Lance, latest have we done it yet.

He’s been stripped of his acting position in Dodgeball now. All future screenings will have him blurred out like in security videos.

phil.w – Member
Hora, are you the only person here who hasn’t read this Michael Ashenden interview. Or did you just decide that it’s not relevant?

Ok, i’ll bite…..i believe for a drug test to be considered positive and for a governing body to act on it the A and B samples must be tested and must be positive.

The Ashenden evidence is using a six year old B sample only.

On those grounds no governing body would be able to consider this a positive test.
I await correction on this but i’m sure that’s how it works.

What purpose does it serve?

It sends a message that cheats will always be caught.

I wouldn’t bother stripping him of his titles though, as they were all ripped to their tits back then anyways.

JY – he has to maintain that line though, doesn’t he.

As soon as he lets a chink appear, he will be in the clink.

If he owns up / doesn’t maintain his non-doping stance, then the Feds will be under pressure to re-open the misuse of public money investigations again…

… which of course, may happen anyway.

He was quite good in Dodgeball for a non actor.

He’ll surely now be stripped of his Dodgeball cameo

Without reading all of the to and fro above, I’ve got to say that I’m genuinely feeling quite sad right now. Way back I read both his books and followed and shouted at my telly for him in the tour. Over the intervening years I’ve come to have my doubts, which became deeper and deeper. But today to have those suspicions as good as confirmed still feels a real wrench. A bit like a relationship that was dwindling away but has now truly finished.

A sad day.

exactly my thoughts – well said that man

Deviant – I agree with that. He hasn’t “tested positive” – those tests were not part of any doping control. He hasn’t been caught. The results have no standing in sport.

BUT, they do show syn EPO in his samples. They retrospectively show that he evaded detection, avoided being caught – but they are a strong indicator that he was using EPO.

Considered with any testimony, that provides a very strong case to be answered. He has chosen not to answer that in public.

What’s the science behind needing two positive samples?

In case one is contaminated, it removes all doubt.

The Banker analogy doesnt work for me, he raced bikes, he didnt plunge the world into economic turmoil I thought that was Gordon Browns fault 😉

People are disappointed that their idol has let them down I get that but not this pantomime of emotion that seems to have broken out.

druidh – can’t speak for medical testing, but there will always be some variance in the results obtained from a lab analysis. If A and B are both positive, then its a reasonable assumption that concentrations were above any limit. If A = positive and B = negative, you probably want to look at sample handling, lab protocols, or just accept that the result is very close to the limit – maybe, too close to call

deviant – contamination is one issue, but that might have happened at the time of collection: A / B split wont shed any light on that, but would show up any subsequient tampering

What gives USADA the right to strip the TdF titles?

On the beeb news earlier, they were saying that LAs decision not to go to arbitration was driven by not wanting to allow USADA to have jurisdiction over him and to enable the UCI to remain in place for him.
Apparently he would have had to sign over to and accept the jurisdiction of USADA

So the beeb are saying it’s all about jurisdiction at the moment

Thank you jota. Very interesting.

Pigface, re the banker analogy – I get your rejection of my analogy, and it was deliberatly tenuous…

… but a leading sports star these days makes a huge amount of money out of their success. Look at the fuss over Bolt and his sponsorhip vs UK tax liability.

If that success was based on a fraud, then the whole thing comes in to doubt. The commercial sponsors have had their showing, paid their money, but probably going to be reluctant to be associated with cycling in future – witness T-Mobile, that even had a knock on to Mountain Mayhem). But what about public money? US Postal – the basis of the FBI investigation?

What’s the science behind needing two positive samples?

You don’t. An athlete has the right to have there B sample tested. They can be convicted on just the A if they choose not to.

And the fact it was 6 years later doesn’t matter. Samples are kept for 8 years. The tests are usually playing catch up with the drugs being used so at any point during this time they can be tested and bans back dated.

The only issue with the positive samples is that they were being used for research not doping control.

You’ve got to hand it to Lance, he really is a master of PR and spin.

I choosing not to contest the charges he has chosen the least bad option. The evidnece won’t be heard in court, he gets the whole world to read his BS statement that still proclaims his inocence, despite him effectively pleading guilty to doping. He has again got the UCI on his side and is using that to discredit the USADA. Its all very comendable.

This is why he needs his titles stipped.

Not because he was the only one cheating,
Not becuase there is a worthy winner,
Not because it will be good for the sport.

But becuase he has taken all of the cycling public for mugs. Because he thinks he can still get away from it. Because he has just pleaded guilty to doping to get those titles.

Ok, i’ll bite…..i believe for a drug test to be considered positive and for a governing body to act on it the A and B samples must be tested and must be positive.

The Ashenden evidence is using a six year old B sample only.

On those grounds no governing body would be able to consider this a positive test.
I await correction on this but i’m sure that’s how it works.

Correct. One positive is called an Adverse Analytical Finding. It the requires back up of the B-sample. If that comes back negative, it is assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the athlete is innocent. If it comes back positive, the first finding is corroborated and you move to step 2 (hearings, sanctions etc).

So the result of that test (aside from all the out of date/research only arguments) is just an adverse analytical finding that can’t be proved as positive (no B-sample) and therefore can’t be used in a court of law.

@ deviant – the point has always been more the fact Hora refused to read it but still commented on it and what it meant

I think everyone knows control is best but LA has not release past stored samples for retesting. The article goes into great depth about how hard it would be to taint them even if you wanted to so them all being clean would also stop this debate only LA can give perission fo r this but he wont for obvious reasons

Does anyone know how often you get a different result from A and B samples? Has it even ever happened?

Interview on R4 this am – woman from the UK doping body and a Gaurdian or Telegraph (?) journo.

They were saying that the USADA jurisdiction was beyond doubt, as the US judge, er, judged. It is to do with him coming out of retirement.

In the time after he retired, most countries signed up to WADA, vesting jurisdiction to the National Govt, then delegated through their own ADA. That’s why Judge Sparks mentioned that USADA had jurisdiction via US Congress.

So, by re-entering competitive sport, LA, signed up to these new arrangements

He can’t really do more than he has done, taking every single test they have asked him to. It’s not clear cut for me this one

The issue for me is that we’ll never know for sure which and he has now ensured that by refusing to mount a defence which I think is the point of not mounting one.
He did take every test asked of him but, as alluded to in the article, there is supposedly strong evidence that would have been produced in court that he did actually Fail several of these tests but managed to get them covered up or discounted for various reasons.
Personally I think he was hoping that by aggressively defending his corner up to now that no case would ever be brought. Now that’s it’s obvious that this would be going to court then his best strategy is to do as he has an offer no defence which means the evidence will never be laid out in front of a court where a judge will have to take a view on it’s veracity.

Should any of the evidence come into the public domain without it having been tested and ruled upon by a court then he can still deny everything and claim that “they’re out to get me!”.

Live Strong-Take Drugs like me !

If that success was based on a fraud, then the whole thing comes in to doubt.

Specifically in the Lance case he had a $5m bonus for winning one of the tours withheld initially due to doping accusations. I bet the promotions company that paid out would be happy to get it back if he has his tittles stripped.

The cycling public are mugs to think that human beings can race the TdF at those speeds and be clean, for buying bikes, parts and clothing at the crazy prices we happily pay. A saddle really cost ££££££’s tyres that cost ££££££££ bikes that cost more that cars, we are all mugs.

Live Strong-Take Drugs like me !

Well he’d be dead if hadn’t

Nice post International Richard

He is just doing his best to maintain the Myth and create a façade of deniability that some will still buy

My view is a refusal to defend yourself is basically an admission of guilt

I was kind of expecting LA to take this route – Im expecting a statement fom the UCI (his mate Pat) later to state that they do not recognize the authority of the USADA (despite lance previously saying how good they were!) and everything stands – I hope Im wrong though as this then makes the UCI pretty much corrupt.

This is the easiest way out for LA – he doesnt have to face his accusers, the evidence does not come into the public domain, he can still state he’s never been convicted and Im not subject to the sanctions of USADA (a bit like sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala….)

His fans will also (incorrectly) keep on saying hes never failed a drugs test and has never been convicted and LA says Im not gonig to bother fighting allegations depsite spending millinos on the worlds best lawyers jsut to keep the witnesses out of court.

Interestingly though we’ve still got Bruynell’ arbitration hearing where a lot of evidence will come out, but Im sure then LA will use his usual bully boy tactics and character asasination on them…

Bit sad really..

The comparisions to Sky are also ludicrous.

On the climb up the perysourd(sp?) in this years TdF wiggins and co were outputting 6.1/6.2 Watts per kg. This is plausable.

LA was outputting 6.8/7 Watts per kg regularly during his dominant years (with Ulrich, Pantani and co flollowing him). The scientific concensous is that the limit of human effort without drugs is about 6.4/6.5 Watts per kg.

It doesn’t mean Wiggo is clean beyond doubt but it does mean there isn’t really a reason to suspect him in the same way there is for LA and his peers.

Oh dear, the Yanks do like to get wound up…

I wonder if they realize that, by the way this all went down with Armstrong finally just giving up knowing he couldn’t win a fight this rigged, that they just made him a martyr. Better yet, he’s a present-day Robin Hood. If the USADA is the “Sheriff of Nottingham,” then Armstrong is certainly the hero of the masses.

In the TDF top fives from 1999-2005 only Andrei Kivilev and Haimar Zubeldia never got linked to a doping case

Specifically in the Lance case he had a $5m bonus for winning one of the tours withheld initially due to doping accusations. I bet the promotions company that paid out would be happy to get it back if he has his tittles stripped.

Doesn’t matter. apparently, the wording of the contract was if he won. Not whether he won and used.
That was the argument which precipitated the payout.

Question:
How can I get Synthetic EPO into my urine, 6 times. Without ever going anywhere near a vile of synthetic EPO ?.

As of this moment in time, I’m 100% sure there’s no synthetic EPO in my body. Can I rely on this or might it just magically appear in my body at any moment ?.

In the TDF top fives from 1999-2005 only Andrei Kivilev and Haimar Zubeldia never got linked to a doping case

Best get their specimens tested then.

So…. Wiggins gets a TdF 2009 podium ?

Worst job in the world today…finding a winner for all of Lances TDF victories

I’m trying to work out who won each of those seven tours, by discounting all the cheats and frauds. I think it might have been me.

So…. Wiggins gets a TdF 2009 podium ?

Worst job in the world today…finding a winner for all of Lances TDF victories

UCI has to put it’s head above the parapet at some stage?

USADA might be able to strip LA – he’s one of “their” althletes, but only UCI would be able to award to another?

Question i want answering though is: Will he get his strava KOM’s stripped too?

Rumor has it that all of the evidence will be released by USADA after all of the investigations are over. Bruyneel is choosing arbitration so a lot of it should come out in court then, but Travis Tygart has suggested that all of the evidence will be released in due course.

Sad day, but cycling will move on. It’s not the only sport to be tainted by huge cheating (remember the Serie A match fixing scandals?) The past two years have given two winner whom most people believe are clean, power outputs and climb speeds are down, here’s hoping for a cleaner future.

Ok so when someone asks

Lance, latest have we done it yet.

Can we say yes?

And the fact it was 6 years later doesn’t matter. Samples are kept for 8 years. The tests are usually playing catch up with the drugs being used so at any point during this time they can be tested and bans back dated.

The only issue with the positive samples is that they were being used for research not doping control.

Did the UCI provide the samples for the tests in the Ashenden interview?
I can’t remember, but if they did it would dampen the UCI/Armstrong conspiracy theory part a bit. That or someone really screwed up in choosing TdF 2009 as the test of the test.