements)

Lance has had a suspicious analytical finding (EPO, Tour de Suisse 2001) before WADA got their act together (apparently couldn’t happen now) and managed to buy his way out of it. Again being business partners with the guy running the sport will always help.

hora – have you read the interview?

I am a scientist. My day job involves managing a team that collects samples for laboratory analysis. We then interpret the results, using our scientific knowledge and professional opinion.

If you want FACT, as in a completely unequivocal, black and white, yes he did / no he didn’t, then you will be disappointed. No scientific data / expert witness evidence works that way.

Laboratory data will provide concentrations of various chemicals – in this case we are talking about synthetic EPO, but it could be anything. On one level, that concentration is a “fact”, but what it means is reliant on the interpretation provided by an expert witness.

You will see the same in any criminal trial where forensic evidence is used.

Ashenden – again I don’t want to see analysis or opinion. I want to see bloody facts, either tests presented, caught and done by a professional body. So I will WAIT

Dr. Michael Ashenden began his career as an exercise physiologist with the Australian Institute of Sport. After assisting in the development of an EPO test for the Sydney Olympic Games, he left the AIS to focus on battling blood doping. In 2005, Dr. Ashenden was among of group of scientists who questioned the validity of a physiological study on Lance Armstrong, a dispute that led him to serve as an expert witness in an arbitration case involving Armstrong and a bonus payment for winning the Tour. Dr. Ashenden kindly agreed to speak with us and shed some new light on that controversy. He also helped us analyze the 6 positives from Armstrong’s ’99 Tour samples with a level of detail never before made public.

Oh deary me – so you did not read i – there is science and everything in there about tests done by a professional body and what they mean. they even give the results

if you wont accept this then you wont accept anything beyond saying he never failed a drug test[he has] – even though they could not test it at the time and subsequent tests when they could he failed

Can I report hora for trolling, as he’s not obviously adding anything useful to this thread?

I think Hora is adding a lot to this thread. He may be wrong in the view of some but at least he is bring out the arguements from most of you why you think LA is a badun. Also it has shown who is cynical and can’t believe that hard work and honesty will reward.
All views are valid and often say more than what is written.

It doesn’t add anything to the debate but I did like this quote from an American newspaper…..

“In 2006, Landis became the first person other than Armstrong to win the Tour”

all that Hora is saying is “i am a cretin” but i guess you knew that anyway.

I don’t think hora is “wrong”, he is as entitled to his opinions as anyone else.

I would like to know his views on the ashenden interview – as posted above ^, not to rub his nose in it, but because I found it to be a very balanced and well reasoned piece. Those materials that were factual were identified as such, those parts that were speculation / deduction / professional opinion (and therefore open to interpretation) were also identifed as such.

No wild claims were made by Ashenden one way or the other, no hyperbole, rhetoric or hang ’em high type approach (he was actually VERY sympathetic towards the peloton in general and the pressures they would all be under).

The piece was exactly what I would expect from a practising scientific expert witness, and that to me, adds to it’s credibility.

1. Not getting done themselves.
2. Money for interviews and tv on “why I grassed on Lance”.
3. To be able to carry on in the (any) sport in some capacity.
4. Self justification.

Any or all of these would do. Not saying they are lying though but given the justice system in the US, an admission of guilt with a guarantee of short sentence is much better than bankruptcy and a long jail term.

This is not a criminal investigation and in fact, the only people seriously punished in previous grand jury doping cases have been people who lied under oath. I can easily understand they might confess if they’ve done it themselves, but why implicate someone who hadn’t? Also, none of these people had tested positive (ignoring suspicions) during the period under investigation so what hard evidence would anyone have on them? I don’t buy that people like Hincapie or Leipheimer, both trusted Armstrong aides in the riding days, would suddenly lie about him particularly as the former, at least, has more to lose from this as he is a cycling clothing supplier and it could impact his business.

You mean it fitted your view. 🙂

You mean it fitted your view

Was that aimed at me???

If so, not really, not regarding LA specifically.

It certainly fitted my view of how different lines of scientific evidence should be drawn together and professionally interpreted. The approach and language is both familiar and effective.

It certainly fitted my view of how different lines of scientific evidence should be drawn together and professionally interpreted. The approach and language is both familiar and effective.

Mine too, my MSc thesis had less holes in it than the journal paper that LA uses to defend himself!

For a different approach listen to the More or Less episode “Has clamping down on drugs made the Tour de France slower?” from 20th July

Links page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless

Actual MP3(5MB): http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/moreorless/moreorless_20120721-2350a.mp3

Very interesting alalysis of the speeds people are cycling, their power output etc.

Conclusion is that LA and his peers were not doing scientifically credible times, that Wiggins, Frome, Niballi, Evans etc are measurably slower than the riders in the 2000s and they don’t recover as well so can’t go day after day. Something that is evident in the “dull” racing.

Very interesting listening.

Obviously not proof LA doped but it is evidence that something that was happening then isn’t happening now. It adds weight to the arguement that Sky are clean but Postal were not and you would be a fool to ignore factual evidence such as this.

Ashenden urges UCI to assist USADA

How many of the past two decades TDF winners are tainted? Look at it for one moment, if they take the 7 titles off of him how will it look?

Its terrible for road cycling, even if he is guilty. The credibility of the sport. Yes it will be ground zero, to build on however look at Contador, you are still going to get winners caught in the future.

Depressing if he is stripped because it sure aint going to stop in top flight cycling.

I don’t actually care if he’s stripped of the titles, I just want cheaters as a whole to be punished in some way. For Lance, the total loss in credibility and an inability for him and his cronies to have anything to do with cycling for the rest of their lives is a pretty good thing.

As I said before, though, given his stature in the sport, the things he’s done (both actually and allegedly), it’s VERY important an example is made of him. Landis said the big difference between him and Armstrong is that Armstrong was powerful enough to make it go away. I think if Armstrong is found guilty, the UCI will also need to clean up as it will all come out in the wash. It will be painful but will lead to a better future I think.

It will look bad Hora…..should they just leave it be then?

I don’t know who is more pathetic; people calling for Lance and all cheats to be stripped of theri titles or the people blindly saying lance hasn’t cheated. In fact I do both as pathetic as each other.

The past is the past. If you’re not caught red handed then tough. The whole history of cycling and pretty much any competitive sport is full of people bending the rules as well as breaking them. The future of cycling and pretty much any competitive sport will have people bending the rules as well as breaking them. Its part of the nature of sport full stop. Please stop banging on about lets just accept he probably did dope he wasn’t caught. Big deal.

The more or less program was very interesting but I came to the conclusion that so many must have been doping that it would be impossible to judge who should of won.

I have to admit that after reading that Ashenden interview, I accept now that in 99 at least he was using. Evidence of synthetic EPO ?. I just can’t think of any other reason that would be there. At the moment I believe that Lance was using, based on what Ashenden was saying and the results from those retested samples.

Furthermore, if Lance was using in 99, I can’t see why he wouldn’t be using in subsequent years.

As for what to do about it. Not sure. It seems that EPO was in use during that period, may still be in use today. As was discussed in the interview, Lance’s samples weren’t the only ones to test positive for synthetic EPO.

😕

It will look bad Hora…..should they just leave it be then?

No however if your going to rip the sport a large arsehole then you really really should have 100% evidence otherwise just move on.

I don’t understand the agenda, political sport power-play against the UCI? Its ridiculous.

There will be no winners. The biggest loser will be the sport itself.

The past is the past. If you’re not caught red handed then tough

Utter nonsense, sorry.

Consider the parallels…

Following the event, a regulatory authority sets up an investigation into “cheating” by a small group of people in a position to use their influence and cover their tracks…

So, looking back from 2012, do we think it is OK, “in the past”, that selected staff in certain banks were manipulating data used for rate setting?

Or do we believe that they should be thoroughly investigated and any criminal wrong doing should be prosecuted?

ETA –

There will be no winners. The biggest loser will be the sport itself.

And does the sport not lose if this inconvenient problem is “disappeared”

If you could go back further and somehow test (or testify) against all the previous greats..and legends and found them guilty – should you?

Lets face it, the Tour is not won on mineral water alone.