"Lance Armstrong ends fight against doping charges"
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Sport
Lance latest
(115 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Burn him anyway!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yeah just heard it on the radio: they'll try to strip him of his TdF titles apparently.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Leith Cycle Co (@LeithCycleCo)24/08/2012 07:38
I still think Lance Armstrong is one of the most inspirational athletes of our time. Don't forget what he achieved.
"
Posted 11 years ago # -
I like the bit in his statement: "The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?"
Posted 11 years ago # -
It's a really odd situation, and that statement sums it up nicely. I don't really think he was clean, just ahead of the game, but if you've got testing, and that testing shows someone clean, and you can then say 'Well we think you're dirty anyway so all those tests don't matter....' Shows the testing was poor more than anything else...
Posted 11 years ago # -
But the testing's great now. Aren't all those samples retained and available for testing now?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Certainly in the case of Athletics (there was a programme a wee while back that re-tested the samples from the Ben Johnson 100m final, and it looked like 7 of the 8 finalists were doping, but all bar Johnson tested negative on the day).
Posted 11 years ago # -
So even if the tests weren't sufficiently sensitive or the thresholds were too high 17 years ago it should be possible, at least with some of them, to retest and find the smoking gun.
Posted 11 years ago # -
It should be - what's odd is that USADA don't seem to be doing that, but rather relying on testimony from people who saw him doping.
Of course there are two ways to see Armstrong backing down. 1: He's guilty as sin and is avoiding that coming out in black and white in the media storm around a case; 2: He's genuinely fed up of the speculation, being clean, and has just thought "This isn't worth the ongoing stress".
Posted 11 years ago # -
I was just reading that the USADA claims to have blood tests "consistent with a pattern of doping" so not as clear cut as a positive but presumably hematocrit values and other values that oscillate in ways they think are consistent with doping. That plus testimony would be the case against.
You'd think USADA would (if it could) just publish the evidence to show its case.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
The logic now is that USADA, having received Armstrong's letter today declining to attend their arbitration meeting in November, will fairly promptly declare that he is guilty of the 15 charges ranging over 13 years they published earlier this year and, as they threatened, strip him of the seven Tour de France titles he won after his comeback from cancer. They would also impose a retrospective ban.It's still a moot point legally if USADA have the authority to do that, the UCI are the world governing body and it is the UCI who oversaw the drug testing during Armstrong's comeback years and declared all the tests he undertook during that period to be clean. "
Posted 11 years ago # -
Didn't L'Equipe retest one his old blood samples and find traces of EPO a few years ago?
All the (circumstantial) evidence points to him and his team mates doping - their speed on the climbs, sustained power outputs, etc would put them miles ahead of the current crop of riders - plus how many of his "lieutenants" were busted after leaving the team? But then, the circumstantial evidence suggests that all the top finishers of that era were also at it. So, no point stripping him of the titles only to give them to the others; just flag up that this was a dodgy doping era.
Shame is, we'll never know if Armstrong was the best cyclist of his generation or just the cyclist who responded to the "preparation" best and with the best organised ("prepared") team around him...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Ps - roughly the same conclusions that Matt Seaton came in the Guardian
Posted 11 years ago # -
"no point stripping him of the titles only to give them to the others"
Exactly. I am no Lance fan (by a very long way), but this is pointless. Remember Andy Schlecks comments after being 'awarded' the title after Contador was stripped?
"we'll never know if Armstrong was the best cyclist of his generation"
I think he was the best - its just that all the top boys were doping so the wattages/speeds uphill were all astonishing.
If I recall correctly, everyone who stood on the podium in his 7 tdf wins has been busted for doping........except Lance. This is no coincidence, and what infuriates me about him is his insistence that he was clean.
I also think he is a bit of a bully, so yah boo sucks to him !!
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Lance Armstrong (@lancearmstrong)24/08/2012 23:21
Thanks to all the amazing @LIVESTRONG supporters worldwide. Donations today were UP 25x over yesterdays. Thank you thank you thank you!
"Posted 11 years ago # -
He's done well limiting damage to the brand. Tactically clever.
Posted 11 years ago # -
If I recall correctly, everyone who stood on the podium in his 7 tdf wins has been busted for doping........except Lance. This is no coincidence, and what infuriates me about him is his insistence that he was clean.
You certainly do recall correctly . . .
http://www.brettluelling.com/post/3435612945/armstrongs-tdf-victories?ae8c8e30 they'll have to dig deep to find someone to give the wins to :o)I don't think he's ever insisted that he was clean - his defence is that no test results have shown him to be positive for drug use.
Having said that, if everyone was doping at the time including LA, then he was still the best cyclist - all-be-it with the best pharmacist.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yeah they should split the Lance Years off into a separate classification - Winners amongst the dopers = Lance
Second category - clean riders but they would have to go quite far down?
Although he may never have claimed to be clean [I have not read his book but understand he goes into doping in some detail?] The implication that he was never found positive after 100s of tests is that he was clean. Whereas it may be that he had an advanced supply of a substance to block the drugs he was taking from being detected.
He should have had a strategy which involved not always winning then he would not have raised so many suspicions. Coming back after the cancer clearly a major achievement but also could have introduced a few faltering stages etc maybe even attracting some sympathy [of course he isn't looking for sympathy]
Posted 11 years ago # -
Ten years ago the thought of Lance testing positive was horrifying. I thought it would be the end of the Tour. He was that important to its rebirth after the problems in 1998.
What's startling to me is not that he took drugs but that he was at the centre of a vast omerta that ensured drug taking could continue while the Tour organisers and cycling in general reaped the financial rewards of having an American winner. The involvement of the UCI and WADA should be the focus of investigation.
Posted 11 years ago # -
THere is something about the scope and length of the tour with the amazing climbs etc that lends itself to scandal. The intrigue and skullduggery is integral to the very being of the event? (catching the train in the early days etc)
the vuelta this year is cracking, all the climbs are hotly contested, many crashes etc [our own Robert Millar was cheated from winning that of course back in the day]. I think i might prefer the vuelta just now as the climbs seem to determine it more than the time trials at the moment tho the points at end of week one will be split between Degenkolb the sprinter and Rodriguez the climber.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Posted 11 years ago #
-
An article related to the one above is interesting for the claim that.
The inspectors encountered many difficulties in making unannounced checks. Armstrong was always informed in advance, so he still had twenty minutes to cover his tracks. He could thin his blood or replace his urine. He used the EPO only in small quantities, so it was no longer there to detect. We were powerless against this way of working.
20 minutes? I guess you can do a lot in 20 minutes. Used EPO in small amounts? I guess it would be a clever strategy to use a little of everything to push all the values up but not over the limits.
Interesting at the end where they smear Wiggins and Froome.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I thought the recent times had slowed to less suspicious levels? Power production you would have to think would translate into speed? Maybe they go really really slowly before? Oh wait, they don't, team sky set fast pace. Froome needs some power production on the vuelta
Posted 11 years ago # -
It's not up to Lance to prove he is innocent; he's given up trying because to prove it is impossible. The smears continue despite the only evidence being that he won lots of races ahead of proven cheats. Perhaps rather than him being a cheat, he's just tired of having to try to clear his name every time an accusation is made. He merely asks to see some proof, and there is none.
Anyway, as per Rangers, I plan to change my name to The Lance Armstrong, buy his old bike, collect his seven wins and demand a place in next years Tour.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@gembo: good call on Rodriguez. And nice to see Gilbert back on form. I'm looking forward to the mountain stages as we visited the Lagos de Covadonga a few years ago. A few cyclists were toiling up and there was some faded lettering across the roads. And huge birds of prey circling above.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@mgj sounds like a good plan. What drugs are you going to take?
Posted 11 years ago # -
..as per Rangers..
LOL. Best not to start you come-back in England in case you have to race another Lance though.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Now that's funny.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
