|
On August 25 2012 03:39 multiversed wrote:
i'm also curious about testosterone in his system. it is common for people in his situation to have replacement therapy because they can no longer produce normal levels. this has become the recent medical marijuana style trend in MMA. everyone is filing for TRT permits and getting them... it's a really blurry fucking line.
When they get older yes and everyone's testosterone levels are different. There are ways to enhance it naturally and unnaturally.
You really need to know tabs on the athletes to know what is normal for them compared to abnormal.
|
Russian Federation823 Posts
I don't know what the fuck all guys are arguing that there is no evidence?
Here, i'll even paste it from Wikipedia:
On August 23, 2005, L'Équipe, a major French daily sports newspaper, reported on its front page under the headline "le mensonge Armstrong" ("The Armstrong Lie") that 6 urine samples taken from the cyclist during the prologue and five stages of the 1999 Tour de France, frozen and stored since at "Laboratoire national de dépistage du dopage de Châtenay-Malabry" (LNDD), had tested positive for erythropoietin (EPO) in recent retesting conducted as part of a research project into EPO testing methods.[96][97] Armstrong immediately replied on his website, saying, "Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and tomorrow's article is nothing short of tabloid journalism. The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself. They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant's rights cannot be respected.' I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs."[98] In October 2008, the AFLD gave Armstrong the opportunity to have samples taken during the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France retested.[99] Armstrong immediately refused, saying, "the samples have not been maintained properly." Head of AFLD Pierre Bordry stated: "Scientifically there is no problem to analyze these samples – everything is correct" and "If the analysis is clean it would have been very good for him. But he doesn't want to do it and that's his problem."[100]
|
On August 25 2012 03:39 multiversed wrote:
i'm also curious about testosterone in his system. it is common for people in his situation to have replacement therapy because they can no longer produce normal levels. this has become the recent medical marijuana style trend in MMA. everyone is filing for TRT permits and getting them... it's a really blurry fucking line.
TRT only exists in MMA. Under the UCI get banned if you have a 4 to 1 T/E ratio. They aren't allowed to have injections period. Especially not of a PED.
Are cyclists still using testosterone? Yeah, they are.
Everyone has different VO2max, testosterone, hematocrit, ratio of type I and type II muscle fibers, etc etc.
|
Ulrich vs Armstrong were the most entertaining races i have watched, so i thank them no matter what. Nowadays the tour is usually not half exciting.
|
Nice, cheating is baaaad.
|
On August 25 2012 04:31 kusto wrote:I don't know what the fuck all guys are arguing that there is no evidence? Here, i'll even paste it from Wikipedia: Show nested quote +On August 23, 2005, L'Équipe, a major French daily sports newspaper, reported on its front page under the headline "le mensonge Armstrong" ("The Armstrong Lie") that 6 urine samples taken from the cyclist during the prologue and five stages of the 1999 Tour de France, frozen and stored since at "Laboratoire national de dépistage du dopage de Châtenay-Malabry" (LNDD), had tested positive for erythropoietin (EPO) in recent retesting conducted as part of a research project into EPO testing methods.[96][97] Armstrong immediately replied on his website, saying, "Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and tomorrow's article is nothing short of tabloid journalism. The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself. They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant's rights cannot be respected.' I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs."[98] In October 2008, the AFLD gave Armstrong the opportunity to have samples taken during the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France retested.[99] Armstrong immediately refused, saying, "the samples have not been maintained properly." Head of AFLD Pierre Bordry stated: "Scientifically there is no problem to analyze these samples – everything is correct" and "If the analysis is clean it would have been very good for him. But he doesn't want to do it and that's his problem."[100]
Yes, because when the synthetic EPO present in the samples somehow did not degrade over a decade, it constitutes as an absolutely untampered and fair test right?
|
it's funny that i never even considered how absurd the concept of TRT was until you worded it like that; depsite my distaste for it. i feel pretty gross that the idea is actually slowly being accepted, and the people covertly leading the charge to legitimize cheaters also happen to be the people who hand out the punishments... there are prime examples of people who managed to overcome the natural process of aging fairly well with alternative means.
i'm not sure where that leaves people who had cancer and cannot even produce a basic required amount anymore... let alone a professional cyclist who's normal levels were already much higher than the average. i must admit i do not know enough to speculate beyond this point. though i would assume they would have to be the exception?
|
On August 25 2012 05:01 multiversed wrote:
it's funny that i never even considered how absurd the concept of TRT was until you worded it like that; depsite my distaste for it. i feel pretty gross that the idea is actually slowly being accepted, and the people covertly leading the charge to legitimize cheaters also happen to be the people who hand out the punishments... there are prime examples of people who managed to overcome the natural process of aging fairly well with alternative means.
i'm not sure where that leaves people who had cancer and cannot even produce a basic required amount anymore... let alone a professional cyclist who's normal levels were already much higher than the average. i must admit i do not know enough to speculate beyond this point. though i would assume they would have to be the exception?
Here's the issue. Yes, Lance Armstrong's numbers ARE strongly suspicious.
The issue is that there is no definitive proof that he cheated. None. No positive test, ever. No case that has been brought against him has ever succeeded. Ever. If you want to catch the guy, then do it. So either the guy has had literally the best doping doctors/methods on the planet to avoid the USADA, the French Govt/Agencies, the WADA, and UCI, or maybe, just maybe he was the exception? I don't know; but I'd like to believe the guy is innocent before proven guilty.
|
thank goodness but it's so sad that it took so long to catch the greatest ever cheat
|
Some people are born with high or low testosterone or other performance-affecting parameters. We are talking about elite sports where extreme genetic outliers win. If you have low testosterone for whatever reason you just aren't allowed to 'adjust' it.
BTW, the reason why MMA fighters have low testosterone is steroid abuse. When you cycle a tour your testosterone and htc also drops. That's why they use it. When you ride a 3 week tour you are just slowly breaking down your body, recovering less and less each day and slowly you perform worse. Low testosterone and htc are two reasons for that. Dopers want to keep both up as the tour progresses and retain their ability to recover normally into the third week.
And of course they will test positive. I still don't know what Landis did wrong with this testosterone that he suddenly got caught.
|
On August 25 2012 05:07 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 05:01 multiversed wrote:
it's funny that i never even considered how absurd the concept of TRT was until you worded it like that; depsite my distaste for it. i feel pretty gross that the idea is actually slowly being accepted, and the people covertly leading the charge to legitimize cheaters also happen to be the people who hand out the punishments... there are prime examples of people who managed to overcome the natural process of aging fairly well with alternative means.
i'm not sure where that leaves people who had cancer and cannot even produce a basic required amount anymore... let alone a professional cyclist who's normal levels were already much higher than the average. i must admit i do not know enough to speculate beyond this point. though i would assume they would have to be the exception? Here's the issue. Yes, Lance Armstrong's numbers ARE strongly suspicious. The issue is that there is no definitive proof that he cheated. None. No positive test, ever. No case that has been brought against him has ever succeeded. Ever. If you want to catch the guy, then do it. So either the guy has had literally the best doping doctors/methods on the planet to avoid the USADA, the French Govt/Agencies, the WADA, and UCI, or maybe, just maybe he was the exception? I don't know; but I'd like to believe the guy is innocent before proven guilty.
there is positive test's and they have teammates of his who testified against him
|
On August 25 2012 05:07 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 05:01 multiversed wrote:
it's funny that i never even considered how absurd the concept of TRT was until you worded it like that; depsite my distaste for it. i feel pretty gross that the idea is actually slowly being accepted, and the people covertly leading the charge to legitimize cheaters also happen to be the people who hand out the punishments... there are prime examples of people who managed to overcome the natural process of aging fairly well with alternative means.
i'm not sure where that leaves people who had cancer and cannot even produce a basic required amount anymore... let alone a professional cyclist who's normal levels were already much higher than the average. i must admit i do not know enough to speculate beyond this point. though i would assume they would have to be the exception? Here's the issue. Yes, Lance Armstrong's numbers ARE strongly suspicious. The issue is that there is no definitive proof that he cheated. None. No positive test, ever. No case that has been brought against him has ever succeeded. Ever. If you want to catch the guy, then do it. So either the guy has had literally the best doping doctors/methods on the planet to avoid the USADA, the French Govt/Agencies, the WADA, and UCI, or maybe, just maybe he was the exception? I don't know; but I'd like to believe the guy is innocent before proven guilty.
i'm confused why this was directed at me. i'm not leading to anything. i was genuinely curious.
|
On August 25 2012 05:07 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 05:01 multiversed wrote:
it's funny that i never even considered how absurd the concept of TRT was until you worded it like that; depsite my distaste for it. i feel pretty gross that the idea is actually slowly being accepted, and the people covertly leading the charge to legitimize cheaters also happen to be the people who hand out the punishments... there are prime examples of people who managed to overcome the natural process of aging fairly well with alternative means.
i'm not sure where that leaves people who had cancer and cannot even produce a basic required amount anymore... let alone a professional cyclist who's normal levels were already much higher than the average. i must admit i do not know enough to speculate beyond this point. though i would assume they would have to be the exception? Here's the issue. Yes, Lance Armstrong's numbers ARE strongly suspicious. The issue is that there is no definitive proof that he cheated. None. No positive test, ever. No case that has been brought against him has ever succeeded. Ever. If you want to catch the guy, then do it. So either the guy has had literally the best doping doctors/methods on the planet to avoid the USADA, the French Govt/Agencies, the WADA, and UCI, or maybe, just maybe he was the exception? I don't know; but I'd like to believe the guy is innocent before proven guilty.
Sadly you will never know because Lance denied the opportunity to defend himself. I think that fact alone speaks volumes
|
On August 25 2012 05:12 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 05:07 superstartran wrote:On August 25 2012 05:01 multiversed wrote:
it's funny that i never even considered how absurd the concept of TRT was until you worded it like that; depsite my distaste for it. i feel pretty gross that the idea is actually slowly being accepted, and the people covertly leading the charge to legitimize cheaters also happen to be the people who hand out the punishments... there are prime examples of people who managed to overcome the natural process of aging fairly well with alternative means.
i'm not sure where that leaves people who had cancer and cannot even produce a basic required amount anymore... let alone a professional cyclist who's normal levels were already much higher than the average. i must admit i do not know enough to speculate beyond this point. though i would assume they would have to be the exception? Here's the issue. Yes, Lance Armstrong's numbers ARE strongly suspicious. The issue is that there is no definitive proof that he cheated. None. No positive test, ever. No case that has been brought against him has ever succeeded. Ever. If you want to catch the guy, then do it. So either the guy has had literally the best doping doctors/methods on the planet to avoid the USADA, the French Govt/Agencies, the WADA, and UCI, or maybe, just maybe he was the exception? I don't know; but I'd like to believe the guy is innocent before proven guilty. Sadly you will never know because Lance denied the opportunity to defend himself. I think that fact alone speaks volumes
He's been defending himself for over a decade. That really takes a toll on someone who's been retired since 2005, except for his bronze medal in 2009.
|
On August 25 2012 05:07 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 05:01 multiversed wrote:
it's funny that i never even considered how absurd the concept of TRT was until you worded it like that; depsite my distaste for it. i feel pretty gross that the idea is actually slowly being accepted, and the people covertly leading the charge to legitimize cheaters also happen to be the people who hand out the punishments... there are prime examples of people who managed to overcome the natural process of aging fairly well with alternative means.
i'm not sure where that leaves people who had cancer and cannot even produce a basic required amount anymore... let alone a professional cyclist who's normal levels were already much higher than the average. i must admit i do not know enough to speculate beyond this point. though i would assume they would have to be the exception? Here's the issue. Yes, Lance Armstrong's numbers ARE strongly suspicious. The issue is that there is no definitive proof that he cheated. None. No positive test, ever. No case that has been brought against him has ever succeeded. Ever. If you want to catch the guy, then do it. So either the guy has had literally the best doping doctors/methods on the planet to avoid the USADA, the French Govt/Agencies, the WADA, and UCI, or maybe, just maybe he was the exception? I don't know; but I'd like to believe the guy is innocent before proven guilty.
There has been positive tests and they just caught him didnt they ? He has just been proven guilty. He denied the trial in order not to face the proofs but does not make him innocent: he is proven guilty. Its like somebody who is going to face a trial for a crime and before the trial, knowing he would lose, agree with the judge of a lesser sentence in order not to face the trial. Thats exactly what he did, he denied the trial and said :"OK, remove my 7 titles but no trial". He would have lost the trial anyway and would have got his 7 titles removed, its just a way for him to avoid facing all the testimonies and proofs against him. Before, he was innocent until proven guilty, now he is proven guilty even though no trial happened.
|
On August 25 2012 05:07 superstartran wrote:
Here's the issue. Yes, Lance Armstrong's numbers ARE strongly suspicious.
The issue is that there is no definitive proof that he cheated. None. No positive test, ever. No case that has been brought against him has ever succeeded. Ever. If you want to catch the guy, then do it. So either the guy has had literally the best doping doctors/methods on the planet to avoid the USADA, the French Govt/Agencies, the WADA, and UCI, or maybe, just maybe he was the exception? I don't know; but I'd like to believe the guy is innocent before proven guilty.
AS: So based on that, you can definitively say that Lance Armstrong used EPO in the '99 Tour. No doubt in your mind.
MA: There is no doubt in my mind these samples contain synthetic EPO, they belong to Lance Armstrong, and there's no conceivable way that I can see that a lab could've spiked them in a way that the data has presented itself. So there is no doubt in my mind he took EPO during the '99 Tour.
AS: The other thing that struck me about these results, which I was surprised never came up before, was that if you take away those 6 positives, you have 7 remaining positives out of 81 samples. That's 8.6%. Does that say to you that at that time the peloton was relatively clean?
MA: Yeah, it's an interesting observation, 'cause you cast back to the '98 Tour, obviously it was a debacle. And, I've heard anecdotal or off the cuff remarks, that '99 was a new beginning. It had gotten as bad as it could possibly get, or so we would've thought, and '99 was, "Ok, let's start again, we've really got to make an effort to be clean this year."
Well, obviously, based on Lance Armstrong's results, he wasn't racing clean. But for the rest of the samples collected during the Tour, relatively speaking there wasn't a very high prevalence of EPO use in the rest of the peloton, at least in the peloton that was tested, which was your top 3 place getters, for example.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden?null
|
says a bit when the "strongest" case against him, of doping, is the fact that all his teammates/competitors doped so he must have as well; because everyone did.
They should either actually get their shit together and enforce the things they can actually enforce, allow some of the non (less) harmful things and go harder on the things they can actually prevent as in you will not get away with it.
And seriously if you are a top top top top top top top top top top athlete is doping and more than 2 people know (here it appears they can produce 10 at the drop of a hat) the sport (read: every sport ever according to caught people) is so rotten you can just drop this stuff and let people compete in a no holds barred ffa.
|
why do people automatically think he cheated?
|
On August 25 2012 05:16 Trok67 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 05:07 superstartran wrote:On August 25 2012 05:01 multiversed wrote:
it's funny that i never even considered how absurd the concept of TRT was until you worded it like that; depsite my distaste for it. i feel pretty gross that the idea is actually slowly being accepted, and the people covertly leading the charge to legitimize cheaters also happen to be the people who hand out the punishments... there are prime examples of people who managed to overcome the natural process of aging fairly well with alternative means.
i'm not sure where that leaves people who had cancer and cannot even produce a basic required amount anymore... let alone a professional cyclist who's normal levels were already much higher than the average. i must admit i do not know enough to speculate beyond this point. though i would assume they would have to be the exception? Here's the issue. Yes, Lance Armstrong's numbers ARE strongly suspicious. The issue is that there is no definitive proof that he cheated. None. No positive test, ever. No case that has been brought against him has ever succeeded. Ever. If you want to catch the guy, then do it. So either the guy has had literally the best doping doctors/methods on the planet to avoid the USADA, the French Govt/Agencies, the WADA, and UCI, or maybe, just maybe he was the exception? I don't know; but I'd like to believe the guy is innocent before proven guilty. There has been positive tests and they just caught him didnt they ? He has just been proven guilty. He denied the trial in order not to face the proofs but does not make him innocent: he is proven guilty. Its like somebody who is going to face a trial for a crime and before the trial, knowing he would lose, agree with the judge of a lesser sentence in order not to face the trial. Thats exactly what he did, he denied the trial and said :"OK, remove my 7 titles but no trial". He would have lost the trial anyway and would have got his 7 titles removed, its just a way for him to avoid facing all the testimonies and proofs against him. Before, he was innocent until proven guilty, now he is proven guilty even though no trial happened.
Arbitration isn't a trial.
|
On August 25 2012 04:28 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:39 multiversed wrote:
i'm also curious about testosterone in his system. it is common for people in his situation to have replacement therapy because they can no longer produce normal levels. this has become the recent medical marijuana style trend in MMA. everyone is filing for TRT permits and getting them... it's a really blurry fucking line. When they get older yes and everyone's testosterone levels are different. There are ways to enhance it naturally and unnaturally. You really need to know tabs on the athletes to know what is normal for them compared to abnormal.
Average for a male in his late teens/early 20's to is have ~500-800ng/dL. With only ~250mg/wk of a long ester testosterone (labs seem to use cypionate esters more often then not) you can maintain levels of ~800ng/dL of testosterone. It's not linear when you increase, I've seen guys who are taking 500mg/wk have levels of >2000ng/dL. Anything above 1000ng/dL = taking testosterone.
Fun fact: in sports, they don't test your testosterone levels, they test your testosterone:epi-testosterone ratio. You can just inject epi-testosterone to keep the ratio correct even while taking over a 1000mg/wk of testosterone.
But in cycling, they use EPO. It's not a steroid - it has to do with blood. Risky shit. You can die if you don't know what you're doing with EPO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
