Lance Armstrong and drugs
Comments
-
Perhaps we should have a "Who Believes in Fairies?" thread. :roll:
Honestly, this is a complete waste of time.
Preaching, either to the converted, or the unconvertible (hard tops
) "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Gazzaputt wrote:At the end of this Lance never had a positive dope test of that there is no denying.
How often was he tested anyway? Or was any rider on average during his time?iainf72 wrote:
He said most tested athlete but I read an article where someone investigated it and he wasn't even in the top 10 most tested.kuota wrote:He's only said he's the most tested rider.
I seem to remember reading that in 2008, had they been evenly spread, it would have worked out at 4 tests per rider in the TdF, but also that the number of tests in 2008 was over tenfold the number during Armstrong's heyday.
Marion Jones was apparently tested 160 times in her about 10-years at the top and only once, towards the end, did an A-sample show positive, though not the B-sample (similarities with Armstrong). But during the Balco case, she admitted to having doped throughout her whole career.0 -
Maybe ... but, as Poulidor himself admitted "The women all love me, but it's the winner they go to bed with".aurelio wrote:Not that long ago Anquetil was booed and whistled as he rode around the Parc des Princes track for the `calculated` way he won the Tour and for failing to be a true son of the soil and people like Poulidor.
(apologies if I've got the quote a bit wrong, but the substance is the same)0 -
If you look at the guys that HAVE been done for doping - not many of them test positive do they - normally they find the kit on the rider or a helper ?
The new EPO test this year may be the exception to this. Clearly - in the past - the tests arent 100% effective - even now.
Lets look at Piepoli - he confessed to EPO - he was tested - he hasnt shown a postive though has he ?0 -
The "Armstrong never tested positive" line is such an old one. Nor did Ullrich, Basso and all the others. Is OJ Simpson innocent then?0
-
Kléber wrote:The "Armstrong never tested positive" line is such an old one. Nor did Ullrich, Basso and all the others. Is OJ Simpson innocent then?
Chris Hoy has never tested positive either - so we can assume he is guilty then?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
-
The plot thickens...........and the simlarities are becoming so much more obvious. Now the french have insinuated that Hoy et al are doping.
Hmmmm
No Positive tests
Insinuations and accusations in the French press
Given that this is damning evidence when applied to Armstrong - Hoy and Team GB must be doped to the eyeballs.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
It is amazingly similar. Including the British saying the French don't train enough.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
Athletes need to understand this is the climate that they are operating in nowadays - nobody is quite sure if what they are seeing is 'real'. It is also clear that people want to see 'real' rather than whatever else it might be.
BC should start testing like mad via an independent 3rd party, providing the results straight to WADA/UCI and publish it. It's good that Brailsford has invited everyone to come and look under stones if they wish, let's hope the UCI take him up on it and do a thorough job on it.0 -
Kléber wrote:
Until the day Hoy sits in the shadow of a mountainous pile of circumstantial evidence, positive but hushed tests and a load more, no.Cunobelin wrote:Chris Hoy has never tested positive either - so we can assume he is guilty then?
He's not under the amount of scrutiny LA was. I'm a firm believer that if you look hard enough for something you'll find it.
What about those bruises on his arms eh? Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:He's not under the amount of scrutiny LA was. I'm a firm believer that if you look hard enough for something you'll find it.
What about those bruises on his arms eh?
Even if there is nothing to find? That is the problem with doping (and scientific theory) you can't prove someone never doped, you can only prove someone doped. However the best theory in the meantime is that he hasn't failed a doping test to the best of our knowledge hence is clean until proven otherwise. By all means test the hell out of the GB track cyclists, but I don't think it is fair to make allegations without any evidence.0 -
Absolutely - It's impossible to prove a negative. And of course it's not fair.
I'm just playing devils advocate a bit here.
Test them, sure. But we know the tests don't work. It's becoming clear from these Olympics that the testers are further behind the doping techniques than ever.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Yes, it's easy to see the remarkable improvement in Brad Wiggin's road results, since leaving..........a French team. He wasn't exactly rubbish on the track, when riding with the "broom wagon boys".:roll:
Maybe everybody should group together and let them win something big. Then, the rest of the world could accuse them of systemmatic doping!
Tommy Voeckler must be on something. He's certainly not normal.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:Yes, it's easy to see the remarkable improvement in Brad Wiggin's road results, since leaving..........a French team. He wasn't exactly rubbish on the track, when riding with the "broom wagon boys".:roll:
He's ridden on the road since leaving Cofidis?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Kléber wrote:The "Armstrong never tested positive" line is such an old one. Nor did Ullrich, Basso and all the others. Is OJ Simpson innocent then?
According to the trial by a jury of his peers and under the laws he was tried under and the evidence presented by his defence and the prosecution he is. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?M.Rushton0 -
Which of course is the whole point here.....
My apologies for being a little "trollish" and making allegations about Team GB, nut here is the main crux of the matter...
Evidence is not required - Armstrong is guilty as charged and that is it - you don't need to resort to such pettiness as considering things like the law or the individual's rights.
What is deliberately avoided in the Armstrong discussion is the corruption , inefficiency and lack of professionalism in the testing labs.....
Lets go back to Team GB.
If we test all the athletes - who is to say that the same lab corrupt enough to provide confidential details to the press is not corrupt enough to "fix" a few results?
There are accepted standards of proof - until these are met the individual is innocent (except Armsrtong apparently)
But to (mis quote) Gene Hunt... Fix them up, fit them up, bang them up is acceptable in this case!<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
What evidence can you produce to back up this assertion? Or are you just taking the word of Lance Armstrong and the alleged anti-American conspiracy that he claims the French are obsessed with?Cunobelin wrote:What is deliberately avoided in the Armstrong discussion is the corruption , inefficiency and lack of professionalism in the testing labs.....
Some people would argue that the labs are too lax;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7516484.stm0 -
:shock: When you say 'Evidence is not required......' are you being obtuse or is that really how you feel? I've no love for LA and I'm a non-believer, as far as I'm concerned he dopped just like so many of his fellow cyclists. However, the fact is there is no REAL evidence that he cheated (as yet, but whos to say there won't be) if there were then he would have been nailed to the wall good and proper.
And actually, we do need to consider laws and individual rights. How would you like it?
If you are suggesting we should adopt your attitude then you're no better than the LA business juggernaught. 'How can an opinion be bullsh1t?' High Fidelity0 -
andyp wrote:
What evidence can you produce to back up this assertion? Or are you just taking the word of Lance Armstrong and the alleged anti-American conspiracy that he claims the French are obsessed with?Cunobelin wrote:What is deliberately avoided in the Armstrong discussion is the corruption , inefficiency and lack of professionalism in the testing labs.....
Some people would argue that the labs are too lax;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7516484.stm
Go back a few pages......... there are samples protected by bar codes that are then magically revealed as belonging to certain cyclists - it is not possible for this information to be released without a breach of etiquette and professional practice. Whetehr money changed hands, or any other reason is irrelevant - it should not have happened if the most basic level of professional practice had been observed.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:
Go back a few pages......... there are samples protected by bar codes that are then magically revealed as belonging to certain cyclists - it is not possible for this information to be released without a breach of etiquette and professional practice. Whetehr money changed hands, or any other reason is irrelevant - it should not have happened if the most basic level of professional practice had been observed.
I believe LNDD can be quite lax at times, but in this case I believe it was clever journalism and Lance's fault. The journo contacted him and said he was doing a story about TUE's and could he get his permission to access his records from 99 to make sure he didn't have any mad TUE's etc. And then he pieced things together.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
The release of the names to tally up with the bar codes was done by the then head doctor at the UCI, i.e. the governing body of the sport, not the lab.Cunobelin wrote:Go back a few pages......... there are samples protected by bar codes that are then magically revealed as belonging to certain cyclists - it is not possible for this information to be released without a breach of etiquette and professional practice. Whetehr money changed hands, or any other reason is irrelevant - it should not have happened if the most basic level of professional practice had been observed.0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Which of course is the whole point here.....
My apologies for being a little "trollish" and making allegations about Team GB, nut here is the main crux of the matter...
Evidence is not required - Armstrong is guilty as charged and that is it - you don't need to resort to such pettiness as considering things like the law or the individual's rights.
What is deliberately avoided in the Armstrong discussion is the corruption , inefficiency and lack of professionalism in the testing labs.....
Lets go back to Team GB.
If we test all the athletes - who is to say that the same lab corrupt enough to provide confidential details to the press is not corrupt enough to "fix" a few results?
There are accepted standards of proof - until these are met the individual is innocent (except Armsrtong apparently)
But to (mis quote) Gene Hunt... Fix them up, fit them up, bang them up is acceptable in this case!
FFS, Cunobelin, you normally make very sound points here, but you might have made an error here....
Individual (&, to be fair, team) who tears the legs off convicted & admitted dopers. Many teammates lose form or test positive on leaving the team. Other than fairies, there's no other explanantion for the results than doping.
Team who take a set of events very seriously & tear the legs off others in some (but not all) events are quite clearly the same?!?! Why couldn't Newton hold Llaneras? What was up with Wiggins' program?
"Team GB" may well be doped up to the eyeballs, but to pretend it's anything approaching like for like with the OP is simply absurd. That there's no positive test that meets certain criteria is the only similarity.
Are "Team GB" doping? Quite possibly, there is no compeling evidence in either direction yet, but you'd be foolish to write off the possibility.
Is that the same with LA? (Please, this is rhetorical)
The comparable question would be CSC & Team GB, surely, neither of whom are doubt free...
LA, however, is just a wee bit different unless we focus on it in an entirely semantic & process-driven manner0 -
I simply believe that there is a need to prove things before making blanket statements.
I think that there is too much speculation being passed of as "evidence" and acted upon. The reease of results that have not been vaidated by the second test, and prior to investigation is to me wrong and should be stopped.
By all means investigate and if proof is found then take appopriate action, but let's not turn this into the witch hunt that it has become inthe Armmstrong case.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
iainf72 wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Yes, it's easy to see the remarkable improvement in Brad Wiggin's road results, since leaving..........a French team. He wasn't exactly rubbish on the track, when riding with the "broom wagon boys".:roll:
He's ridden on the road since leaving Cofidis?
not sure if this is irony or something so sorry if I'm off the mark
he rides for colombia/THR
rode the Giro this year in the lead out train for CAV"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
Just catching up. Mididoctors has cleared it up.
Brad Wiggins is "guesting" on BBC News 24, as we speak.
1996 track cyclists funded themselves and more or less put their own bikes together. Now, they get the best and have their mortgages paid etc....
The French have taken both gold and silver in the women's BMX. Obviously, they were on PED's. :roll:
It's so easy for the whole debate to become ludicrous. They should have at least some anecdotal evidence to back up their sour grapes."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:It's so easy for the whole debate to become ludicrous. They should have at least some anecdotal evidence to back up their sour grapes.
Bruises on arms? One of "them" having a high HCT at the Worlds?
If you read some of Brailsfords comments, imaged for a moment he was Spanish and tell me you wouldn't :roll: big stylee.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
22 pages and still going
There are several interesting interviews on competitor radio regarding this subject (David Walsh 2 part, Lemond and Betsy Andreu).0 -
iainf72 wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:It's so easy for the whole debate to become ludicrous. They should have at least some anecdotal evidence to back up their sour grapes.
Bruises on arms? One of "them" having a high HCT at the Worlds?
If you read some of Brailsfords comments, imaged for a moment he was Spanish and tell me you wouldn't :roll: big stylee.
OK, good enough for me. They are all guilty. :roll:
Seriously, bruises on arms could mean anything. We need to get specifics on that.
High HCT is Rob Hayles? I think that led to more than a little speculation, from inside the camp, from what I can gather.
A guy struggling to make it, long in the tooth........it ain't rocket science.
However, are we now to assume Team GB were on the pop, while the rest of the National squads rode on B+W, simply because of who won?
Using that rational, I expect the Vuelta to have as much mud slinging as the Giro and Tour, because we all know who should win. "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0
