What I'm wondering is how legit are the hundreds of blood tests Armstrong took over the years? Because it seems like a lot of the debate over his innocence pivots solely around that one question.
If those blood tests are unable to be faked and bypassed, then there's no argument to be made, no matter how many witnesses come forward to testify, no?
Even Barry Bonds, despite taking dozens of tests recently and coming out clean, was found to have trace amounts of illegal substances in his 2004 tests.
On August 26 2012 16:06 happyft wrote: What I'm wondering is how legit are the hundreds of blood tests Armstrong took over the years? Because it seems like a lot of the debate over his innocence pivots solely around that one question.
If those blood tests are unable to be faked and bypassed, then there's no argument to be made, no matter how many witnesses come forward to testify, no?
Even Barry Bonds, despite taking dozens of tests recently and coming out clean, was found to have trace amounts of illegal substances in his 2004 tests.
That's the problem, cus when people invalidate their own tests you loose the last of the sports dignity in regards to fair play :/
Well even if he did cheat he still accomplished an amazing feat. The reason is because a lot of people in that sport dope. So if he did beat them clean then clearly he is superior physically in every way, but if he did it while doping than he is still superior in every way, just less so.
The ridiculous ease in which proceedings can be started against anyone:
Also the UCI (International Cycling Union) disagrees with USADA, and it's only because of some very poorly-thought-out reciprocal agreements that this can even happen. Basically WADA has agreements with the major sports bodies, but then ALSO gave all its "franchises" (each country's __ADA) its same powers, meaning that ANY franchisee in ANY country can start proceedings against anyone anywhere, regardless of their ability to defend themselves in that venue.
A clear vendetta by the head of the organization accusing Lance.
And yes, "franchise" is correct because this operation was run not by some officer of the law, but the CEO of USADA. Travis Tygart has had it in for Lance for a long time; when Floyd Landis was busted, Tygart offered him a sweet deal if he would dish dirt on Lance.
The Department of Justice actually ran a Grand Jury investigation for 2 years before dropping the case in February -- apparently, someone eventually realized that winning the first 6 tours in a row for the US Postal Service wasn't "defrauding" them of their sponsorship dollars. Some of the people called to testify are still active riders in the pro peloton, which are presumably in the "10+ witnesses" Tygart would call on, which means he didn't care about ACTIVE riders who were part of the same alleged doping ring; he just cared about trying to destroy public opinion about Lance, who was retired from cycling and last won in 2005.
...
But USADA is now trying to ban the director of Lance's team, who ISN'T an admitted doper, solely because of his connection to Lance. Tygart wants to claim it was a conspiracy and the whole team was doped up, yet curiously is not trying to stop any of the OTHER ex-teammate riders he claims were cheating just like Lance, and who are still competing, presumably in exchange for their testimony.
This seemingly violates USADA's charter, as it is charged with stopping doping, yet is letting CURRENT riders continue on just to nail someone who RETIRED from cycling and last won 7 years ago.
The absurd unfairness of the actual process.
Lance didn't have the option of a trial, only binding arbitration with a 3-person panel. Binding arbitration is bad enough for your cell phone contract, but imagine it applying to your job -- and not just to your current job, but a LIFETIME ban on working at all in your entire field.
And even if you win, it's not until after USADA has dragged your name through the mud, issues press releases about their allegations, makes false claims, and then publishes a report with all the allegations and dirt to further hurt your public image, and nothing prevents them from doing it all again later. (One of USADA's pieces of "evidence" was the biological passport values from the 2009-2010 comeback which fluctuated, which an expert in a Cycling News report already said could fluctuate from either doping OR natural causes; but USADA trumpeted that it automatically meant cheating. It's pre-trial by Press Release, without expert testimony.)
The so-called "evidence" against Lance is bunk, too.
Besides the two expected witnesses who perjured themselves so badly that they would be completely unusable in an actual courtroom (Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton), another of the pieces of so-called "evidence" that Tygart wanted to use was 6 urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France, a case which had already been investigated by the UCI's own appointee, and it EXONERATED Lance. The investigator was the director of the Netherlands national anti-doping organization, and wrote in his exhaustive, 132-page report: the failure of the underlying research to comply with any applicable standard and the deficiencies in the report render it completely irresponsible for anyone involved in doping control testing to even suggest that the analyses results that were reported constitute evidence of anything. (p. 17) PDF link: http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news/2006/jun06/vrijmanreport.pdf It was an epic beatdown. WADA screamed bloody murder, even though under their own regulations, they had stored the samples under the agreement they would never be used for sanctions of any kind! Since the samples were EXPLICITLY not to be used for sanctions, they didn't follow the chain-of-custody regulations, were NOT anonymous, and sat in a freezer for 6 years that was accessible like any other research materials to any number of people. Chain of custody is ESSENTIAL to handling samples, and it is already established in every context that a broken chain of custody equals completely worthless non-evidence.
And even then, those samples were under the control of those biased against Lance
Moreover, the French national anti-doping lab in question regularly leaks its findings to the French paper L'Equipe, which has a notorious anti-Lance POV (they really didn't like him winning their tour every single year). This would be something like if you went for a drug test for your job, and before anyone else got the official results, your worst enemy on Facebook posted the "results" given to him from his buddy at the lab that coincidentally showed you used certain substances that were also sitting in the lab research supplies. Let's see, people with a motive and a grudge who have access to your samples with no chain of custody and know exactly which samples are yours and suddenly find a "positive" years after the fact?
In the end, pointless for Lance to fight:
The whole process is the definition of a kangaroo court. The anti-doping agencies ONLY get clout and increase their budgets by busting people; if busts don't happen, people will begin wondering what the point of the doping agencies IS, exactly. There's no bigger fish than Lance, so CEO Tygart is probably counting on a big fat funding increase next year based on being able to abuse power like this
...
Contrary to the assertion that Lance "accepted" USADA's decision, he instead refused to go into binding arbitration with Travis Tygart, refusing to acknowledge the CEO of USADA's personal vendetta as legitimate. Both Lance and the UCI agree that the UCI is the only legitimate party with jurisdiction, as the UCI has announced publicly.
So they have 6 positive urine samples, 10 witnesses among them eyewitnesses among them people who have never admitted to doping or were ever caught and didn't testify before, blood pasport values that are indicative of blood doping and epo dosing, evidence that Armstrong was tipped off because he was tested out of compition so he could drain his bladder and fill it with clean urine or use any of the other techniques.
And who knows what more evidence they have. We knew he doped. It's just an issue of proving it in the court of law. Saying he suddenly improved magically up to a watt/kg on long HC climbs that is in the superhuman/epo range isn't proof. But it does tell us he doped. Now we also have the evidence.
And one more piece of evidence. Armstrong gave up his 7 tour titles to prevent the case from going to court Let's hope Bruyneel and the others dont do the same so we can still see Hincapie confess. But too bad now they won't be publically drilling Armstrong in interrogation when the days before the whole world learned and accepted he used doping because of Ashenden and Hincapie testimonies.
On August 26 2012 15:12 akalarry wrote: might as well ban usain bolt from ever competing in track ever again
And why do you bring up Usain Bolt? It doesn't even have to do with cycling.
But if you want to accuse him, consider this. He is 6'5, which is huge for a sprinter. He can take less strides than most people. He has also demonstrated amazing results since he was young. Don't try and convince me that a >14 year old is taking steroids. Also, take into consideration that Jamaica is a country traditionally used to breed slaves for peak physical fitness. Now that it has proper training coaches, Jamaica has seen a rise in prominence in world track and field.
Not to mention, Usain Bolt is on some anti-doping agency (I forget the name), and is regularly tested for drugs. If you argue the same for Armstrong, consider that none of Bolt's competitors have ever accused him of doping.
Of course I may be wrong. I will be the first to admit it if there is ever any evidence, but as of right now, the facts point hat he is legitimate.
Armstrong, on the other hand seems to have the facts pointing the other way.
I'm surprised how many US-posters still defend him almost fanatically. Even saying "even if he doped its ok because anyone else did", thats some weird understanding of justice and law. Makes you wonder how highly the media can influence people (pro-Armstrong in US, contra-Armstrong pretty much everywhere else).
if somone like MC or Idra would be found maphacking, the guy would be crucified on TL regeardless where he came from.
anyway from what i have read in many articles the guy is the dirtiest in an already dirty sport. He dodged the bullet by not going to a regular court where he would have to testifiy under oath (and if found lying lose quite more than his title) and now comes out with a statement "im innocent, but i cant take it any longer".
And of course it was a witchhunt, because he was protected by pretty much everyone in the cylcing scene. If he had a 2 year ban while he was active, it would have been a death sentence for the cycling scene. Every official was protecting his own job by protecting him.
On August 26 2012 06:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 26 2012 06:22 Rassy wrote: The french can hate him all they want (and not only the french btw,he does not seem widely popular unfortunatly), he will still be the greatest cyclist of all time.
Well, the greatest cheater, yeah for sure.
I guess he deserves credit for no going to jail.
In all seriousness, admiring Lance Armstrong and saying he is a legend is basically like saying someone who has won many poker championship with cheating by having aces in his pocket is a great player and deserves admiration. I guess every average athlete can do very well with massive dopping.
In a sport full of drug abusers it seems that getting 7 TDF after battling cancer because you were on some drugs which boosted your red blood count (which 2 of 4 are legal, he just chose the illegal ones allegedly) it seems like he still has a lot to be proud of, bitch all you want but not many people can say "I doped and won 7 times" ^^
Yeah well, for me someone who cheats has nothing to be proud of. He just cheats. Scientists have measured that Armstrong's power in watt is basically impossible to reach for a human being. It's ok, if you want to admire someone like that, it's really your problem. For me he is a dishonest joke who behaved like a thug.
There are quite a few reasons why Armstrong is hated so much and other dopers are treated much more better compared to him.
1- First of all, this "I have been tested 500 times" shit is completely a lie. He was tested 29 times by USADA, around 150 times by UCI (When you lead the race, like Armstrong did like 70 days for his career, you are tested %100). I guess the total number is around 200-250 tests, not even close to what he claims. 2- He tested positive in 1999 TDF, when a new test was developed to detect a material (forgot its name, sorry about that), there was no minimum threshold of that material, so if that is detected, you are dead but UCI somehow played with rules and stuff and let him racing. 3- He was tested positive on 2001 Tour de Suisse but It was covered up by UCI. 4- His hematocrit level somehow increased from 39 to 48.5 by sleeping in a tent (LOL) 5- His attitude towards Flippo Simeoni and Christophe Bassons (You can google it to read what was happened.) 6- He said when he was returning 2nd time in 2009 "If Carlos Sastre can win a TDF and Christian Vande Velde can get 4th, I'd surely win 2009 TDF easily" and guess what, Contador smoked him like he was nobody. 7- He said he stopped working with Ferrari when he was convicted (Big LOL)
I can add more stuff If someone is still interested about this guy
This almost sounds like another EU vs NA thing. I don't really care about what happened in the past, just prove it in a court of law. If you can't, leave the man alone.
The people Lance Armstrong beat were the best in the world at cycling, and they were also doping. It's hard to believe he could be that superior physically to not only beat them but dominate them without doping himself.
When you consider this and the fact that he's tested positive before, it's hard to believe him.
On August 26 2012 19:41 KingAce wrote: This almost sounds like another EU vs NA thing. I don't really care about what happened in the past, just prove it in a court of law. If you can't, leave the man alone.
The only reason they can't is Armstrong stopped fighting precisely to avoid going to court. The evidence is there.
On August 26 2012 19:41 KingAce wrote: This almost sounds like another EU vs NA thing. I don't really care about what happened in the past, just prove it in a court of law. If you can't, leave the man alone.
The only reason they can't is Armstrong stopped fighting precisely to avoid going to court. The evidence is there.
Except that Armstrong wasn't being taken to court. The arbitration process of the USADA only requires prosecutors to establish an athlete's guilt "to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body", which is defined as "greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt". I can understand why he would hesitate to participate in a 'trial' where (for example) '60% guilt' is sufficient for the judge/jury to pass a guilty verdict.
Armstrong was actually a very talented young rider and kind of a prodigy. But nothing like grand tour general classification material. He couldn't climb. He did very good time trials, could win classics and one day events, but he has to climb the HC cols in the bus. Still his TT wattages were way lower before he got cancer compared to what he did when he was winning. I personally find it hard to believe that you get higher wattages as you get near and over 30.
Armstrong does admit it needs to be explained why he improved so much. Like I said before he says he lost weight and he says he improved his pedalling efficiency by 8%. He claims he was riding at 72kg rather than 78. In the mountains it is about watts/kg. We know he lied about his weight and he kinda admitted it was more like 75-76 and we know the 8% efficiency improvement is based on a highly flawed research paper. Before and after that Coyle paper physiologists have never been able to measure even half a percent of pedaling efficiency improvement.
This talks about pedalling technique a bit and gives you an idea.
One has to wonder why Armstrong decided he had to make up these two stories to explain his performance boost.
Everything indicates that if you try to mess with your pedalling technique, you become less efficient and you should just pedal as you naturally do. Unless you are Armstrong. Then you can improve yours watts by 8%
I believe 100m sprinters also use PEDs. Everyone in a final running below 10s to me is as indicative for doping as the GC riders in the third week of the tour climbing at over 6.2watt/kg on long HC climbs. Sprinters get tested a lot less. Also for track and field T/E ratios are easier to stay within. Cycling is the most tested sport. Jamaica basically does no out of competition tests. But in the 100m it's mostly about getting more training volume and avoiding&recovering from injuries. Unless they have some trick to change the ratio of type I and type II muscles.
If I crank up my htc from 45 to 55 I will instantly perform a lot better. And the longer the climb we are talking about is, the bigger the time margin. There is nothing similar that will just instantly improve my sprinting times. In sprinting running form and basic body physiology are absolutely huge. Cycling performance is just about wattages. Everyone has the same technique. It's just about how big your engine is.
In all likelyhood, every single one of these "athletes" are doping. Maybe with the exception of the guys coming in last every race, but those might just as well simply have the worst talent and ability.
And then, every few months, somebody comes along with the great revelation that one guy or other dopes. ORLY! You don't say.
I say, just make all these legal for cycling, let them ruin their lives and we have a fair competition of everybody doping openly with all the same stuff available.
On August 26 2012 21:16 snow2.0 wrote: I don't understand cycling sports and their fans.
In all likelyhood, every single one of these "athletes" are doping. Maybe with the exception of the guys coming in last every race, but those might just as well simply have the worst talent and ability.
And then, every few months, somebody comes along with the great revelation that one guy or other dopes. ORLY! You don't say.
I say, just make all these legal for cycling, let them ruin their lives and we have a fair competition of everybody doping openly with all the same stuff available.
Not really. You make it legal and you get a competition of monsters that all die at 35. Not what you want.
Just to give you an idea:
In 1947, average life hope for men was 60 and the one of the Tour de France cyclists was 74. Nowadays, average is 76 and 60 for the cyclists of the Tour de France. I read that in the paper yesterday.
And that's with people who are trying to escape controls, being extremely careful with what they take and that they don't get caught etc... Imagine if they could do whatever they wanted. It would be ridiculous.
Cyclism is pretty much dead. Competition, sponsor pressure, medias and money have killed it.