Lance Armstrong vs. USADA
Discussion
I don't really all think cyclists are all at it still like they used to be. I don't think I'm wrong saying that times for big climbs (Ventoux, Alpe D'Huez etc) are less than they were a few years back when everyone (except Armstrong of course!) was doing it.
And when you get Wiggins talking the way he does, that goves me a lot of confidence he's not on drugs. Unlike perhaps Armstrong who argues simply that he's never failed a test.
And when you get Wiggins talking the way he does, that goves me a lot of confidence he's not on drugs. Unlike perhaps Armstrong who argues simply that he's never failed a test.
I don't know what to believe in this case. I really want him to be clean, and regardless of the outcome I'll still be in awe of his achievements.
It does effect his current racing prospects. He's not able to compete in Ironman events (where it's arguable whether he's competitive or not) because of the investigation, and I'm sure their rules state he can't compete if he receives a sanction of some sort by the USADA. This will be the least of his worries, but it's what he now trains for and was hoping to make the World Championships of.
It does effect his current racing prospects. He's not able to compete in Ironman events (where it's arguable whether he's competitive or not) because of the investigation, and I'm sure their rules state he can't compete if he receives a sanction of some sort by the USADA. This will be the least of his worries, but it's what he now trains for and was hoping to make the World Championships of.
can I ask a simple question?
what the f
k does the USADA have to do with the TDF or world cycling anyway?
just because the USADA says "LA took this this and this on this and such other date" does that necessarily make it so?
why should anyone take any notice of them. What I'm trying to say is that if Lance is "proven" to have taken PE drugs why should he be stripped of his tdf titles? why whould the tour take their evidens as prrof and strip him?
it seems like a tenuous connection to me...
what the f
k does the USADA have to do with the TDF or world cycling anyway?just because the USADA says "LA took this this and this on this and such other date" does that necessarily make it so?
why should anyone take any notice of them. What I'm trying to say is that if Lance is "proven" to have taken PE drugs why should he be stripped of his tdf titles? why whould the tour take their evidens as prrof and strip him?
it seems like a tenuous connection to me...
Some interesting stuff coming from Vaughters, the timing seems provident...
Anyway, to answer the questions regarding 'if they were all at it, Armstrong must still have been the best surely?', here's an excerpt of an interview with JV:
Take two riders of the same age, height, and weight, says Vaughters. They have identical VO2max at threshold—a measure of oxygen uptake at the limit of sustainable aerobic power. But one of them has a natural hematocrit of 36 and one of 47. Those riders have physiologies that don’t respond equally to doping.
It’s not even a simple math equation that, with the old 50 percent hematocrit limit, one rider could gain 14 percent and another only three. Even if you raise the limit to the edge of physical sustainability, 60 percent or more, to allow both athletes significant gains, it’s not an equal effect, Vaughters says.
He goes on to explain that the largest gains in oxygen transport occur in the lower hematocrit ranges—a 50 percent increase in RBC count is not a linear 50 percent increase in oxygen transport capability. The rider with the lower hematocrit is actually extremely efficient at scavenging oxygen from what little hemoglobin that he has, comparatively. So when you boost his red-cell count, he goes a lot faster. The rider at 47 is less efficient, so a boost has less effect.
“You have guys who train the same and are very disciplined athletes, and are even physiologically the same, but one has a quirk that’s very adaptable to the drug du jour,” Vaughters says. “Then all of a sudden your race winner is determined not by some kind of Darwinian selection of who is the strongest and fittest, but whose physiology happened to be most compatible with the drug, or to having 50 different things in him.”
He's also hinted at a few things regarding the UCI, and that he's given lots of information, support etc. to the relevant parties.
One can only assume this means the USADA.
With regard the relationship between the UCI and various doping authorities, my understanding is that the UCI sanction races and set the rules. They defer to all the respective ADAs for testing/blood passport creation/profiling. I surmise this is due to the efficiency, capability and consistency having a single agency covering all that country's elite athletes.
It appears to be unique in cycling that significant differences in responses to confirmed doping occur. I would posit that if this is the case, the UCI would be the cause of that.
The last two paragraphs are pure conjecture and probably wildly misinformed.
Anyway, to answer the questions regarding 'if they were all at it, Armstrong must still have been the best surely?', here's an excerpt of an interview with JV:
Take two riders of the same age, height, and weight, says Vaughters. They have identical VO2max at threshold—a measure of oxygen uptake at the limit of sustainable aerobic power. But one of them has a natural hematocrit of 36 and one of 47. Those riders have physiologies that don’t respond equally to doping.
It’s not even a simple math equation that, with the old 50 percent hematocrit limit, one rider could gain 14 percent and another only three. Even if you raise the limit to the edge of physical sustainability, 60 percent or more, to allow both athletes significant gains, it’s not an equal effect, Vaughters says.
He goes on to explain that the largest gains in oxygen transport occur in the lower hematocrit ranges—a 50 percent increase in RBC count is not a linear 50 percent increase in oxygen transport capability. The rider with the lower hematocrit is actually extremely efficient at scavenging oxygen from what little hemoglobin that he has, comparatively. So when you boost his red-cell count, he goes a lot faster. The rider at 47 is less efficient, so a boost has less effect.
“You have guys who train the same and are very disciplined athletes, and are even physiologically the same, but one has a quirk that’s very adaptable to the drug du jour,” Vaughters says. “Then all of a sudden your race winner is determined not by some kind of Darwinian selection of who is the strongest and fittest, but whose physiology happened to be most compatible with the drug, or to having 50 different things in him.”
He's also hinted at a few things regarding the UCI, and that he's given lots of information, support etc. to the relevant parties.
One can only assume this means the USADA.
With regard the relationship between the UCI and various doping authorities, my understanding is that the UCI sanction races and set the rules. They defer to all the respective ADAs for testing/blood passport creation/profiling. I surmise this is due to the efficiency, capability and consistency having a single agency covering all that country's elite athletes.
It appears to be unique in cycling that significant differences in responses to confirmed doping occur. I would posit that if this is the case, the UCI would be the cause of that.
The last two paragraphs are pure conjecture and probably wildly misinformed.
BlackVanDyke said:
Armstrong bails. No longer contesting charges.
Goodness me. This could be interesting.
Spose that makes Jan Ullrich a 4-times Tour winner?
Hardly. Ulrich has long since been busted. By most common reckonings, if you rip out ever doper - confirmed or suspected -from the TdF results, Sastre has somewhere between 3 and 5 titles. Goodness me. This could be interesting.
Spose that makes Jan Ullrich a 4-times Tour winner?
In any event, the USADA has no power to strip anyone of a Tour win. That rests with the UCI, which has already said it won't automatically accept the USADA's result. My guess is that LA won't have taken this step without being fairly confident that the UCI will back him, and not the USADA.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 24th August 06:25
Armstrong's statement:
http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armsto...
Assuming even 1/2 of he says is close to the truth, it sounds like USADA were convening a kangaroo court and he's fed up of the witch hunt.
History is history, it is difficult to see what chasing this back so far achieves: how many of those that finished second to him (or third, fourth....) have also had drug bans etc? So who actually 'won'?
From Armstrong's statement:
'I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours. We all raced together. For three weeks over the same roads, the same mountains, and against all the weather and elements that we had to confront. There were no shortcuts, there was no special treatment. The same courses, the same rules. The toughest event in the world where the strongest man wins. Nobody can ever change that.'
http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armsto...
Assuming even 1/2 of he says is close to the truth, it sounds like USADA were convening a kangaroo court and he's fed up of the witch hunt.
History is history, it is difficult to see what chasing this back so far achieves: how many of those that finished second to him (or third, fourth....) have also had drug bans etc? So who actually 'won'?
From Armstrong's statement:
'I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours. We all raced together. For three weeks over the same roads, the same mountains, and against all the weather and elements that we had to confront. There were no shortcuts, there was no special treatment. The same courses, the same rules. The toughest event in the world where the strongest man wins. Nobody can ever change that.'
A sad result. One assumes that, having seen the evidence against him, he's chosen the route that will cost him less and still allow him to suggest he is innocent.
I would guess that many people would be thinking the same as me with regards to his guilt.
It is not as if this came out of the blue though. We all knew it was going on in those days.
I feel sorry for him. It does seem, going by the others who have confessed to abuse of drugs, that it was either take them or lose your job. It would appear that a lot of the pressure on the riders to cheat came from their team managers.
Perhpas one good thing will come out of this nasty mess: cyclists and others who are considering taking performance enhancing drugs will think twice. Mind you, I feel that no one is the winner in this case.
I would guess that many people would be thinking the same as me with regards to his guilt.
It is not as if this came out of the blue though. We all knew it was going on in those days.
I feel sorry for him. It does seem, going by the others who have confessed to abuse of drugs, that it was either take them or lose your job. It would appear that a lot of the pressure on the riders to cheat came from their team managers.
Perhpas one good thing will come out of this nasty mess: cyclists and others who are considering taking performance enhancing drugs will think twice. Mind you, I feel that no one is the winner in this case.
johnfm said:
Derek
You weren't one of those coppers who 'knew' someone was guilty when the only evidence seems to be the testimony of a criminal were you?
It's not really testimonies of criminals in this case though is it. It's testimonies of ex team mates, friends, other dopers, his old DS, connections to a doctor famous for doping and bribes to the UCI. You weren't one of those coppers who 'knew' someone was guilty when the only evidence seems to be the testimony of a criminal were you?
Given the number of dopers caught in the years Armstrong won would they even bother announcing a new winner of each tour?
@KathyLeMond tweeted (one of only two so not sure if a genuine account) "Finally"
the other one is a retweet, "as of tonight, Greg LeMond is the only American man to win the Tour de France"
@KathyLeMond tweeted (one of only two so not sure if a genuine account) "Finally"
the other one is a retweet, "as of tonight, Greg LeMond is the only American man to win the Tour de France"
johnfm said:
Derek
You weren't one of those coppers who 'knew' someone was guilty when the only evidence seems to be the testimony of a criminal were you?
I have to say that I would not class Betsy Andreu as a criminal.You weren't one of those coppers who 'knew' someone was guilty when the only evidence seems to be the testimony of a criminal were you?
What we have here is an allegation of conspiracy where some of those thought to be involved have confessed to being so and have implicated LA, not necessarily by name but by circumstances. There is lots of circumstantial evidence including LA's refusal to, in actuality, go on oath when saying the things he put in his press release.
Why not opt for arbitration? He picks one of the tribunal I believe and his choice helps pick another (although I’m not too certain of the MO.) Then all he has to say is what he’s said to the press although, of course, if what he says is proved to be a lie he can, as others have, go to prison.
We’ve had a lot of obfuscation from the LA side. The dependence on passing drugs tests (many would contest the 500+ quoted by the LA side) as proof positive is rather pathetic. Anyone who knows the barest minimum of drugs testing in those days knows that they are easily ‘confused’.
Many cyclists who have been convicted or confessed to drug abuse have passed many tests themselves.
I accept that many (ex)cyclists appear to dislike LA intently. Lemond is hardly a fan. One might think that this could be them getting back at LA but when one looks at the cost to them it does beggar belief that so many would do it as they have to admit to being involved.
Just think that LA was involved with Ferrari.
I find it difficult to believe that LA would give up, and lose so much, if he was indeed innocent. It is easy to say he’d lose $millions in trying to fight it but I think it likely he will lose even more by not challenging the ADA.
It’s such a shame. He was inspirational in his comeback from cancer. Now it appears it is all a wee bit mucky and we were fools to believe in fairy stories.
You have to accept that drug taking was endemic in those days, some suggest with the acceptance and connivance of the authorities. Remember the support Delgardo got when he was found to have taken a masking agent in le Tour in the late 80s? The cycling press, including the Channel 4 commentary team, rushed to his defence.
I remember a little dig in a magazine article on drug taking in another sport to the effect that many professional cyclists on the TdF stood up to the pressure from team managers to take drugs. They were called spectators.
This doesn’t excuse it but it does make it more understandable.
I have the feeling this will release many more stories of those days.
It is sad but if he had decided to fight the allegations, or even go to arbitration, then we might have had a hope that we hadn’t all been willing to put good sense aside when cheering him on.
el stovey said:
It's not really testimonies of criminals in this case though is it. It's testimonies of ex team mates, friends, other dopers, his old DS, connections to a doctor famous for doping and bribes to the UCI.
Good points there.Edited to apologise for the endorsement of Stovey's comment. I feel it is more than a litle patronishing. Not meant to be of course.
Edited by Derek Smith on Friday 24th August 08:36
The obvious difficulty in stripping titles is working out what the consequences mean. The faintly ridiculous situation leads to riders being awarded the titles many years after the event, with equal suspicion that they were also juiced up.
Short of getting Armstrong to admit doping (perhaps along with an amnesty to allow him to continue triathlon etc), and therefore using him as a positive tool against doping in the current era, this saga is really nothing more than a sideshow.
Better perhaps to place an asterisk along all the results that are currently viewed as tainted and even go as far as to no longer recognise them officially. Beyond that all that has been proven here is that Cycling's governing bodies are dysfunctional and severely undermining their own sport.
Short of getting Armstrong to admit doping (perhaps along with an amnesty to allow him to continue triathlon etc), and therefore using him as a positive tool against doping in the current era, this saga is really nothing more than a sideshow.
Better perhaps to place an asterisk along all the results that are currently viewed as tainted and even go as far as to no longer recognise them officially. Beyond that all that has been proven here is that Cycling's governing bodies are dysfunctional and severely undermining their own sport.
johnfm said:
Derek
You weren't one of those coppers who 'knew' someone was guilty when the only evidence seems to be the testimony of a criminal were you?
I think Derek is making fair and considered points.You weren't one of those coppers who 'knew' someone was guilty when the only evidence seems to be the testimony of a criminal were you?
As always with Lance, his wording is careful and slightly evasive.
"I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999."
Why say "had an unfair advantage" ? Why not say, "I have been dealing with claims that I used performance enhancing drugs". He knows he took the drugs, he can't flatly deny it, but he can deny he had an "unfair advantage", after all everyone else was taking drugs too. How many times have we heard, "I am the most tested and I've never tested positive", it's not the same as "I have never taken drugs."
That said, I still don't understand the tone of the USADA investigation, it's too personal, as if someone there has a score to settle. He was the best during a time in the sport when drug taking was endemic, no need to destroy him, leave him to further his charity work and the hope he gives to countless cancer sufferers.
Derek Smith said:
It’s such a shame. He was inspirational in his comeback from cancer. Now it appears it is all a wee bit mucky and we were fools to believe in fairy stories.
To me there are two Lance Armstrongs.There's Lance Armstrong of the LA foundation, cancer survivor and inspiration to millions. Then there's bullying cheating UCI bribing Lance Armstrong ex doper with all his Lawyers threatening anyone that spoke out against him.
Although it seems a contradiction I still think you can be inspired by him and his story despite the fact he was a drug cheat. He is an amazing, naturally gifted, hard working athlete. It's a shame that he doesn't have the balls to admit it fully rather than this nonsense about giving up against USADA. Everyone with any kind of impartiality can see he's guilty.
How much better would it be if he finally put his hand up and lifted the lid on what was going on. Just owned up and told the truth like Millar has. Perhaps he's gone too far now and there are too many legal implications for him if he told the truth. I'd certainly buy his next book if it was his true story.
el stovey said:
To me there are two Lance Armstrongs.
There's Lance Armstrong of the LA foundation, cancer survivor and inspiration to millions. Then there's bullying cheating UCI bribing Lance Armstrong ex doper with all his Lawyers threatening anyone that spoke out against him.
Although it seems a contradiction I still think you can be inspired by him and his story despite the fact he was a drug cheat. He is an amazing, naurally gifted, hard working athlete. It's a shame that he doesn't have the balls to admit it fully rather than this nonsense about giving up against USADA. Everyone with any kind of impartiality can see he's guilty.
How much better would it be if he finally put his hand up and lifted the lid on what was going on. Just owned up and told the truth like Millar has. Perhaps he's gone too far now and there are too many legal implications for him if he told the truth. I'd certainly buy his next book if it was his true story.
Thanks for that. I think I agree with you. There are one or two positives still.There's Lance Armstrong of the LA foundation, cancer survivor and inspiration to millions. Then there's bullying cheating UCI bribing Lance Armstrong ex doper with all his Lawyers threatening anyone that spoke out against him.
Although it seems a contradiction I still think you can be inspired by him and his story despite the fact he was a drug cheat. He is an amazing, naurally gifted, hard working athlete. It's a shame that he doesn't have the balls to admit it fully rather than this nonsense about giving up against USADA. Everyone with any kind of impartiality can see he's guilty.
How much better would it be if he finally put his hand up and lifted the lid on what was going on. Just owned up and told the truth like Millar has. Perhaps he's gone too far now and there are too many legal implications for him if he told the truth. I'd certainly buy his next book if it was his true story.
It's not as if it has come as a surprise. Landis, despite being a drug cheat, always seemed to be straight when he talked of taking drugs in the Postal team. He is a Mormon or something and it seemed to be a big thing in his life. When he was found to be lieing he just seemed unable to cope with it.
I think I expected this result all along.
As you say, he came back from the jaws of death, and they were around his balls.
Mind you, the LA of the Armstrong foundation .com is the same one as the LA of the Armstrong foundation .org.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff