|
On August 25 2012 06:44 ShatterZer0 wrote:
Wait... so there are no positive drug tests and the USADA that's convicting Armstrong can't actually ban anyone or strip anyone of their titles?
Why the fuck does anyone give a shit about this then?
That's pretty much the answer. The USADA is on a witch hunt, but this isn't being handled in court. Armstrong & company probably made a decision that the Kangroo Court would do more damage then just stopping dealing with it. The USADA apparently can't even strip him of his Olympic Medal (outside the statue of limitations, from one of the stories I read), so this is nothing but a show trial. It makes sense to just take the damage now (the verdict was already a given), then force them to do something about it. (I'd also take a guess they have assurance from Nike he wouldn't be dropped)
Considering the field, there's dozens of things to "take" that won't show up on drug tests, they do help but they're also not banned. You'd be surprised how actually limited the banned substances list really is. A decent Biochemist and a bunch of blood panel testing could devise a few things that'd help performance without any risk of being charged with "doping". It's a gray area, but it's not terribly different than taking extra vitamins everyday.
Granted, I imagine this would be very different if it was in front of a civil court. Perjury and Discovery rules would apply, and I imagine that'd have been the fun stuff. (Armstrong & company already were on the receiving end during the Federal prosecution, so it'd only be USADA that'd be up for the "interesting" Discovery bits)
I also wonder if there's another level to this game. Given the witch hunt aspect to all of this, Armstrong could open up some interesting legal avenues if USADA oversteps its bounds (which are very limited). Baiting an opponent into a defamation suit could be interesting.
|
weirdly, superstartran and others are in denial. There are only two options: Armstrong doped or he did not. Given that all his competitors doped and he beat them by minutes in time trials, given that he is associated with known doping doctors, given that he had a sudden increase in performance, given all these things we know that he doped. Therefore when people start testifying against him, when samples positive with EPO show up, when blood data published is consistent with blood doping, I know that these things likely have merit and will hold up under scrutiny, because they are fully consistent with his profile as a dope user.
You can continue to believe in the massive conspiracy where the whole world is out to get him, but at that point you might as well start believing in aliens and fairy tales.
On August 25 2012 06:54 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 06:44 ShatterZer0 wrote:
Wait... so there are no positive drug tests and the USADA that's convicting Armstrong can't actually ban anyone or strip anyone of their titles?
Why the fuck does anyone give a shit about this then? That's pretty much the answer. The USADA is on a witch hunt, but this isn't being handled in court. Armstrong & company probably made a decision that the Kangroo Court would do more damage then just stopping dealing with it. The USADA apparently can't even strip him of his Olympic Medal (outside the statue of limitations, from one of the stories I read), so this is nothing but a show trial. It makes sense to just take the damage now (the verdict was already a given), then force them to do something about it. (I'd also take a guess they have assurance from Nike he wouldn't be dropped) Considering the field, there's dozens of things to "take" that won't show up on drug tests, they do help but they're also not banned. You'd be surprised how actually limited the banned substances list really is. A decent Biochemist and a bunch of blood panel testing could devise a few things that'd help performance without any risk of being charged with "doping". It's a gray area, but it's not terribly different than taking extra vitamins everyday. Granted, I imagine this would be very different if it was in front of a civil court. Perjury and Discovery rules would apply, and I imagine that'd have been the fun stuff. (Armstrong & company already were on the receiving end during the Federal prosecution, so it'd only be USADA that'd be up for the "interesting" Discovery bits) I also wonder if there's another level to this game. Given the witch hunt aspect to all of this, Armstrong could open up some interesting legal avenues if USADA oversteps its bounds (which are very limited). Baiting an opponent into a defamation suit could be interesting.
This is just so ridiculous and full of lies. Look at what he is accused of taking, it's things like EPO, testosterone, hGH, all on the banned substances list. And if it's a witch hunt when the national anti-doping agency targets perhaps the most successful athlete of all time, who is suspected of institutionalizing a massive criminal doping regime, who only retired last year from cycling and who is still competing, then everything is a witch hunt. At this point you're just saying that the anti-doping agency has no business targeting anyone.
|
I wish they would make doping legal. If everyone were a beast on the bike, perhaps it would be more interesting! They should totally make Tour De France Chemics, no drug limitations!
|
On August 25 2012 07:00 Grumbels wrote:
weirdly, superstartran is in denial. There are only two options: Armstrong doped or he did not. Given that all his competitors doped and he beat them by minutes in time trials, given that he is associated with known doping doctors, given that he had a sudden increase in performance, given all these things we know that he doped. Therefore when people start testifying against him, when samples positive with EPO show up, when blood data published is consistent with blood doping, I know that these things likely have merit and will hold up under scrutiny, because they are fully consistent with his profile as a dope user.
You can continue to believe in the massive conspiracy where the whole world is out to get him, but at that point you might as well start believing in aliens and fairy tales.
1) Fact, Synthetic EPO degrades over time. It is biodegradable. Fact, having a 100% grade EPO in a sample is very unlikely after 6 years, no matter how many precautions you take. Is it possible that it was spiked? Could have been. Considering the fact that no real scientific or WADA protocol, an error must have occurred otherwise there is no way a 100% grade EPO could have shown up after 6 years. This has been pointed out to various people who utilize the 1999 tests as a way to stick charges on to Lance Armstrong. Yet nobody ever addresses that one simple little fact, that the EPO realistically should have degraded, even by just a little bit. That retest is 100% bullshit and would never hold up under any real OBJECTIVE scientific analysis.
2) Every other cyclists has tested positive that was caught at some point. Armstrong has never ever tested positive in competition. The 1999 "retest" has already been invalidated for numerous reasons already discussed.
3) You are right; he has suspicious activities. But until we have proven definitively that he cheated (definitively as in he has been caught with either a certain drug, or a certain masking agent) to win those titles, you can't say that he cheated. Period. Innocent until proven guilty.
4) The testimony against him is by notorious liars/dopers. The vast majority of them were caught doping, and were likely cutting deals with the USADA. Both Landis and Hamilton have been caught lying on multiple occasions, and their involvement in this case is likely a deal cut with the USADA to prevent severe punishments.
On August 25 2012 06:54 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 06:44 ShatterZer0 wrote:
Wait... so there are no positive drug tests and the USADA that's convicting Armstrong can't actually ban anyone or strip anyone of their titles?
Why the fuck does anyone give a shit about this then? That's pretty much the answer. The USADA is on a witch hunt, but this isn't being handled in court. Armstrong & company probably made a decision that the Kangroo Court would do more damage then just stopping dealing with it. The USADA apparently can't even strip him of his Olympic Medal (outside the statue of limitations, from one of the stories I read), so this is nothing but a show trial. It makes sense to just take the damage now (the verdict was already a given), then force them to do something about it. (I'd also take a guess they have assurance from Nike he wouldn't be dropped) Considering the field, there's dozens of things to "take" that won't show up on drug tests, they do help but they're also not banned. You'd be surprised how actually limited the banned substances list really is. A decent Biochemist and a bunch of blood panel testing could devise a few things that'd help performance without any risk of being charged with "doping". It's a gray area, but it's not terribly different than taking extra vitamins everyday. Granted, I imagine this would be very different if it was in front of a civil court. Perjury and Discovery rules would apply, and I imagine that'd have been the fun stuff. (Armstrong & company already were on the receiving end during the Federal prosecution, so it'd only be USADA that'd be up for the "interesting" Discovery bits) I also wonder if there's another level to this game. Given the witch hunt aspect to all of this, Armstrong could open up some interesting legal avenues if USADA oversteps its bounds (which are very limited). Baiting an opponent into a defamation suit could be interesting.
It's likely that he's trying to get the UCI involved. He almost certainly knows that the USADA does not have any real definitive physical evidence against him, and if he was able to put the USADA up against the UCI in say an international court, things will get really ugly and interesting then.
|
Lets try to guess which was the highest clean rider in 1999-2005 tdf?
My picks:
99 Heulot, 13th
00 Robin, 19th
01 Simon, 6th
02 Moncoutie, 13th
03 Sastre, 9th
04 Casar, 16th
05 Cadel, 8th
edit: Changed one of my picks, missed Sastre when I initially looked upon results
|
Russian Federation823 Posts
[B]On August 25 2012 07:08 superstartran wrote: Fact, Synthetic EPO degrades over time. It is biodegradable. Fact, having a 100% grade EPO in a sample is very unlikely after 6 years, no matter how many precautions you take. Is it possible that it was spiked?
Can you specify what you mean by 100% grade EPO?
Who states what "100%" are? Even if a small dose (whatever percentage it might be) is found, then what's all the discussion about? Besides Armstrongs attorney declined to re-investigate the tests which might have proven Armstrong to be innocent.
|
On August 25 2012 07:08 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 07:00 Grumbels wrote:
weirdly, superstartran is in denial. There are only two options: Armstrong doped or he did not. Given that all his competitors doped and he beat them by minutes in time trials, given that he is associated with known doping doctors, given that he had a sudden increase in performance, given all these things we know that he doped. Therefore when people start testifying against him, when samples positive with EPO show up, when blood data published is consistent with blood doping, I know that these things likely have merit and will hold up under scrutiny, because they are fully consistent with his profile as a dope user.
You can continue to believe in the massive conspiracy where the whole world is out to get him, but at that point you might as well start believing in aliens and fairy tales. 1) Fact, Synthetic EPO degrades over time. It is biodegradable. Fact, having a 100% grade EPO in a sample is very unlikely after 6 years, no matter how many precautions you take. Is it possible that it was spiked? Could have been. Considering the fact that no real scientific or WADA protocol, an error must have occurred otherwise there is no way a 100% grade EPO could have shown up after 6 years. This has been pointed out to various people who utilize the 1999 tests as a way to stick charges on to Lance Armstrong. Yet nobody ever addresses that one simple little fact, that the EPO realistically should have degraded, even by just a little bit. That retest is 100% bullshit and would never hold up under any real OBJECTIVE scientific analysis. 2) Every other cyclists has tested positive that was caught at some point. Armstrong has never ever tested positive in competition. The 1999 "retest" has already been invalidated for numerous reasons already discussed. 3) You are right; he has suspicious activities. But until we have proven definitively that he cheated (definitively as in he has been caught with either a certain drug, or a certain masking agent) to win those titles, you can't say that he cheated. Period. Innocent until proven guilty. 4) The testimony against him is by notorious liars/dopers. The vast majority of them were caught doping, and were likely cutting deals with the USADA. Both Landis and Hamilton have been caught lying on multiple occasions, and their involvement in this case is likely a deal cut with the USADA to prevent severe punishments.
Given that Michael Ashenden thinks you're wrong, care to back that up with sources? Also, point #3 is so funny. Innocent until proven guilty is a standard in the court of law. If all evidence points towards guilty then it does not matter if he might get off on a technicality (and he did not get off in this instance), he might be innocent in the eyes of the law, but it's no excuse to shut your brain off and argue for his innocence on an internet forum. If the world makes any sense whatsoever then he is guilty, otherwise there is an equal amount of evidence to start believing any random nonsense.
|
USADA has the power to ban him from elite sports for life. The stripping of titles etcetera is more something ASO and UCI can do. Taking a ban for life is killing his career as a triathlete at anything higher than amateur level. It is a low price to pay for someone being old in sport-terms, but let us wait for UCI to take a stance on the evidence before closing the case completely. UCI is in a precarious situation where they have been defending Armstrong so far. If we can expect a biased position it would not be against Armstrong, which is a problem for his case, but at least a no from UCI could delay his final conviction.
|
On August 25 2012 07:16 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 07:08 superstartran wrote:On August 25 2012 07:00 Grumbels wrote:
weirdly, superstartran is in denial. There are only two options: Armstrong doped or he did not. Given that all his competitors doped and he beat them by minutes in time trials, given that he is associated with known doping doctors, given that he had a sudden increase in performance, given all these things we know that he doped. Therefore when people start testifying against him, when samples positive with EPO show up, when blood data published is consistent with blood doping, I know that these things likely have merit and will hold up under scrutiny, because they are fully consistent with his profile as a dope user.
You can continue to believe in the massive conspiracy where the whole world is out to get him, but at that point you might as well start believing in aliens and fairy tales. 1) Fact, Synthetic EPO degrades over time. It is biodegradable. Fact, having a 100% grade EPO in a sample is very unlikely after 6 years, no matter how many precautions you take. Is it possible that it was spiked? Could have been. Considering the fact that no real scientific or WADA protocol, an error must have occurred otherwise there is no way a 100% grade EPO could have shown up after 6 years. This has been pointed out to various people who utilize the 1999 tests as a way to stick charges on to Lance Armstrong. Yet nobody ever addresses that one simple little fact, that the EPO realistically should have degraded, even by just a little bit. That retest is 100% bullshit and would never hold up under any real OBJECTIVE scientific analysis. 2) Every other cyclists has tested positive that was caught at some point. Armstrong has never ever tested positive in competition. The 1999 "retest" has already been invalidated for numerous reasons already discussed. 3) You are right; he has suspicious activities. But until we have proven definitively that he cheated (definitively as in he has been caught with either a certain drug, or a certain masking agent) to win those titles, you can't say that he cheated. Period. Innocent until proven guilty. 4) The testimony against him is by notorious liars/dopers. The vast majority of them were caught doping, and were likely cutting deals with the USADA. Both Landis and Hamilton have been caught lying on multiple occasions, and their involvement in this case is likely a deal cut with the USADA to prevent severe punishments. Given that Michael Ashenden thinks you're wrong, care to back that up with sources? Also, point #3 is so funny. Innocent until proven guilty is a standard in the court of law. If all evidence points towards guilty then it does not matter if he might get off on a technicality (and he did not get off in this instance), he might be innocent in the eyes of the law, but it's no excuse to shut your brain off and argue for his innocence on an internet forum. If the world makes any sense whatsoever then he is guilty, otherwise there is an equal amount of evidence to start believing any random nonsense.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Montreal_lab_questions_ethics_of_recent_EPO_doping_claims_against_Lance_Armstrong
Ayotte expressed surprise that chemical testing of 1999 urine could have been done in 2004 at the French national anti-doping laboratory at Châtenay-Malabry. She said that she routinely instructs all doping laboratory organizations that EPO deteriorates and disappears after two or three months, even if the urine is frozen.
This isn't some RANDOM scientist either, she is the head of the Montreal Lab that helped catch Floyd Landis.
|
im more surprised that they still have samples from 13 years ago to still do tests with
|
Whats the point, they're all on roids. Is the tour-de-france just going to be a race with no champion now? Titles stripped year after year after year? Maybe they'll introduce strict weekly testing and just keep going down the ranks until they find someone clean and make him the winner. Somewhere around 50th place.
|
"Ayotte does not question whether the new type of analysis is correct; rather she questions the ethics of long-delayed test results." that's your best source?
|
USADA doesn't have the jurisdiction to take Armstrong's Tour De France titles away, that would be up to the International Cycling Union.
This whole witch hunt by the USADA against Armstrong for the past 12 years has been bullshit. Fucking ridiculous.
|
On August 25 2012 06:37 KalWarkov wrote:
for me, he will always remain the greatest cycler there has ever been, simply because he won it 7 times in a row in a time where everyone of his opponents was doping as well.
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.
The reason for the rules is to at prevent the endless escalation. EPO is both effective and dangerous, and more effect the more you are willing to risk with it. Everyone would be forced to escalate.
|
On August 25 2012 06:46 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 06:34 Telcontar wrote:
I think it's unlikely that Armstrong would just roll over if there wasn't any truth to these allegations. For goodness sake, the guy fought and beat cancer. He isn't going to fold over and give up his life's accomplishments just because it's too much to handle. It's likely a tactical move by Armstrong more than anything. He wants the case to go to a Court of Arbitration where the evidence will not be held in a public court, therefore damaging his reputation and career. Both sides know this. He knew that if he stood trial in the USADA's hearings, his entire career/reputation would be stained no matter what if he was innocent/guilty/etc. By getting the UCI involved, he not only prevents the evidence from being made public, but he also now no longer has to deal with a circus media frenzy around his case. The UCI will force the USADA's hand by saying that they need to cough up real evidence that Armstrong was doping, and not hearsay/testimony. If the USADA cannot produce definitive evidence that Armstrong was doping, the UCI will likely contest the USADA's ruling. Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 06:44 ShatterZer0 wrote:
Wait... so there are no positive drug tests and the USADA that's convicting Armstrong can't actually ban anyone or strip anyone of their titles?
Why the fuck does anyone give a shit about this then? There is no positive drug test, only supposed manipulation of blood during 2009-2010 (which I have serious doubts about; if they can prove that there is some masking drug or an actual positive then maybe they have a case), and testimony from many former teammates and confidants that were involved in doping from the 90s-2000s. If so, the testimony from all of them can be questioned, as many of them were likely coerced by deals cut with the USADA. Armstrong isn't likely done with this at all; it's a move to get this to move into an International court, rather than a USADA hearing where he will get his reputation slugged through the mud whether or not he is innocent or not. Unless the USADA has some real solid evidence, they are gonna be in deep shit if this gets moved to an international court of arbitration. The UCI is the one that has to strip Armstrong, and if they contest the evidence that the USADA brings (which they all but likely will, as the USADA has no physical evidence that Armstrong doped during his TdF victories), it's gonna be real funny to watch the USADA go down in flames.
I remember one of the Tours, either 2003 or 2004, that I was watching. Armstrong spent the entire first 2/3s of the day looking like he was struggling. This pushed his GC rivals to attack. Turned out he knew when the cameras were on him and was faking out the cameras. It was one of the single best tactical moves I've ever seen in sports. This is the guy that we're dealing with here.
Which means there's a few different levels to this game. The USADA, which can't take his Tour titles anyway, actually holds power over Armstrong in the ability to hurt him in the media more than anything else directly. So a tactical retreat (since he was going to take media damage anyway), then shoving this out of USADA's control makes a whole lot of sense. If you view the USADA as a Kangroo Court, why give them the ability to hurt you more? Shoving this on the UCI should make for an interesting time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/24/lance-armstrong-uci
So, the game moves out of the headlines for a while, then should pop up again sometime next year, I imagine. Then it gets interesting again.
On the issue of "Doping", there's an important point. Taking "something" isn't against the rules. Taking something that's banned is against the rules. I'm pretty sure Armstrong was taking lots of things, but, at this point, we only have hearsay that he was taking anything that was actually banned. And it's up to the USADA to provide that proof. (Yes, the EPO thing has been gone over)
|
I think some people are just trying to ruin some sports. This serves no purpose. Even if he cheated I don't care about that bloody ages after it has happened. The only acheivement they get by this is ruining the reputation of the sport.
If someone cheats, catch him while doing it ! Don't come waddling ages after with your half-assed evidence to try and tell me that the whole race I watched and cheered for was a fake. To do such a horrible thing to a sport you gotta have proof that is atleast 99% sure! Otherwise you are just being a dick looking for your 15 mins of fame at the expense of others.
I don't get why bicycling is watched so strictly and also why people from their own country are trying to ruin careers.
When the Danish guy Michael Rasmussen was about to win the race, just a few days before everything was over, the Danish anti doping bull**** decided to open this huge case about how he hadn't been 100% available for 2 bloody weeks like half a year ago! There was no proof, no test saying that he was cheating, nothing, but they just stripped him off the yellow shirt and kicked him out of the race. If every competitor of every sport was looked into this carefully, we would never have any champions free of judgement.
|
On August 25 2012 07:10 Hyperionnn wrote:
Lets try to guess which was the highest clean rider in 1999-2005 tdf?
My picks:
99 Heulot, 13th
00 Robin, 19th
01 Simon, 6th
02 Moncoutie, 13th
03 Sastre, 9th
04 Casar, 16th
05 Cadel, 8th
edit: Changed one of my picks, missed Sastre when I initially looked upon results
This is hilarious! Hahaha. I might steel this post and put it on Facebook (I won't claim it's authorship though)
|
2) Every other cyclists has tested positive that was caught at some point. Armstrong has never ever tested positive in competition. The 1999 "retest" has already been invalidated for numerous reasons already discussed.
that's wrong. ullrich for example was never tested positive (i don't count this amphetamine thing, because he was not banned for it). they just caught him, because of his connection to fuentes. basso the same and no one believes they were not doped.
here is a funny story. armstrong once said that ullrich was the far more talented cyclist (~2003/2004)
i know it's no proof or anything, but just listen to your common sense. do you really think a clean armstrong defeated a doped ullrich?
|
On August 25 2012 07:53 Cereb wrote:
I think some people are just trying to ruin some sports. This serves no purpose. Even if he cheated I don't care about that bloody ages after it has happened. The only acheivement they get by this is ruining the reputation of the sport.
If someone cheats, catch him while doing it ! Don't come waddling ages after with your half-assed evidence to try and tell me that the whole race I watched and cheered for was a fake. To do such a horrible thing to a sport you gotta have proof that is atleast 99% sure! Otherwise you are just being a dick looking for your 15 mins of fame at the expense of others.
I don't get why bicycling is watched so strictly and also why people from their own country are trying to ruin careers.
When the Danish guy Michael Rasmussen was about to win the race, just a few days before everything was over, the Danish anti doping bull**** decided to open this huge case about how he hadn't been 100% available for 2 bloody weeks like half a year ago! There was no proof, no test saying that he was cheating, nothing, but they just stripped him off the yellow shirt and kicked him out of the race. If every competitor of every sport was looked into this carefully, we would never have any champions free of judgement.
Rasmussen was a doper, he would have been stripped of his title regardless if they would have let him finish the race.
And when an anti-doping agency makes a case against someone for their doping use, that's them "just being a dick"?
I really need to stop arguing in this thread. o.o It's just filled with people that can't stand it if their heroes that they're emotionally invested in turn out to be cheaters. And instead of blaming the people that cheat, they have to blame the people that bring the cheating to light.
|
Hasn't he passed literally hundreds of drug tests? Didn't the USADA refuse to share it's so called 'evidence' with the international cycling governing body?
Yeah, this smacks of bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
