Lance Armstrong vs. USADA

Lance Armstrong vs. USADA

Author
Discussion

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Tuesday 21st August 2012
quotequote all
rhinochopig said:
Well he won't accept a lifetime ban nor the stripping of all his previous results so i guess we'll see soon enough.
He will have seen the evidence that the DA has. He might well be backed into a corner.

This is America of course, with their convoluted legal system. It is sometimes better to concentrate on the appeal than the actual original case.

I have to say that at the time I just assumed that, like so many others, he was using performance enhancing drugs. It seemed everyone was. A new masking agent would be found and everyone's performances would improve until such time as it was banned. I remember Delgardo in the late 80s having a positive BT for a certain steroid masking agent on the TdF. It hit the papers and there was talk of him being banned. Then it was realised that the authorities had decided to put the ban back until the end of the TdF and someone had not told the testers.

Delgardo was then treated as the victim. All very odd. I remember the Channel 4 commentator spitting blood about the criminal, in his mind, testers publishing the fact that Delgardo was using a masking agent. He said something like: even if he did take it, it does not improve performance in any way. No one is that thick.

It seemed to me that performance enhancing drugs were the norm in cycling in theose days and at least the decade following. Athletes were pumping themselves up on steroid-type substances and then putting in enormous times for climbs. Yet along came LA and left these druggies in his wake.

No matter how good he was both naturally and in training, he was up against the best of the best, and while they were on drugs, and was still in a class of his own.

The attitude of the DA is rather strange. They are attacking their own for not particular gain. This is all historical. I'm not going out on a limb when I say that we all know it was rife and that with the money involved nowadays it still goes on. My feeling is that they should invest all this money in the current crop to sort out the abusers.

My money is on him fighting it but I wonder if that would be the advice of his legal team.

DJRC

23,563 posts

235 months

Tuesday 21st August 2012
quotequote all
el stovey said:
DJRC said:
It is quite possibly the most pointless bloody exercise in sport currently.

What are they actually accusing him of doping *with*? I still dont know.
I don't think it's pointless at all. USADA are just doing their job, catching drugs cheats.
Its utterly pointless. The bloke is retired! You cant ban someone retired...they have gone! Its a bit too late to be all happy with yourself.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 21st August 2012
quotequote all
DJRC said:
el stovey said:
DJRC said:
It is quite possibly the most pointless bloody exercise in sport currently.

What are they actually accusing him of doping *with*? I still dont know.
I don't think it's pointless at all. USADA are just doing their job, catching drugs cheats.
Its utterly pointless. The bloke is retired! You cant ban someone retired...they have gone! Its a bit too late to be all happy with yourself.
to be fair, they have been trying for the last ten years or so but this is now much less about proving Lance was guilty of doping and more an ego-fest for USADA and the individuals invovled who all want to be known as "the guy who took down Armstrong".... USADA are not just "doing their job" however in the sense that they dont pour this much into any other case, and certainly dont make the sort of allegations and claims that they have done regarding the Armstrong affair, as it is taking up so much of their resource its hard to see beyond a vendetta and Lance has been less than polite about USADA before....

as previously mentioned, its going to be interesting if they ever do strip Lance of the TdF titles and have to go back through the list to find the guy who has no doping convictions in the mid to late 2000s.... those guys who finished the tour in 15th or 20th might well be getting excited soon!

DJRC

23,563 posts

235 months

Tuesday 21st August 2012
quotequote all
Exactly, its ludicrous.

Im all for anti-doping, but you dont try and shoot yourself in the foot at the same time!

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 21st August 2012
quotequote all
DJRC said:
el stovey said:
DJRC said:
It is quite possibly the most pointless bloody exercise in sport currently.

What are they actually accusing him of doping *with*? I still dont know.
I don't think it's pointless at all. USADA are just doing their job, catching drugs cheats.
Its utterly pointless. The bloke is retired! You cant ban someone retired...they have gone! Its a bit too late to be all happy with yourself.
It's a bigger deterrent to potential dopers if they see Lance getting caught years on. Where do you stop though? Anyone got any Eddy Merckx samples?

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 21st August 2012
quotequote all
Another Ex Armstrong US postal teammate admits to doping.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/news/jonath...

This time it's Jonathan Vaughters.


Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Tuesday 21st August 2012
quotequote all
el stovey said:
Another Ex Armstrong US postal teammate admits to doping.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/news/jonath...

This time it's Jonathan Vaughters.
The first line contains an uncomfortable truth. It is easy for us to criticise all those who took drugs but . . .

Not sure how the sponsors of his new team will view this bit of advertising.

rhinochopig

17,932 posts

197 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
Did anyone catch the interesting part of the commentary during the tour which went something like this.

The question was asked is the TdF clean now and if so how can you tell as the route changes so much, so back to back comparisons of stages is impossible. One of the commentators mentioned that a study had been done recently which looked at IIRC watts/kg and that during the lance years the top riders were circa 6.5 w/kg and now during the last tour they were hovering around 6 w/kg. The exact figures are subject to the accuracy of my memory, but the delta between the two data sets was quite large.

ewenm

28,506 posts

244 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
I think you might be refering to this: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mo...

Interesting stuff (and a reminder of Wiggins' "outburst" hehe).

rhinochopig

17,932 posts

197 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
ewenm said:
I think you might be refering to this: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mo...

Interesting stuff (and a reminder of Wiggins' "outburst" hehe).
That's the one thanks. I'd not seen that outburst before - very funny.

Uncomfortable reading in relation to Armstrong though.

epom

11,400 posts

160 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
My point of view is this, he is seen as the greatest well to me anyhow as I dont know much about cycling, he was never caught for taking drugs (or ok never banned) everyone he was up against was also taking drugs (those who weren't are liars) he beat them all, so he must still be the greatest ??
not for drugs in sport, however this seems such a stupid witch hunt, its destroying the bad name that cycling already has !!

ewenm

28,506 posts

244 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
You don't sound entirely impartial in your assessment of it hehe That said, neither are USADA...

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
epom said:
My point of view is this, he is seen as the greatest well to me anyhow as I dont know much about cycling, he was never caught for taking drugs (or ok never banned) everyone he was up against was also taking drugs (those who weren't are liars) he beat them all, so he must still be the greatest ??
not for drugs in sport, however this seems such a stupid witch hunt, its destroying the bad name that cycling already has !!
He might have had a better doping programme, better drugs and doctors, more help in the UCI regarding results being ignored and avoiding bans. It would be interesting to see how his career would have progressed if he had been tested positive. I'm sure his $100,000 donation to the UCI didn't have anything to do with it.

Just because lots of his contemporaries were doping doesn't make him the greatest just because they were apparently all at it. The greatest might be some guy who didn't dope or someone who didn't dope as much or as effectively.

epom

11,400 posts

160 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
Impartial probably not, I guess he's the one I know best. I dont have any real knowledge of the anti doping measures or donations to the UCI or anyone like that. It just seems ludicrous to me to say he only beat everyone because of the drugs when I think its universally accepted that all of his competitors were on drugs also ?? I do accept that he has never been caught, but I also believe that now isnt the time to do it, they had their chance and they didnt get him, either that or he was clean jester

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
epom said:
they had their chance and they didnt get him, either that or he was clean jester
How do you get him at the time if the UCI cover up positive test results?

epom

11,400 posts

160 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
Ok time for me to just stick to browsing this thread again I think, not enough info byebye

ewenm

28,506 posts

244 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
Essentially lots of people really really want Armstrong to be clean, but at the time he was in cycling was certainly not clean and the UCI didn't cover themselves in glory in how they initially tackled the problem (lack of testing, inconsistent testing, cover ups etc).

I agree it seems pointless to go after Armstrong now though. Why USADA are spending resources on that rather than ensuring current athletes are clean (cough Gatlin cough wink) is confusing to me.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
Wiggo has said if he is ever tempted to dope, its not just his life that he will ruin but at least two others given his wife organises races and her father has long established connections at British Cycling.

As for Lance, the LAF, Livestrong etc was established in 97, long before his comeback. its the same principle, why after dedicating himself to establishing that organisation would he be stupid enough to have risked it all by doping in subsequent years?

ewenm

28,506 posts

244 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
I agree, to an outsider like me the risks seem far too great.

MocMocaMoc

1,524 posts

140 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
You know how Formula 1 is all about the car, and pushing the letter of the law to the absolute limit without drawing attention and beating the tests (Red Bull)...

And yet pub people will still naively argue Vettel / Hamilton / Alonso is the fastest driver because they just won the last GP...

I'd suggest most athletes are on whatever drug evades the testing process. Too much money involved not to be.

Arguing that your fav cyclist is clean is as naive as the pub people arguing Vettel is faster than Alonso because Vettel put the faster quali lap in.

IMO