Armstrong Robbed

[endure]

As like I said I find his personality super annoying, I just don't believe him. Others who like him can regard him as clean.

His guilt or innocence doesn't rely on whether you like him or not. It relies on first hand evidence. There isn't any.

You need to return that mail-order law degree.

Eyewitness testimony is evidence in any court.

The fact that at least 10 of his former teammates were willing to testify against him, not to mention all the others (including his masseuse) that saw his use of performance enhancing drugs, was enough for Armstrong to say "I give up." Now his supporters can continue to say it was a "witch hunt" while the most damning statements won't come out for another year or two.

The doping itself isn't so bad. Most cyclists in that era doped. The bigger problem is the systematic doping by the team and the requirement to be a "team player" that gave other riders on the team no choice but to dope.

Armstrong is no hero.

How many blood tests did he take? How many did he fail?

[colinneil]

I agree armstrong is no hero, arrogant yes took drugs didnt take drugs , why did so many people say he did?????

[StreetCowboy]

This highlights the inadequacy of a "zero" limit. Given that we can't test to a zero limit, limits should be defined that we can test - just as most countries do with drink-driving regulations. If you get a postivie result but below the limit, you are legal.

SC

[whybother]

As like I said I find his personality super annoying, I just don't believe him. Others who like him can regard him as clean.

His guilt or innocence doesn't rely on whether you like him or not. It relies on first hand evidence. There isn't any.

You need to return that mail-order law degree.

Eyewitness testimony is evidence in any court.

The fact that at least 10 of his former teammates were willing to testify against him, not to mention all the others (including his masseuse) that saw his use of performance enhancing drugs, was enough for Armstrong to say "I give up." Now his supporters can continue to say it was a "witch hunt" while the most damning statements won't come out for another year or two.

The doping itself isn't so bad. Most cyclists in that era doped. The bigger problem is the systematic doping by the team and the requirement to be a "team player" that gave other riders on the team no choice but to dope.

Armstrong is no hero.

How many blood tests did he take? How many did he fail?

He failed 2 tests.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[el jefe]

I have followed the tour for many years and in those years I never really took to LA, his abrasive manner always annoyed me, I guess he had reason to be prickly, he was tested on many occasions, not once positive.

Do I think he took performance enhancing drugs, yes I do, but that means nothing without evidence, at this stage there is none published.

Because of his refusal to fight the charges USADA are stripping him of his seven titles, not sure of the legality of that, but the UCI will challenge unless evidence is provided and ultimately CAS will be involved.

Eye witness testimony may well be permitted, but if those bearing witness are themselves discredited, does that not in it self cast shadow on the allegation? Although I am not sure of the stature of those giving statements, if this goes past USADA and UCI without a stong case, my personal belief will see CAS throw it out.

I think he took PED's, but I also stand by being innocent until proven guilty, he has not proven positive and he has been tested many times, I think he should have gone all the way.

You'll have to give back your law degree too.

Yes, he can be stripped of all his titles. The procedure is part of the agreement all professional cyclists sign when they agree to race under UCI rules.

Witnesses can be discredited but first you need to have a hearing. Armstrong said he "gives up" and chose not to have the arbitration hearing where the witnesses could have been cross-examined. And before someone says that USADA refused to reveal who the witnesses were, at least 8 of the 10+ witnesses are common knowledge. It would be very difficult to discredit Armstrong's "good friend" George Hincapie who he thought of "like a brother" and several other witnesses. And why did USADA not want to name witnesses? Because Armstrong and Co have been know to intimidate witnesses in the past.

This may very well go to CAS but Armstrong is not likely to do well there. 58 of 60 athletes have lost their appeal to CAS.

btw, to correct another post, there were actually 4 failed tests

[Mossfinn]

You'll have to give back your law degree too.

What an extraordinary statement.

I agree he can be stripped of his titles by the USADA, but UCI are demanding evidence and I am not sure of the outcome if both UCI and CAS come out in favour of LA.

Hincapie can be discredited, along with Tyler and Landis, all admitted or tested postive to PED's.

As for 58 out of 60, it will depend on the evidence submitted, not %ages's of athletes.

Can I have a link please, in regard to four failed drug tests that have been upheld by any organisation?

[endure]

He failed 2 tests.

When and where please?

[whybother]

He failed 2 tests.

When and where please?

1) http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/08/lance-armstrong-doping-allegations/

2) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-23/lance-armstrong-failed-drug-test-in-2001-tyler-hamilton-tells-60-minutes.html

[el jefe]

I agree he can be stripped of his titles by the USADA, but UCI are demanding evidence and I am not sure of the outcome if both UCI and CAS come out in favour of LA.

Hincapie can be discredited, along with Tyler and Landis, all admitted or tested postive to PED's.

As part of Armstrong's lawsuit to collect his $5mil bonus in 2004 he and his lawyers argued that USADA's testing which included non-analytical adverse findings, was sufficient to clear him of doping charges. Now he's arguing the reverse. If UCI actually goes to CAS to challenge USADA and overturn the results of the organization they aurthorized, the UCI and the entire sport of pro cycling will lose whatever tiny bit of respect they have left. if the UCI gets to decide the winners then pro cycling is no better than professional wrestling.

Of course, Hincapie can be discredited. Anyone can be if they are requested to testify at a hearing/arbitration. and subject to cross-examination. Armstrong chose not to do that. but, most importantly, Hincapie has never tested positive, nor has he admitted to doping. The only connection Hincapie has to doping is that he raced on Armstrong's team during his 7 TdF's and may have been required to dope as a condition of remaining on the team. (In that case I don't think armstrong would want him to testify.)

If you can prove Hincapie failed a test or admitted to using banned substances, please supply a link.

[soi41]

Does it really matter if the riders are doped or not? They create great entertainment value for spectators/viewers, good value for the sponsors. If they want to play Russian roulette with their lives to entertain/earn big box, up to them! IMO there has not been a clean winner in Tour de France since Indurain.

Last couple of days I have been following La Vuelta, with the best man to man fight I have ever seen in cycling between Contador and Rodrigues. Sport at its best Would it have been less enjoyable, if I knew that they both were pumped full with PED ? Not at all, gave me a couple of good hours and plenty of expossure for Katusha and Saxo Bank. Get used to, that you probably never will see a 100% clean winner of one of the big tours.

[Mossfinn]

He failed 2 tests.

When and where please?

1) http://www.wired.com...ng-allegations/

2) http://www.bloomberg...60-minutes.html

Speculation and hyperbole, please show where any organisation have proof of a failed drug test under the rules of cycling, or any sport for that matter.

[Mossfinn]

Does it really matter if the riders are doped or not? They create great entertainment value for spectators/viewers, good value for the sponsors. If they want to play Russian roulette with their lives to entertain/earn big box, up to them! IMO there has not been a clean winner in Tour de France since Indurain.

Last couple of days I have been following La Vuelta, with the best man to man fight I have ever seen in cycling between Contador and Rodrigues. Sport at its best Would it have been less enjoyable, if I knew that they both were pumped full with PED ? Not at all, gave me a couple of good hours and plenty of expossure for Katusha and Saxo Bank. Get used to, that you probably never will see a 100% clean winner of one of the big tours.

I agree ( in part ) the battle has been magnificent, better than Roche/Delgado, Schleck/Contador, I don't know, but where I differ is the drug part, yes I do care.

[endure]

He failed 2 tests.

When and where please?

1) http://www.wired.com...ng-allegations/

2) http://www.bloomberg...60-minutes.html

Where and when please?

[Mossfinn]

btw, to correct another post, there were actually 4 failed tests

If you can prove Hincapie failed a test or admitted to using banned substances, please supply a link.

As for Hincapie, I will not speculate, a quick scoot now shows I can find no definitive evidence that would stand up, so it appears I may have been mistaken. I never said he failed a test, but that he admitted to taking PED's, that may come out in the wash, but at this moment, I cannot definitely prove it, nor do I want to, a most respected member of the cycling collective, that he took PED's.

So how about yourself, where's the proof on the failed four test results on Armstrong, that are upheld by any sporting organisation?

[zzdocxx]

USADA's testing which included non-analytical adverse findings

What does that mean exactly?

[el jefe]

He failed 2 tests.

When and where please?

1) http://www.wired.com...ng-allegations/

2) http://www.bloomberg...60-minutes.html

Speculation and hyperbole, please show where any organisation have proof of a failed drug test under the rules of cycling, or any sport for that matter.

It all depends on your definition of "failed drug test". barry Bonds and roger Clemens never fialed a drug test either. No one believes they were clean. Nor has any athlete ever donated $100,000+ to a testing organization. Oh, wait ... Armstrong did.

Hincapie has never publicly admitted to doping. but if you read this article you'll realize it will be difficult for Armstrong to discredit his "loyal friend" -- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/sports/cycling/hincapie-an-armstrong-teammate-seen-as-reluctant-but-reliable-witness.html?pagewanted=all

or read this interview with a PhD in Exercise Physioloy who is also an expert in this case -- http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Or read David Millar or Tyler Hamilton's books -- http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8321135/book-former-lance-armstrong-teammate-friend-turns-banal-very-ugly

but best of all there is this from yesterday's news -- http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-usada-in-possession-of-positive-armstrong-samples

Whether the re-tests come back positive or not, over a dozen friends and teammates have come forward to testify against Armstrong. Other than Phil Liggett (who has business ties to Armstrong) and a bunch of internet posters, I've yet to hear of anyone in the sport defend him.

I'll be back in two weeks when, hopefully, the results of those new tests by USADA will be announced.

[el jefe]

Does it really matter if the riders are doped or not? They create great entertainment value for spectators/viewers, good value for the sponsors. If they want to play Russian roulette with their lives to entertain/earn big box, up to them! IMO there has not been a clean winner in Tour de France since Indurain.

Last couple of days I have been following La Vuelta, with the best man to man fight I have ever seen in cycling between Contador and Rodrigues. Sport at its best Would it have been less enjoyable, if I knew that they both were pumped full with PED ? Not at all, gave me a couple of good hours and plenty of expossure for Katusha and Saxo Bank. Get used to, that you probably never will see a 100% clean winner of one of the big tours.

Professional wrestling is entertaing and good sport too.

If you could limit the doping to just professional athletes, then maybe I'd agree with you -- let 'em dope. But since you can't limit doping to just professional athletes, doping is unfair. Maybe you're not really seeing the best athletes in the world compete at the highest level. It is not only possible, but probable that some of the best cyclists in the world have chosen not to participate because they did not want to take potentially dangerous drugs.

You should read this article about amateurs being forced to take performance enhancing drugs:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2000/12/news/strock-speaks_79

Then google "Genevieve Jenson" and learn how a 15 year old girl was coerced into taking drugs to make her a champion cyclist.

If you have kids, would you want them to persue a life as a professional cyclist if this is what they have to do to be competitive as an amateur?

[el jefe]

USADA's testing which included non-analytical adverse findings

What does that mean exactly?

Once you learn how to use google it's easy to find this info.

Just go to the USADA website -- http://www.usada.org/about

http://www.usantidoping.org/paper/definitions_text.aspx

By definition, a Non-Analytical Positive is "an anti-doping rule violation other than the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete's bodily specimen." In other words it means proving a rider doped without a positive test.

[Mossfinn]

So as we stand right now, there are no four failed tests that have incited a ban from any organisation.

As for defending Armstrong, it is quite clear if I support him or not.

Afraid you must return that internet law degree you know

[zzdocxx]

USADA's testing which included non-analytical adverse findings

What does that mean exactly?

Once you learn how to use google it's easy to find this info.

Just go to the USADA website -- http://www.usada.org/about

http://www.usantidop...ons_text.aspx

By definition, a Non-Analytical Positive is "an anti-doping rule violation other than the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete's bodily specimen." In other words it means proving a rider doped without a positive test.

Thanks for clarifying that, although it seems like the use of the term "testing" in that regard is a misnomer.

Wouldn't you agree?

[MANICMINER]

I wonder how many other athletes from the more sophisticated nations would be stripped of their medals if they tested old blood samples. Ben Johnson would get his gold medal back on the basis that all the others in that final were on drugs too.

They got away with it and still do by being one step ahead with the testers.

I recently watched a documentary about the Ben Johnson 100 metres race, and the guy who still has all the samples of the finalists, started to test them with todays technology. He immediately found that others in that final were also taking drugs, but science at that time did not pick it up. He then decided to stop doing further tests, because he did not want to stir up a hornets nest - he did not name any names in the documentary.

[steveromagnino]

AFAIK back in the 90s they had no test to pick up using EPO (method to illegally boost oxygen in his blood) so they used a 50% value after which riders had to stand down; Armstrong stayed below that as did most others (doesn't mean they weren't taking something) and so when they developed a test later and retested blood Armstrong's samples were found to contain evidence of EPO doping; a leading Australian authority on doping stated is was impossible to accurately fiddle the results as Armstrong alleged had occurred; the dodgy results matched the legs when EPO would have been most beneficial.I'm not sure there is a good test for blood transfusions; certainly tests for EPO and testosterone and cortisone can be worked around as most of the peleton are aware.The evidence against Armstrong is not much different than with other cycling dopers.....some of whom were caught once...some of whom were never caught...some of whom have since come clean.e.g.Multiple examples of heresay testimony against Armstrong from Hamilton, his massuese, Landis, and about half a dozen other teammates; implication by working with a renowned doping doctor Ferrari; implication by the reality that Armstrong was never a strong climber prior to returning to the tour (didn't even finish 3 out of 4 tours) then suddenly is smoking Pantini (who was a doper) in 2000; implication by output (biking is basically a machine and his body weight didn't change much but suddenly his performance did against a bunch of climbing dopers (Hamilton, Pantini, Ullrich, Virenique, Contador etc etc).He also DID fail 2 tests; one for cortisone (had a prescription created after the fact) and again in 2001 for EPO (I think) which was dropped somehow.Many of the dopers passed hundreds of tests and often failed none or one prior to accepting and acknowledging they were dopers later (Riis for instance was never caught, but owned up later on; Landis caught once, Hamilton caught once both of them claimed to have a history of doping almost non stop since they started in the TDF) so passing tests only merely means they weren't caught doping, doesn't mean they didn't.Ignoring all of that, Armstrong rode on the shoulders of his team....who were dopers. So he had a huge headstart over anyone riding in a team completely without dopers (although I doubt anyone competitive was riding clean, the advantage of doping is just too massive in a 3 week tour).There is a ton of information suggesting that the dopers were years ahead of the testers; but they were reliant on the doctors who supported them and a load of logistics (which is how Festina got caught in 1998).I still believe Lance was the greatest cyclist of his era...but to believe he was so much quicker than known climbing dopers and running a team with dopers with a doping doctor when the evidence of advantages of doping is so much in the TdF....it seems like he was playing the same game as the people he raced against and beat.He also has an awesome PR and legal team.Having said all of that, what is to say stripping him of the title won't just hand it to the next in line who was also doping?Better to leave it and accept that doping was part of the game of that era of the TdF (or much of the entire tour's history if you believe some).

Edited September 24, 2012 by steveromagnino

[Mossfinn]

.Ignoring all of that, Armstrong rode on the shoulders of his team....who were dopers. So he had a huge headstart over anyone riding in a team completely without dopers

A very good point, but the point myself and others are trying to make, is he was never banned by any organisation in his career.

I think few believe he wasn't taking PED's but he was never caught, on the testimony of those that can be without sin, so be it, but surely rules are there for a reason, not just to satisfy a witch hunt over a prolonged period, that in itself I would question.

Just anothr point, did Virenque ever post positive on any drug failure? Or another one who is guilty by association and no positive proof?

[el jefe]

For anyone who still thinks Armstrong isn't a fraud and wasn't using performance enhancing drugs, here's USADA's report:

http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/

imho the most damning part is this:

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Hincapie%2c+George+Affidavit.pdf

[steveromagnino]

"A very good point, but the point myself and others are trying to make, is he was never banned by any organisation in his career."

I believe he was banned for life by the Triathalon Association. But I am not sure why; arguably part of the 'witch hunt' that Armstrong supporters talk about.

Now we are seeing more and more teammates coming out and admitting, they were also not banned either (in many cases) but it doesn't mean they weren't dopers. Lance falls in the same category of not caught but his case is without any admission of guilt. yet.

As a champion it is logical he would be under more scrutiny than a middling rider in the peleton.

I don't agree with the claim that his was a doping program like no other; my feeling is ALL the teams at the front end were doing blood transfusions, EPO, steroids and more; I don't think it was possible to compete in that era not doing it and expecting to be up the front of a 3 week event. Clean cyclists could only ride in the short 1-5 day type events.

It is however grating to think that he made such a song and dance about being clean, and villainising the people who spoke against him, when now the truth is starting to become fairly clear. However, I am not sure it would be possible to be in the middle, you either claim you are totally clean or people assume you aren't.

[David48]

The World According to Lance

The story they tell describes a ruthless competitor who will do anything to win races and earn millions of dollars in prize money and endorsements. These people tell a story that details over ten years of drug use, that began before he was diagnosed with cancer. They also tell a story of a man prepared to vilify former friends and employees if they dare to cross him.

How did he get away with it? Why did officials fail to act against him when, on three separate occasions, drug test results raised questions about his use of drugs? Why did the world governing body for cycling accept donations from him that clearly compromised its ability to treat Armstrong as they would any other competitor?

The widely regarded Australian program 4 corners discuss this ... http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/11/3608613.htm

[David48]

Armstrong fallout gathers momentum ...

Lance Armstrong has stepped down as chairman of Livestrong and at least four companies have ended their contracts with him, including his biggest sponsor Nike.

Short video clip here

[StreetCowboy]

It calls into question the effectiveness of prohibition.

Perhaps it would be better to set limits, and enforce those limits, and let people comply with the limits any way they choose, as we do for alcohol in driving. Surely safety is more important than sport? Yet we allow people who drink to drive, so long as they stay within the legal limits. Perhaps the same approach could be taken to doping.

SC

[Jingthing]

I reckon Armstrong's defenders are going to be thinner on the ground now ...

[pauljones]

I would be interesting to see an unlimited class(doping) of athletes.

Competitions could have separate catagories for 'clean' athletes and 'doping' athletes.