PDA

View Full Version : lance armstrong - dope ?



globe
13-07-2012, 09:17 PM
What do you reckon?

GameJunkie
13-07-2012, 10:44 PM
I hope it's not true, but anything is possible in cycling I guess.

They've been going after him for years, what do they have on him now that says that did dope it up????

globe
13-07-2012, 10:59 PM
Who knows,hes apparently the most tested man in sports.

I hope not but have a feeling that...especially after 3 of his coaches have just received life bans

johcar
14-07-2012, 12:54 AM
As globe says, the most tested man in sports - you'd think that if they had something they would have charged him by now. Sounds like someone in the anti-doping agency has a personal vendetta....

Latest I heard was they were going to ping him for "facillitating" drug taking...

Iantech
14-07-2012, 12:58 AM
The guys had more pricks than a second hand dart board. He's either really good or doesnt do it. Yet all his teams mates (or ex team mates) etc think he does dont they?

SurferJoe46
14-07-2012, 05:05 AM
Personally I feel all 'athlete's are doping, and if he's caught - well, yawn!

I'm not a sport-o, and honestly if all the games and evens left the airwaves and newspapers they'd not be missed by me at all.

They are overpaid, pampered, conceited, Hedonistic braggarts who live a luxuriously vapid lifestyle at huge pay while police, firemen and teachers are underpaid for much more important lifestyles and services and underfed/homeless kids go hungry or die on the streets.

Athletes are just a form of warped reality to me.

Nick G
14-07-2012, 10:21 AM
The guys had more pricks than a second hand dart board. He's either really good or doesnt do it. Yet all his teams mates (or ex team mates) etc think he does dont they?
Well, they could just be jealous of his success, or he could have pissed them off while they were riding together. I think that relying on 'witnesses' in a case like this is dodgy.

globe
14-07-2012, 10:49 AM
Sounds like someone in the anti-doping agency has a personal vendetta...

Read his Bio. He certainly believes this is the case. I really hope the guy is clean, he's a legend and in my view the greatest sportsman ever after Kelly Slater (that'd be an interesting
debate, maybe one for a separate thread)

R2x1
14-07-2012, 10:52 AM
They worry about him taking dope and intend taking him to the cleaners - goodness knows what they would make of our situation where dopes in public office are taking the whole country to the cleaners.

globe
14-07-2012, 10:59 AM
Read his Bio. He certainly believes this is the case. I really hope the guy is clean, he's a legend and in my view the greatest sportsman ever after Kelly Slater (that'd be an interesting
debate, maybe one for a separate thread)

Let me update that 'greatest competitive sportsman'

Nick G
14-07-2012, 11:43 AM
Read his Bio. He certainly believes this is the case. I really hope the guy is clean, he's a legend and in my view the greatest sportsman ever after Kelly Slater (that'd be an interesting
debate, maybe one for a separate thread)
I hope he's clean as well. Simply because he's a role model for a lot of people, beating cancer, doing that well in cycling. Be a shame if he was on drugs at the time.

Cicero
14-07-2012, 12:21 PM
Athletes are just a form of warped reality to me.

I agree, but the mass's seem to need them.

globe
14-07-2012, 01:03 PM
Interesting table here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France#Testing

Shows 11 winners tested positive or admission of use of doping, of the 13 others 4 tested positive but were never sanctioned - including armstrong.

Big issue seems to be that there are so many blurry edges to what is and isnt legal and how and when things can be used. For example Armstrong tested positive for an ingredient in a cream used for a saddle sore.

globe
25-08-2012, 09:38 AM
it appears he may have been...shame

johcar
25-08-2012, 10:18 AM
It's the USADA who have "stripped him of the TdF titles'. However I don't believe that they have the authority to do that. I believe that the UCI are the only ones with the ability to to that.

They still haven't been able to produce any hard evidence - just hearsay from other riders who may have some ulterior motive for shifting the focus of any investigation from them... In most court cases, hearsay is disallowed.

The lifetime ban is a joke - the man has retired.

SurferJoe46
25-08-2012, 11:06 AM
What he did is refuse to pursue the legal side of the claims, and like nolo-contendere, it's a slam dunk that he has decided he can't win the lawsuit.

It's automatic if a defendant stops his litigation defense - guilty as charged.

It has been recently found that the Special olympics - the people with handicaps - have been cheating too. They take a hammer and smash a toe or put torsion on their testicles to heighten their athletic abilities. The judges said they are now watching for it.

I wouldn't want to be a judge for that though.

Looks like all the sports 'heroes' are cheaters. I blame the sports institutions for this.

Cicero
25-08-2012, 01:14 PM
Looks like all the sports 'heroes' are cheaters. I blame the sports institutions for this.

I blame the participants. Think of a mind that will break a toe so as to cheat another.

And they say sport is good for you.

SurferJoe46
25-08-2012, 02:00 PM
Common Cic ---- it's the money and national prestige.

Metla
25-08-2012, 02:03 PM
Looks like all the (american and communist) sports 'heroes' are cheaters. I blame the sports institutions for this.

Kiwis and Skippies ain't cheating, And we (kiwis that is) have plenty of real sporting "heroes".

paulw
25-08-2012, 02:26 PM
What he did is refuse to pursue the legal side of the claims, and like nolo-contendere, it's a slam dunk that he has decided he can't win the lawsuit.

It's automatic if a defendant stops his litigation defense - guilty as charged.

.

But how many millions $$ would it have cost him to continue thru the legal system in the US, The US antidoping agency most likely has a bottomless pit of funds.. As others have said he's never had a positive drug test. It seems to be a case of he said she said with this case.

mikebartnz
25-08-2012, 02:49 PM
It's automatic if a defendant stops his litigation defense - guilty as charged.
At the end of the day he probably decided that the whole business is just not worth the agro. Having had 500 - 600 drug test without a true positive I don't blame him but it is very sad that so many sports people are doing so.

Metla
25-08-2012, 04:17 PM
If he wasn't doping then its pretty sad for him to have his entire career and character destroyed like this.

I don't see it as an admission of guilt, but as a defeat in the face of a corrupt and sick sports body.

mikebartnz
25-08-2012, 04:33 PM
If he wasn't doping then its pretty sad for him to have his entire career and character destroyed like this.
We all know after KD that Americans leaders don't really worry little things like that.

GameJunkie
25-08-2012, 04:33 PM
If he wasn't doping then its pretty sad for him to have his entire career and character destroyed like this.

I don't see it as an admission of guilt, but as a defeat in the face of a corrupt and sick sports body.
+1

Metla
25-08-2012, 04:36 PM
We all know after KD that Americans leaders don't really worry little things like that.

uh....whats KD?

mikebartnz
25-08-2012, 04:56 PM
uh....whats KD?
Kim Dotcom

Metla
25-08-2012, 05:02 PM
Are we are comparing Kim dotcoms achievements and current situation with lance Armstrongs?

mikebartnz
25-08-2012, 05:06 PM
Are we are comparing Kim dotcoms achievements and current situation with lance Armstrongs?
They didn't mind putting Megaupload out of business even before there was a trial did they. They have no true interest in real justice.

SurferJoe46
25-08-2012, 05:07 PM
If he wasn't doping then its pretty sad for him to have his entire career and character destroyed like this.

I don't see it as an admission of guilt, but as a defeat in the face of a corrupt and sick sports body.

Mark this ONE TIME I TOTALLY AGREE WITH METLA. Of course, nolo-contendere is not an actual admission of guilt, but it is used when a 'no-plea' is being offered and the ASSUMPTION is GUILTY.

If you went into court after hitting another vehicle and plead out at nolo, then you get another date set for the final hearing and it's assumed that you made NO PLEA at all. No plea is assumed to be guilty with no actual admission of guilt.

That's the way it was set up in Englifh courts in the -200th century, and so it sticks here too.

globe
25-08-2012, 05:19 PM
I believe most professional cyclist dope. The only difference is whether the dope they use has been outlawed at that time.

Its a shame but i suspect armstrong was not as clean as he makes out, still an outstanding achievement though as his peers certainley would have been on the same playing field if he was doping.

johcar
25-08-2012, 05:32 PM
If he wasn't doping then its pretty sad for him to have his entire career and character destroyed like this.

I don't see it as an admission of guilt, but as a defeat in the face of a corrupt and sick sports body.

4148

It will be interesting to see the UCI's reaction to this and their actions.

The USADA stripping Armstrong of his titles is like the government of Belarus stripping the Olympic shot put gold from Nadzeya Ostapchuk (irrespective of whether she cheated or not).

They can't, because it's the prerogative of the Olympic governing body to manage that process, not the prerogative of some unrelated organisation...

The USADA still won't even release the alleged evidence of wrongdoing to Armstrong so he can build a defence case. They will only release said 'evidence' once he's across the table being 'tried' for his 'crimes'. Bit hard to defend oneself without knowledge of what exactly you're being accused of...

"Corrupt" describes the USADA very well....

globe
26-08-2012, 10:21 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/26/lance-armstrong-doping-whistleblowers

Some good articles here

GameJunkie
26-08-2012, 10:26 PM
I still think that he didnt, if their evidence against him is hearsay and not actual proof that he did dope up then they are as corrupt as the people who do get caught fair and square.

this isnt fair and square

SurferJoe46
27-08-2012, 04:11 AM
4148

It will be interesting to see the UCI's reaction to this and their actions.

The USADA stripping Armstrong of his titles is like the government of Belarus stripping the Olympic shot put gold from Nadzeya Ostapchuk (irrespective of whether she cheated or not).

They can't, because it's the prerogative of the Olympic governing body to manage that process, not the prerogative of some unrelated organisation...

The USADA still won't even release the alleged evidence of wrongdoing to Armstrong so he can build a defence case. They will only release said 'evidence' once he's across the table being 'tried' for his 'crimes'. Bit hard to defend oneself without knowledge of what exactly you're being accused of...

"Corrupt" describes the USADA very well....

People have been burned at the stake for less.

John H
27-08-2012, 12:13 PM
As well as quite a number of really good articles in the Guardian (as noted by globe above) there is this article on Stuff: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/7552391/Drug-cheat-claims-are-well-founded

Note that our own Stephen Swart is quoted, as he has been before, about his observation of Armstrong's drug abuse. In some of the recent articles there are accounts that (contrary to his claims to have never failed any drug tests), Armstrong in fact failed two. One of which he wriggled out of by 'obtaining' a pre-dated prescription for some cream for saddle sores that contained the substance that had been found in his already failed drug test. I don't think that would work nowadays - witness Contador being banned and stripped of his Tour de France title for drug use even though he claimed that he had innocently ingested the drug in a steak he had eaten. 'Innocent' use is no longer a defence; the presence of the drug is sufficient.

Notice in the Stuff article the kind of strategies Armstrong used when he was challenged, in particular his abusive behaviour towards his masseuse. The Guardian articles point out that 86% of recent Tour de France winners were drug cheats, and speeds on the Tour de France have dropped significantly since drug abuse scrutiny has increased. We are unlikely to see extraordinary feats (such as those displayed by Armstrong and Landis) happening again on the Tour. As the Guardian points out, if you think a rider's performance is too good to be true, you are probably right (e.g. Landis on that unbelievable day that won him the Tour).

Personally, I still think that it is an extraordinary feat just to complete a Tour - as a fan, I don't need the cheats to be drugged-up to make the event more exciting.

Zippity
27-08-2012, 12:56 PM
"lance armstrong - dope ?"

Moron more like..................

zqwerty
27-08-2012, 04:14 PM
Doped-up moran - (mis-spelling intentional)

globe
27-08-2012, 09:27 PM
As well as quite a number of really good articles in the Guardian (as noted by globe above) there is this article on Stuff: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/7552391/Drug-cheat-claims-are-well-founded

Note that our own Stephen Swart is quoted, as he has been before, about his observation of Armstrong's drug abuse. In some of the recent articles there are accounts that (contrary to his claims to have never failed any drug tests), Armstrong in fact failed two. One of which he wriggled out of by 'obtaining' a pre-dated prescription for some cream for saddle sores that contained the substance that had been found in his already failed drug test. I don't think that would work nowadays - witness Contador being banned and stripped of his Tour de France title for drug use even though he claimed that he had innocently ingested the drug in a steak he had eaten. 'Innocent' use is no longer a defence; the presence of the drug is sufficient.

Notice in the Stuff article the kind of strategies Armstrong used when he was challenged, in particular his abusive behaviour towards his masseuse. The Guardian articles point out that 86% of recent Tour de France winners were drug cheats, and speeds on the Tour de France have dropped significantly since drug abuse scrutiny has increased. We are unlikely to see extraordinary feats (such as those displayed by Armstrong and Landis) happening again on the Tour. As the Guardian points out, if you think a rider's performance is too good to be true, you are probably right (e.g. Landis on that unbelievable day that won him the Tour).

Personally, I still think that it is an extraordinary feat just to complete a Tour - as a fan, I don't need the cheats to be drugged-up to make the event more exciting.

Good summary man.

plod
27-08-2012, 09:39 PM
As well as quite a number of really good articles in the Guardian (as noted by globe above) there is this article on Stuff: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/7552391/Drug-cheat-claims-are-well-founded

Note that our own Stephen Swart is quoted, as he has been before, about his observation of Armstrong's drug abuse. In some of the recent articles there are accounts that (contrary to his claims to have never failed any drug tests), Armstrong in fact failed two. One of which he wriggled out of by 'obtaining' a pre-dated prescription for some cream for saddle sores that contained the substance that had been found in his already failed drug test. I don't think that would work nowadays - witness Contador being banned and stripped of his Tour de France title for drug use even though he claimed that he had innocently ingested the drug in a steak he had eaten. 'Innocent' use is no longer a defence; the presence of the drug is sufficient.

Notice in the Stuff article the kind of strategies Armstrong used when he was challenged, in particular his abusive behaviour towards his masseuse. The Guardian articles point out that 86% of recent Tour de France winners were drug cheats, and speeds on the Tour de France have dropped significantly since drug abuse scrutiny has increased. We are unlikely to see extraordinary feats (such as those displayed by Armstrong and Landis) happening again on the Tour. As the Guardian points out, if you think a rider's performance is too good to be true, you are probably right (e.g. Landis on that unbelievable day that won him the Tour).

Personally, I still think that it is an extraordinary feat just to complete a Tour - as a fan, I don't need the cheats to be drugged-up to make the event more exciting.So he got a note from his doctor for taking it up the backside?

SurferJoe46
28-08-2012, 03:31 AM
If he wasn't doping then its pretty sad for him to have his entire career and character destroyed like this.

I don't see it as an admission of guilt, but as a defeat in the face of a corrupt and sick sports body.

I've thought about this statement and although it appears like he got snowballed by the process and couldn't afford a war chest with which to fight the accusations - if he had even the smallest leg upon which to stand, some legal defense league and/or group or even an anonymous donor would have paid to defend him.

With no-one coming forth, it obviates the point that he was guilty as charged,

johcar
28-08-2012, 10:29 AM
I've thought about this statement and although it appears like he got snowballed by the process and couldn't afford a war chest with which to fight the accusations - if he had even the smallest leg upon which to stand, some legal defense league and/or group or even an anonymous donor would have paid to defend him.

With no-one coming forth, it obviates the point that he was guilty as charged,

I disagree.

If the anti-doping people can pick up traces of chemical from a skin cream (which is obviously applied externally) in the system, why can they not pick up the drug(s) he is alleged to have taken to win these competitions in urine and/or blood samples?

And if they can't pick up the actual drug(s), then why can't they pick up the masking agents that he must be using?

Are they incompetent?

I wouldn't accept hearsay evidence (especially from proven drug cheats who may have ulterior motives for telling stories that an anti-doping agency wants to hear) - positive hard proof should be required.

John H
28-08-2012, 11:22 AM
They DID pick up the drugs in Armstrong's system from urine and/or blood samples. That is the point. The traces of the drug (cortisone) were then explained away by Armstrong's presentation of a pre-dated prescription for a cream (that contained cortisone) allegedly prescribed to treat saddle sores. Problem with that is that his masseuse said if he had saddle sores she would have known about it and treated them herself. The other problem is that Armstrong must have had powerful support to get away with this rort (and to bury his other failed test), possibly from as high as UCI.

The dialogue now seems to be shifting away from Armstrong to an examination of the UCI itself. There are a series of good articles at Cycling News. Here is one:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/kimmage-uci-needs-root-and-branch-surgery
and another:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-im-not-trying-to-save-lance-armstrongs-skin

Armstrong is history, and a distraction from the main issue which is drug abuse in professional cycling, and alleged corruption or incompetence at UCI. At the very least, there is a coterie of people who pee in each other's pockets, and who have no real commitment to ridding the sport of drugs.

By the way, in the second article above, Pat McQuaid alleges that WADA has been conducting a vendetta against cycling for a decade ('vendetta' in this context probably means a concerted effort by WADA to hold cycling and UCI to account and bring the sport into line with all other forms of sport in the 21st century). I worked alongside David Howman for several years, and cannot imagine a man with more integrity. That is more than most people will say about the people at the top of UCI.

Cicero
28-08-2012, 11:27 AM
I've thought about this statement and although it appears like he got snowballed by the process and couldn't afford a war chest with which to fight the accusations - if he had even the smallest leg upon which to stand, some legal defense league and/or group or even an anonymous donor would have paid to defend him.

With no-one coming forth, it obviates the point that he was guilty as charged,

Not sure that that follows.

mikebartnz
28-08-2012, 01:42 PM
Not sure that that follows.
Quite agree as he could have been just so sick of it all that he couldn't be bothered and I don't see how that US outfit has any right to take his wins away from him. Surely it would be up to the Tour de France outfit to do that.
If the US outfit are so sure of what they have why won't they give him the evidence so that he can defend himself. Seems like the USA has no sense as to what true justice is any more. Money rules everything there now.

mikebartnz
28-08-2012, 01:45 PM
Problem with that is that his masseuse said if he had saddle sores she would have known about it and treated them herself.
Having not seen her I am not sure about that.:D

Cicero
28-08-2012, 02:29 PM
One sick lot over there for sure.

Joe can come here if he likes, we will make a good keen man out of him, Barry Crump wise.

johcar
28-08-2012, 03:39 PM
They DID pick up the drugs in Armstrong's system from urine and/or blood samples. That is the point. The traces of the drug (cortisone) were then explained away by Armstrong's presentation of a pre-dated prescription for a cream (that contained cortisone) allegedly prescribed to treat saddle sores. Problem with that is that his masseuse said if he had saddle sores she would have known about it and treated them herself. The other problem is that Armstrong must have had powerful support to get away with this rort (and to bury his other failed test), possibly from as high as UCI.

The dialogue now seems to be shifting away from Armstrong to an examination of the UCI itself. There are a series of good articles at Cycling News. Here is one:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/kimmage-uci-needs-root-and-branch-surgery
and another:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-im-not-trying-to-save-lance-armstrongs-skin

Armstrong is history, and a distraction from the main issue which is drug abuse in professional cycling, and alleged corruption or incompetence at UCI. At the very least, there is a coterie of people who pee in each other's pockets, and who have no real commitment to ridding the sport of drugs.

By the way, in the second article above, Pat McQuaid alleges that WADA has been conducting a vendetta against cycling for a decade ('vendetta' in this context probably means a concerted effort by WADA to hold cycling and UCI to account and bring the sport into line with all other forms of sport in the 21st century). I worked alongside David Howman for several years, and cannot imagine a man with more integrity. That is more than most people will say about the people at the top of UCI.

OK - they found cortisone in his system. Once. That doesn't necessarily follow that he won 7 TdF titles using cortisone.

I can't see that there is any benefit in the UCI covering up drug use in cycling. However I can see why cyclists might WANT to cheat - there is huge money to be made in winnings and sponsorship and endorsements

As an aside, cortisone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisone) is a steroid: "Cortisone suppresses the immune system, thus reducing inflammation and attendant pain and swelling at the site of the injury".

I can see how that might assist with muscle recovery, and as such I can see how it might be considered a "performance enhancing" drug for a cyclist doing long distances on consecutive days. But it doesn't improve oxygen uptake or build muscle...

John H
28-08-2012, 04:48 PM
I have no idea what beneficial effect cortisone might have for a competing athlete. I imagine though that reduction of inflammation in muscles would be a good thing, and promote good blood circulation; perhaps recovery times as you say? However, I am just guessing - there must be a reason why it is a banned substance. And no, of course it doesn't suggest that it was implicated in LA's 'winning' of 7 titles.

One of the journos in an article I have just read pointed out that all but one of the recent winners of the TdF have had their titles stripped, and that was Carlos Sastre. Sorry, I cannot recall the source now - I was searching for articles on Pat McQuaid at the time.

The general sense seems to be that there is a code of omerta in professional cycling, and that the UCI is complicit in that. The suggestion that I have read is that if they let people lift the lid, then cycling will come into disrepute (ha!) and there will be huge losses to the cycling industry. Certainly the UCI seems to have more interest in important issues like regulating saddle angles than they do in combating drug abuse.

An interesting book to read (for its own sake as well as about the UCI's petty bureaucrats and their selective biases) is The Flying Scotsman by Graeme Obree.

PS - apparently a key effect of cortisone is pain reduction in muscles and joints, so an advantage could accrue there.

PPS Here are the recent winners of the TdF:

List of recent Tour de France Winners:

Contador
Sastre
Landis
Armstrong
Pantani
Ulrich
Riis
Indurain

List of recent Tour de France winners who have had doping allegations:

Contador
Landis
Armstrong
Pantani
Ulrich
Riis
Indurain