Lance Armstrong vs. USADA
Discussion
So moving this topic out of the TdF 2012 thread, what are people's views on this?
I've read a couple of his books and have always been impressed how he came back from cancer to achieve what he has. The team around him advanced cycling with the planning and training elements that SKY have again advanced on.
Is this just a vendetta by the USADA or do we think that someone that has been tested so many times has been able to evade them for so long?
It seems like it is testimony from others, rather than proof of failed tests that is forming the basis of this round of allegations.
I've read a couple of his books and have always been impressed how he came back from cancer to achieve what he has. The team around him advanced cycling with the planning and training elements that SKY have again advanced on.
Is this just a vendetta by the USADA or do we think that someone that has been tested so many times has been able to evade them for so long?
It seems like it is testimony from others, rather than proof of failed tests that is forming the basis of this round of allegations.
Sway said:
With relation to power outputs, I think the accepted answer is a resounding no.
Look at the difference in average speeds etc., plus the fact that Lance didn't just win, he absolutely f
king annihilated all challengers, in their respective specialist areas.
Pantani was an amazing climber naturally. Add the dope, and he was a mountain goat in human form. Lance left him for dead.
I was an immense Armstrong fan, built up a USPS Trek with all the goodies. Bought his books, wore the wristband.
In my opinion, there's no way he was clean.
It's also worth pointing out the USADA aren't just going after him for doping, but being part of the supply chain...
I do accept ny opinion is worth nothing, and I do agree the methods being used to pin him are unsavoury, but it'll take a lot to convince me otherwise.
Surely though his old samples would have tested positive for something if it was true? I'm really not sure but find it miraculous that he could go so long and nothing but whisperings and conjecture being the most they can pin on him. Look at the difference in average speeds etc., plus the fact that Lance didn't just win, he absolutely f
king annihilated all challengers, in their respective specialist areas.Pantani was an amazing climber naturally. Add the dope, and he was a mountain goat in human form. Lance left him for dead.
I was an immense Armstrong fan, built up a USPS Trek with all the goodies. Bought his books, wore the wristband.
In my opinion, there's no way he was clean.
It's also worth pointing out the USADA aren't just going after him for doping, but being part of the supply chain...
I do accept ny opinion is worth nothing, and I do agree the methods being used to pin him are unsavoury, but it'll take a lot to convince me otherwise.
And let's be honest here, if the USADA only have testimony from ex teammates that will remain anonymous while being given immunity from prosecution is hardly smoking gun stuff.
Sway said:
London424 said:
What I can't figure out though is, if they were all on it, how did they get caught and he didn't? Especially as he was probably the most tested of the lot.
Because it wasn't like steroids - a non natural substance that had a performance enhancement.It was naturally occurring substances, or their own blood taken a long time before, sperated and reintroduced to assist recovery. Or a million and one other ways that effectively are immeasurable.
EPO wasn't discovered through testing, but by a random police check on a team doctor who happened to have some very suspicious vials he couldn't explain...
Silver993tt said:
I do believe that LA is totally innocent in this. However, what happpens if they do strip him of the 7 TDF tiles (which they have no power to anyway)? So whoever came second 10 years ago or whenever is told "by the way, you won". So what, it's pointless. Winning is being 1st there at the time in the atmosphere with the supporters.
This is all an utterly pointless excercise that won't change the real results that happened at the time.
It's about time that the drug testing authorities are give one year from the TDF (for example) to prove or not that a participant was doped or not. After that, tough, they had their time and failed to prove anything.
What's actually even funnier is that you can't even give it to the second, third, fourth etc guys in lots of those instances as they've all been found to have doped as well. This is all an utterly pointless excercise that won't change the real results that happened at the time.
It's about time that the drug testing authorities are give one year from the TDF (for example) to prove or not that a participant was doped or not. After that, tough, they had their time and failed to prove anything.
el stovey said:
Silver993tt said:
The USADA can only sabre rattle, they have no physical evidence. Having people suddenley say he did use banned substances means nothing without concrete proof, which does not exist.
Have you been following this case at all? He has been given a lifetime ban and is about to have ALL his yellow jerseys removed. The only thing stopping it being official is the heel dragging from the incompetent and corrupt UCI who most certainly have their own skeletons to hide in this case.It's a bit more than sabre rattling don't you think?
In case anyone didn't know, here's a link to the Federal criminal investigation that was dropped earlier this year because of lack of evidence.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/03/sport/lance-arms...
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/03/sport/lance-arms...
They talked at the end of the Vuelta coverage about this, and the guy (sorry don't know his name off the top of my head) who co-commentates with Imlach rode the last 2 years of his career with Armstrong (can't remember which years) and he said the reason he went to the team was the strong anti doping culture in the team. He also said he saw no signs of doping at all.
Testimony and eye witness stuff can play both ways.
Testimony and eye witness stuff can play both ways.
el stovey said:
Silver993tt said:
So do we start call Bradley Wiggins a potential cheat or maybe a definite cheat since he beat a bunch of other riders who tested positive, so surely he must have doped himself but evaded detection?
Who is accusing Wiggins of doping? Who has seen him doping? Has Wiggins team doctor and coach and DS all been charged with doping offences? Have most of team SKY testified to seeing Wiggins doping? No?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/11/dave-b...
telecat said:
Not really A fan of cycling but I do think most Anti Doping agencies now look like Vindictive Spoilt bullies. The "evidence" against Lance Armstrong is basically circumstantial. In Law courts Testimony of convicted persons is treated as tainted unless corroborating physical evidence is also available. In these cases the tests, if possible should be re-checked. If they cannot be re-checked then the "evidence" has to be looked at with suspicion. We have seen what happens when Police use this sort of testimony in the past. It leads to bad convictions or Trials that are a waste of money. The UCI should be asking to "See" the "evidence" the USADA has and work from there. Personally if the USADA cannot produce more than a few Vague Statements then the UCI are well withing their rights to tell them and the WADA to go away and come back with better evidence. The USADA should also now be watching their back. This kind of "Witch hunt" is something US authorities are very good at and it will come back to hurt them.
Well the federal criminal proceedings were dropped as the evidence was not seen as strong enough to obtain a convicction in the law courts. Will be interesting to see what the USADA case consists of.WeirdNeville said:
Absolutely.
That article is the account I was looking for.
So long as what it contains is factually accurate (and I have no reason to disbelieve it) then Armstrong is clearly a cheat.
And cycling is the loser, yet again.
You have no reason to disbelieve it, yet you're hoping it contains factually accurate info. Why don't we wait and see the evidence. That article is the account I was looking for.
So long as what it contains is factually accurate (and I have no reason to disbelieve it) then Armstrong is clearly a cheat.
And cycling is the loser, yet again.
My observation on the statute of limitations article was more that it is my understanding that you can't pick and choose, either there is a limit on how long after the event you can be prosecuted or there isn't.
They've come out and said if he'd admitted to doping etc he can keep 5 tour wins as they can't be taken away due to the statute, but because he didn't cooperate we will take them all away.
Makes it seem even more ridiculous IMO
They've come out and said if he'd admitted to doping etc he can keep 5 tour wins as they can't be taken away due to the statute, but because he didn't cooperate we will take them all away.
Makes it seem even more ridiculous IMO
Bedazzled said:
rhinochopig said:
They all cheated.
It makes no difference, the important bigger picture is the credibility of the sport itself and those who are caught must be made an example of. They all know the risks when they cheat, and offering no defense is a tacit admission of guilt, imo.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/freiburg-doctor-pa...
Move along, nothing to see here.
Cavalierfc said:
Dr Imran T said:
That I find hard to believe. I think the benefit is much shorter term, the length of a ban probably has a lot to do with acting as a deterrent for potential dopers.
Some insightful posts coming through on this thread
You can find it difficult to believe, but muscle mass doesn't disappear instantly. It takes a long period to build up, and a long period to disappear. Drugs don't just allow larger muscle development and aid recovery, they allow to you make substantial gains more often because you can recover from large efforts faster.Some insightful posts coming through on this thread
Take Thomas Frei for example: http://www.thomas-frei.ch/thomas-frei.ch/T%26T/Ein...
Now, he admitted to Blood Doping since 2008. The effects can be clearly seen in his retic and hemoglobin counts years later, well after his positive in early 2010.
Now, you can say that the length of a ban acts as a deterrent - that depends entirely on the sport/ban. Baseball's 50-game bans for instance are beyond ridiculous.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff