[Closed] Lance, latest have we done it yet.

unless i've read it wrong, or am being really thick.

the federal court found usada's arbitration process robust, surely if any part of the accusations were 'poorly supported' in either basis or in due protocol they would have been chucked out. But they weren't.

Byebye Lance.

Have the ADAA posted a statement on this yet?

The federal court found nothing substantial worth prosecuting for when they investigated lance for 2 years. I also understand there were some misgivings raised even though lance lost the injunction. I'm a sceptic of lance but as far as I'm concerned it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt which is how it needs to be settled.

The federal court found nothing substantial worth prosecuting for when they investigated lance for 2 years.

I love the way the truth gets distorted with all this sort of stuff. Have you not read how the prosecution was abandoned?

The federal court found nothing substantial worth prosecuting for when they investigated lance for 2 years.

Am i reading it wrong or have usada stripped him of his titles in teir books but neither te uci nor the tdf organisers have commented nor reacted . Ie the ones who can actually strip him of the actual titles ?

I can't be bothered to read the pages of posts after last looking this morning (if you want to getter a better grasp of LA then you are better off reading some of the links I and others have posted) but has hora admitted he is wrong yet?
Are the sycophants still blindly defending him?

R4 has just announced he's being stripped of all titles - does this mean UCI have confirmed - can't find anything?

trail rat - he has been stripped, simple. That is what the jurisdiction lawsuit was about. USADA has the authority in the US. It doesn't matter that they didn't award the titles / jerseys, because USADA have removed his elegibility to compete after Aug 1998.

It's all a bit disappointing, the end of an era.

I always enjoyed the LA debates, the endless arguments and stories.

I suppose we can move on to the conspiracy theories though...

apparently the UCI have signed up to the USADA Code, which gives the USADA jurisdiction to withdraw the titles. Awaiting UCI and ASO (tour organisers) statements.

[url= http://www.bicycling.com/print/67431 ]http://www.bicycling.com/print/67431[/url]
Vaughters take. Worth a read, you will certainly glean more about doping than a lot of the naive views expressed in this thread.

Am i reading it wrong or have usada stripped him of his titles in teir books but neither te uci nor the tdf organisers have commented nor reacted . Ie the ones who can actually strip him of the actual titles ?

That's what I'm reading too. Further to this, it would appear that they're stripping him of his titles prior to any public testimony by any of the team mates, who have apparantly agreed to testify. I think I must be a bit thick here but aren't they saying we're stripping him of his titles because of a presumption of guilt, simply because he's not contesting the charges?

In other words, he's not actually been proven guilty - the USADA have decided he is and that is that. Odd that they think they have authority to strip a title that they have no control over. Could they then 'decide' Ulrich was doping so he's not worthy... and so on until they get to someone they like?

On the one hand they've got what they wanted, but on the other, I don't think they've come out of it with much credibility.

In other words, he's not actually been proven guilty - the USADA have decided he is and that is that

Because, given the opportunity to refute the evidence of his 10 team mates, Lance has decided that it is all nonsense & he can't be bothered.

About time Zero interested in Drug cheats

There are some fantastically ignorant posts from some of the fanboys on here, perhaps they would like to bury their heads for a bit in here

[img] http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTfwUggCmeEs9u9C6vQP_OLuMY74gLwd_FclXjo_YxtW6kkno2u [/img]

In other words, he's not actually been proven guilty - the USADA have decided he is and that is that.

Because, given the opportunity to refute the evidence of his 10 team mates, Lance has decided that it is all nonsense & he can't be bothered.

Has he had disclosure? Does he know what this evidence is? It all seems a bit suggestive to me, or maybe that's the way the media has presented it.

It's almost like a Poker game; USADA are saying with got all this evidence (non of which has been published as far as I can see) so come on Lance, let's play. Whereas on the LA side he knows he only has what he's always maintained (which, let's face it, has continually been questionable). LA has folded without making USADA show their cards and winner takes all.

[He's not been proven guilty. It's more like he's been found guilty. As soon as he decided not to contest the charges, he is presumed guilty and he knew that.
]

Then nor has he taken a lie detector test or the truth drug

Odd that they think they have authority to strip a title that they have no control over.

I think I must be a bit thick here but aren't they saying we're stripping him of his titles because of a presumption of guilt, simply because he's not contesting the charges?

By default; if he doesn't defend the allegations, he's accepted the charges against him

Bit like [or maybe not 🙂 ] a fixed penalty fine for swearing in the street, whether or not you think you're guilty, if you accept the penalty rather than have it heard and defend it, your guilty

So forgive my ignorance, but it was essentially

'have your day in court with the chance to prove your innocence or be brutally crushed by our evidence'

OR

'walk away and accept our punishment'

It's a shame personally to see him come apart like this, as he was winning the tour when I was first getting into watching it with my Dad. Back then I had no idea all this kind of thing went on, heh. To be honest having read David Millar's book and knowing more about bicycle racing, I'm not really surprised anymore.

Although regardless of whether he did it or not, the whole 'guilty until proven innocent' thing seems a bit off.

EDIT: They're talking about it on ITV4 right now...

Has he had disclosure? Does he know what this evidence is? It all seems a bit suggestive to me, or maybe that's the way the media has presented it.

It's almost like a Poker game; USADA are saying with got all this evidence (non of which has been published as far as I can see) so come on Lance, let's play. Whereas on the LA side he knows he only has what he's always maintained (which, let's face it, has continually been questionable). LA has folded without making USADA show their cards and winner takes all.

I believe he has had sight of the evidence against him (to some degree at least) but I do not know that.

Depending on what Bruyneel does the evidence may come out anyway. In fact, even if Bruyneel 'folds' it is quite possible that USADA will release the evidence anyway.

FFS, go read some of the statements.... LA's, USADA, WADA, UCI etc.

Then judge LA's assertion of a witch hunt on the basis of a wider set of perspectives! The spin machine has obviously been effective

He's been desperately trying to suppress the evidence, with the injunction case. Going to arbitration would have exposed the evidence to public scrutiny. Owning up would bring the roof down around him ( Feds, public money etc). This choice was carefully calculated - why wouldnt it have been.

Ultimately it doesn't matter. No one beat Lance on those tours, most of the other high ranked riders were on drugs at some point, if you don't take it as Lance winning, who did?

I'd like to think he wasn't doping, he may well have been, there are only two real facts that I can see.
1. There was a witch hunt, possibly justified, maybe not. I mean you don't take evidence from someone who confesses but dibs a TdF champion in, and then let them ride the TdF. That's either bad form or hypocrisy - not sure which yet.
2. You could give me all the drugs in the world and I couldn't do what those TdF guys do. I will always be impressed by them, junkies or not.

Edit: RKK01 just because it's a witch hunt does mean there isn't a witch, or vice versa.

I dont understand why people bother to defend LA by saying it was just a witch hunt* and then say he was the best anyone as everyone was cheating.
in that case why care either way? He was the best whether he cheated or not. personally care more about whether he cheated than whether he was the best.

* he was the highest profile cyclist ever with a media career and "charity" [ i would call it self promotion tbh] built on his awesomeness and force of will. Of course folk who felt he was a cheat [ and therefore a liar an a fraudster] were "out to get him" as he offended their sense of justice.

So one affair is all over bar the shouting. Time to start again:

It was the original marginal gains philosophy before Sky! We were doing VO2 max tests every week. The guys on the team—a funnier analogy to Sky—the Russians were Olympic and world champions in team pursuit, individual pursuit, points race, the best in the world at track racing and then with these Spanish guys who’d won tons of amateur races in Spain. So it was a natural group of talented young riders who should have—with all these marginal gains—just popped right in and kicked butt.

And what happened?
What happened is we were the worst team in the Spanish peloton by far.

It'll be without me, I really can't be bothered.

Witch hunt? What does that even mean?

It certainly implies an unfair persecution.

I prefer the terms 'investigation', 'inquiry' or 'due process'

Bust every cheat. Sweep out the skeletons. Then draw a line under the doping era and draw an asterisk beside every tainted individual in the results.

Far to many folks are worried about how this will damage cycling. Wake up. Cycling is f*cked already and letting cheats go wont unf*ck it. Did you think Festina was the only bitter pill you'd have to swallow? This one will really stick in your craw.

The way we'll unf*ck it is sending out the message that cheats will be caught and that we will create a level playing field.

No winners in this you say? The winners will be a generation of clean cyclists who don't have to choose between drugs and failure.

[img] [/img]

this 'witch hunt' shit annoys the hell out of me.

lance knows all about witch hunts,

ask bassons and simeoni.

But they're still taking drugs now. Contador, Schleck

No such thing as the drugs era in pro-cycling. As far as I can see some of them have always been on drugs. Certainly from Simpson onwards.

I don't think it's right to go back in time and bust one person - either bust all the old tour winners, or none. Either everyone found doping gets a lifetime ban or none do. Where would you stop in your anti-doping time machine? Some early riders used strychnine, then amphetamines, then EPO, steroids and doubtless a whole host of other stuff that I've never heard of.

Also, it is alleged that Lance's former team mates dobbed him in - I wonder if they are going to give back the extra money they shared in because of his success?

But they're still taking drugs now. Contador, Schleck

The important difference I think is big names like the ones you mention getting caught.

And perhaps the fear of retrospective testing will make current riders think twice?

either bust all the old tour winners, or none

You bust the ones you have viable samples for.

I don't know where that line is but it seems like the logical one to draw.

And still riding, Spin, still riding.

if you have the means to bust em, bust em.

or draw a line in the sand, and stick your head in it, like in football. 😆

And still riding, Spin, still riding.

Fair point

I don't think it's right to go back in time and bust one person - either bust all the old tour winners, or none.

The reason his teammates gave him up is because they were giving sworn testimony before a grand jury-if you're found to have lied you'll end up in jail - so what would you do lie and hope your other 9 teammates all say the same thing or tell the truth? That was also pretty much the offer David millar was given too.

And where have the stories of delayed bans and lighter sentences come from?? Unfortunately usada have made no comment on this all of these stories seem to originate from one of last press releases - so more spin from the guy at the centre of a witch hunt - oh actually that'll be an investigation against 5 people, but la decided it was a witch hunt just against him.

And as for a pointless investigation just to strip him of his titles fraud not as many of the charges relate to 2010 and supply and trafficking of drugs.

Re the evidence la hasn't seen it - doesn't know who the witnesses are (they're not all teammates) - unfortunately la has a nasty habit of getting witnesses to change stories character assassination and witness intimidation (all public knowledge and easily checked)

ask bassons and simeoni.

That should be 'ask who Bassons and Simeoni are?' because if you don't know then you can't objectively comment on the LA doping story. You need to know who landis, andrieau, vaughters, McQuaid, ashenden, David Walsh ,Willy voet, Verbruggen and many others are and their part in doping history.
Or you can believe the LA Pr machine and his cronies.

You can't bust only the people you have viable samples for. To legitimise the process you would have to have samples for everyone. Otherwise it would be pure luck whether or not there was a viable sample for you.

I think pro riding has been on a journey from endemic and prolific doping towards (one day - soon hopefully) no doping at all.

Perhaps we should say "Right, from (eg) 1 September we will take samples from the top x finishers in all races and test them. Anybody found with [Proscribed List] will be banned for life. We will also retain your sample for a period of y years, and reserve the right to test retrospectively from time to time for any new substance which may be added to the Proscribed List".

That Athletes Passport thing sounds like a good idea too. Protects those who are keen to stay clean.

Perhaps we should say "Right, from (eg) 1 September we will take samples from the top x finishers in all races and test them. Anybody found with [Proscribed List] will be banned for life. We will also retain your sample for a period of y years, and reserve the right to test retrospectively from time to time for any new substance which may be added to the Proscribed List

that has already been proven to be of little use if you have friends in the UCI.
vocal commentators who have written about LA doping for years are saying that the reasons he got away with it also have to be investigated, the job is only half done. All the time McQuaid has the hot seat at the UCI the cover up will continue.

I'd like it to be clean. I just doubt it ever was or will be.

Like I said though, still impressive.

What do you expect from a sport that idolises numbers & pain & requires little technical skill.

Interview with usada CEO Travis Tygart. Sounds like a reasonable argument for going after LA and his teammates
[url= http://www.danpatrick.com/2012/08/24/usadas-tygart-comments-on-decision-to-strip-armstrong-of-tour-de-france-titles/ ]http://www.danpatrick.com/2012/08/24/usadas-tygart-comments-on-decision-to-strip-armstrong-of-tour-de-france-titles/[/url]

What do you expect from a sport that idolises numbers & pain & requires little technical skill.

We will also retain your sample for a period of y years, and reserve the right to test retrospectively from time to time for any new substance which may be added to the Proscribed List".

Test people for things that weren't proscribed at the time, but subsequently are? That's not really on.

Do you mean test retrospectively for things that were proscribed then and now there are decent tests for them?

Yes, use better tests in the future and yes, add to the proscribed list eg if a specific performance-enhancing drug was accurately named on the list but subsequently modified slightly it could technically be possible to say that the new compound is allowed because it's not absolutely the same as defined, however, the aim and intention is the same so it should be capable of being proscribed.
By the way, I am a Lance fan and drugs or no drugs I think he is an outstanding cyclist.
Also, I'm not buying the 'it was in my dinner' defence. That's a crock of shit IMO.

By the way, I am a Lance fan and drugs or no drugs I think he is an outstanding cyclist.

Its true he is because of all the drugs cheats of that era he was the best at drug cheating as he won and he took the longest to get caught.....like you say OUTSTANDING

Out of interest why do you care about current and future testing if you still think the cheats are outstanding?

http://store.theonion.com/p-5045-cheat-to-win-bracelet.aspx

Have to agree Junkyard. I have to say i get quite annoyed at all this 'Everybody doped and he was still the best' rubbish. There is a reason the top 5 in all of Armstrong's TdF wins were in the top 5. They all doped. He was the best of the dopers, not necessarily the best out there. Chris Boardman was from a slightly earlier era. He was a hugely talented cyclist who was widely recognised to be clean, and he was very much an also ran when it came to the GC when he tried the Tour. Lance was also an also ran until something amazing suddenly happened to him???

Paul's comments:

http://www.98fm.com/2012/category-news-sport/category-sport/paul-kimmage-armstrong-2012-2408/

As there have been no tests[scientifically verifiable with athletes] done the other argument is that we cannot be sure that the drugs affect everyone equally.
if you and I have the same injection of EPO we will not necessarily get an equal improvement from this

It is possible that the reason he was the best cheat was because he got the best physiological response from the drugs rather than , as some seem to imply, that if they were all clean he would still have done the 7 wins.

The blood test results Armstrong published when collaborating with Catin showed he was at a haematocrit of 39 in December IIRC. He could therefore increase his haematocrit by 20% by transfussion or EPO use without going over the 50 limit.

Some guys are naturally over 45 and have little scope for improving their performance with EPO. even if they would normally perform better than someone with a natural 39.

IMO the ranges accepted for biological passports are far too wide. My own experience has shown me that my own haematocrit is stubbornly stable even if I spend long periods at the same altitude as the French altitude training centre. An athlete I know came back from the centre bragging about a high 40s haematocrit (the person was normally very low 40s) and showed accute embarrassment when I expressed surprise/disbelief at the improvement. The last result Armstrong published was an already suspect result over 45.

why? Because I believe that back in the day everyone or almost everyone doped - therefore it was a level playing field. I think it was widely known about, I think it went on with the unspoken agreement of the UCI and Tour organisers etc. I believe it was normal and natural at the time. Should we stop admiring Tommy Simpson? He doped. It killed him. Doping was the thing to do then, now it isn't. Like smoking - when I was young everyone smoked. It was cool and sexy and sophisticated. You could smoke everywhere too, at your desk at work, buses, trains, the cinema. Sportsmen smoked publicly -tobacco companies provided a lot of sponsorship

Except that, anyone who didn't either failed or was run out of town 👿

Karinofnine

There's a big difference between the stimulants that Tom Simpson/Anquetil et al where using and EPO

I didn't say it was good (or bad) merely that it existed and riders operated within that culture. It's different now.
Piemonster are you saying it's ok to use amphetamines but not ok to use EPO?

I believe that back in the day everyone or almost everyone doped - therefore it was a level playing field.

As not everyone cheated it was in no way shape or form a level playing field as some cheated and some did not.

Karin, I clearly did not suggest anything of the sort.

But the stimulants in use before the designer training drugs came along are very very different things and should be treated as such.

I believe that back in the day everyone or almost everyone doped - therefore it was a level playing field.

so it was not level for the ones who did not dope then like say cadel and Boardman.

As not everyone cheated it was in no way shape or form a level playing field as some cheated and some did not.

The 'level playing field' argument assumes (a) that everyone doped to the same extent and (b) that the doping had the same effect on all.

Despite the personal/witch-hunt slant that LA's PR machine want to put on things, this wasn't an investigation onto LA, it is an investigation into US Postal's doping regime and it isn't finished - Bruyneel is still unresolved. The view is that USP's doping programme was consistent, thorough, endemic and more effective than the rest.

I have no doubt that LA had talent and put the training in but it is my view that was the 'best' (TdF rider of his generation) because he doped the best.

http://store.theonion.com/p-5045-cheat-to-win-bracelet.aspx

Piemonster. I'm not getting your meaning. Why should they be treated differently? You're either cheating or you aren't. Can you have "only cheating a bit because the drugs are different/older"?

It's certainly a very interesting area, this whole performance thing - where do shakes, powders, creatinine, caffeine, cocktails of vitamins, electrolyte drinks etc end and drugs start? And if the banning of drugs/having a transfusion of your own blood is to make things fair - well things aren't fair (firstly because there is no such thing as fair anyway) and secondly because a rich team from a rich country will have an advantage over a poor team from a poor country.

Anyway, I'm not defending doping but I am getting a bit philosophical and have certainly strayed from the OP, for which I apologise!

Maybe the leniency showed to the Simpson era drugs is because they had no long lasting improvement value, possibly the opposite as Tom's tragedy eloquently demonstrates.
Use of EPO and other drugs can have long lasting physiological effects that will still be benefitting those that used them even now they are off them.

Heyup Karen

The Tom Simpson case is a good example, he died whilst using amphetamines. Allowing him to push himself to, and sadly beyond his physical limits. Way way way back in the tours history there are accounts of wine being used for a similar purpose(didn't catch on). The general thinking is that the stimulants used before designer drugs where used to allow people to "survive" the race.

Eddy Merckxx tested positive for a drug that's not far off being a really really strong cup of coffee.

EPO, allows you to become fitter and stronger than is naturally possible. How it does this is something you should google search at the very least.

They are both cheating. But to lump them together as equally bad is a bit like comparing that bloke down the road flogging a telly nicked from work with a full time burglar. There both naughty, but one is more naughty than the other.

It'll also be worth looking at Gene doping

Also worth reading is http://elpais.com/diario/2011/04/03/deportes/1301781615_850215.html

Karen, this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Lies-Handlebar-Tape-Remarkable/dp/1845963016

Is both a good read, and also gives some insight into the drugs they was using and what they where used for.

Several days worth
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years

In Tommy Simpson et al's day amphetamines could be considered to be the pinnacle of drug technology, now EPO could be considered to be the pinnacle (except I think there is something newer now but the point is the same).

If we were comparing them in the same timeframe there *might* be a difference but we are not comparing them in the same timeframe, they are separated by time and, taken in their own, discrete, contexts, are equally bad.

Yes and No

It's easy to look back and make a judgement by modern standards. But it's important to view what was within the rules 'back in the day' that now would be viewed as doping.

There are accounts of Tour winners receiving hormone injections during the event. But it was within the rules. It's also worth remembering that you used to be able to buy amphetamines from a pharmacist with no more hassle than you would today for cough medicine. Think those days may have passed by Simpsons time though.

I seem to remember reading accounts of Tour riders stopping at chemists en-route. And it was allowed and accepted, which was odd as there was some funny old rules about spare wheels and spare bikes that is now perfectly acceptable but then would be a disqualification.

But to reiterate my own view, EPO allows you to go beyond your natural limits. Amphetamines only make you feel like you can. Which is why designer drugs are naughtier as they allow an athlete to be more than should be possible. I suspect we will just have to agree to disagree.

Funny I don't see any retired older pros running up to stake a claim for 1 of the 7 tdf titles. Bottom lime is the LA won them, and he was the best in that era. I'm not sure you would find many who were riding with him to say otherwise.

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree - especially as amphetamines DO allow you to do more than should be possible - but it was a very good discussion and I am enjoying reading those links you posted.

Why are you called Piemonster?

I'm not sure you would find many who were riding with him to say otherwise.

Bassons and Simeoni would be at the front of the queue.

Most of you posters have played right into LA hands. He wants people to argue he's innocent as there will be no court case, therefore no proof (innocent till proven guilt). If he went to court then he and all his fans wouldn't be able to cling onto this as evidence would be presented that the prosecutors believe is worth the cost of a trial. He on the other hand feels the opposite

[b]How would you all feel to be accused of a crime and offered the chance to clear your name only to reject it?[/b]

If I'm innocent then I want to clear my name in the highest court available. If I was guilty I would balk at the idea of court. I have no proof, but the probability of his stance screams guilt to me. Add other evidence (super human feats beating others found to be dopers) and I'm (and the doping body) feel his 100% guilty. Shame really cos I want to stop slating him but with the short sighted nature of stw posters I feel I have to play devils advocate

Totally agree. Totally. However there will be another accuser next year, libel comment year after..

Saying this he stopped knowing he'd lose everything. What was the worsecase scenario that he was facing if he had gone to arbitration?

Inter national Richard you've been suckered by the usada's witch hunt. You've been ttaken in by what is at best circumstantial evidence and at worse rumour and malice. By waging a war of attrition they have forced Lance into a corner as he knows he will never win and will be fighting the latest allegation as long as he lives. He can never prove he was clean beyond the dope tests he did in competition and the usada know this. 😉

To suggest anyone has been taken in by an arguement and is a fool just because you disagree makes you the fool. See any thread on politics and the Tory bashers.

Also Simpson et all would have used epo if it were available. They were trying to use drugs to improve performance. They just didn't have access to more modern variants.

Totally agree. Totally.

What was the worsecase scenario that he was facing if he had gone to arbitration?

Also Simpson et all would have used epo if it were available.

Totally agree. Totally. However there will be another accuser next year, libel comment year after..
Saying this he stopped knowing he'd lose everything. What was the worsecase scenario that he was facing if he had gone to arbitration?

Progressively worse worst cases...
Disgrace, loss of titles
Bankruptcy, handing back winnings, claims from sponsors
Jail - he owns up and the FBI step in again re US Postal and public money.

To me, this is why his legal team CANNOT sanction any public admission, and Lance does not want evidence made public.

You mention future libel claims - I thought he had stopped threatening libel a few years ago, again suggesting a less than strong position...

And where are the positive test results for LA?