Armstrong flees antidoping test

moray_gub

andyp wrote:

6288 wrote:

and your mother slept around so you don't know your real father ...

is comeback from cancer was due to hard work.

That's why I don't like him. I'll also defend my right to say this, and respect your right to disagree with me.

So why make a sweeping statement such as dim witted fools in a previous post then ? Seems to me when folk disagree with you your language and rhetoric turns slightly nasty.


MG

blazing_saddles

I wonder if this is a prime example of the opposite way in which factions are viewing this ongoing situation.
I know what I think lies beneath the sensationalist prose, but do others have a similar take?
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/19122008/58/ ... trong.html

Do the pro Armstrong camp take this to be another attack?

iainf72

I found last nights Twitter posting rather eyebrow raising.

UCI control. They flew a guy from Germany for it. That makes a ton of sense

Btw, this control was for blood AND urine

And all of this from a guy who said in his press conference

"Beyond today, I'm not going to tell you how clean I am and I'm not going to insinuate how dirty the others are, I'm going to ride my bike and I'm going to spread this message around the world and Don Catlin can tell you if I am clean or not," he said.

Don, mate, if you're reading this, could you tell me how clean Lance is?

Belokki

Trev36 wrote:

Belokki wrote:

He did take EPO! During his chemotheraphy... But why would someone endanger his own life again being that close to death as Lance has??

Why do some people continue doing dangerous sports after near death accidents?
How many people despite contracting some lung disease continue to smoke?

That type of argument doesn't mean anything.

Yes it does...

EPO doesn't make you an adict , like smokes does... :?

Jez mon

The drug might not be addictive, but success is.

Anyway, the real issue here is that Lances attitude seems to be getting worse. Moaning about drug testing in his Twitter feed, not going to Catlin's tests. This isn't a new Lance, this is the same old Lance...

Lance should be happy to get tested so many times, he surely has nothing to hide, perhaps his claim to be the most tested athlete will finally be accurate!

Lance has used Catlin for good publicity and now seems to have dismissed him, but of course this story will quickly get brushed under the carpet.

jimmythecuckoo

Grimone wrote:

something tells me that there are a lot of people on this website, that just do not like Lance Armstrong..... :roll:

6288

Moray Gub wrote:

andyp wrote:

6288 wrote:

and your mother slept around so you don't know your real father ...

is comeback from cancer was due to hard work.

That's why I don't like him. I'll also defend my right to say this, and respect your right to disagree with me.

So why make a sweeping statement such as dim witted fools in a previous post then ? Seems to me when folk disagree with you your language and rhetoric turns slightly nasty.


MG

Moray ... if you edit my posts to say things i did not say then i will ask for you to be removed from the forum ... i said the first line of the above and there was an adendum to go with it ... the other 2 lines you have quoted as me were not in my post ...

afx237vi

6288 wrote:

Moray ... if you edit my posts to say things i did not say then i will ask for you to be removed from the forum ... i said the first line of the above and there was an adendum to go with it ... the other 2 lines you have quoted as me were not in my post ...

For some reason, a lot of people in this thread are incapable of using the quote button properly. I know not why... it ain't exactly rocket science... but a lot of quotes are getting mixed up.

blazing_saddles

afx237vi wrote:

For some reason, a lot of people in this thread are incapable of using the quote button properly. I know not why... it ain't exactly rocket science... but a lot of quotes are getting mixed up.

Misquotes? Well, this is another Lance thread.
Symptomatic (allegedly) of the man, so why not his followers?

stagehopper

What's laughable about this is we've hit 5 pages based on a badly translated article from a flea-bitten Spanish tabloid with no quotes or facts. It reads more like an op-ed piece than a news article.

There are a huge amount of questions to be asked and answered regarding Armstrong and Caitlin, but there's absolutely nothing in that article of frippery let alone substance.

Belokki

You guy's philosophy to much.... :P :roll:

dave_1

andyp wrote:

6288 wrote:

and your mother slept around so you don't know your real father ...

now .. I DO NOT MEAN ANY OF THAT ... but see how easy it is just to say things about something/someone you have no earthly idea about for shits n giggles ...

How do you know whether I have any earthly idea about Armstrong or not? You've never met me.

I've formed an opinion on LA over the past 16 years of him being in the public eye. I've met him twice, once pre-cancer and once post-cancer, and those encounters have shaped my view of him. He's a complex character.

However, he won the Tour using illegal performance enhancing drugs and techniques yet to this day continues to deny this despite the overwhelming evidence and still peddles the myth that his comeback from cancer was due to hard work.

That's why I don't like him. I'll also defend my right to say this, and respect your right to disagree with me.

Andyp,

where did you meet him? have never met him...met Hinault and thought him a major league arrsehole

andyp

The Leeds Classic in 1993 and then again at the Tour of Lombardy in 1998.

moray_gub

6288 wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

andyp wrote:

6288 wrote:

and your mother slept around so you don't know your real father ...

is comeback from cancer was due to hard work.

That's why I don't like him. I'll also defend my right to say this, and respect your right to disagree with me.

So why make a sweeping statement such as dim witted fools in a previous post then ? Seems to me when folk disagree with you your language and rhetoric turns slightly nasty.


MG

Moray ... if you edit my posts to say things i did not say then i will ask for you to be removed from the forum ... i said the first line of the above and there was an adendum to go with it ... the other 2 lines you have quoted as me were not in my post ...

Well first off it was andyp i was quoting not you but anybody reading the thread knows who said what............well anyone apart from you it would seem .As for getting me removed from the forum ...........yawnsville.............zzzzzz

MG

Monty Dog

Let'g get back to the robber/ rubber wimmin' that was simply hilarious!

dave_1

Monty Dog wrote:

Let'g get back to the robber/ rubber wimmin' that was simply hilarious!

:?: which thread? :?

Grimone

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I wonder if this is a prime example of the opposite way in which factions are viewing this ongoing situation.
I know what I think lies beneath the sensationalist prose, but do others have a similar take?
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/19122008/58/ ... trong.html

Do the pro Armstrong camp take this to be another attack?

The URL that you posted states something that a lot of the anti Armstrong posters are forgetting;

"The rider himself has always denied doping and the UCI cleared him in 2006".

Enough said.

Monty Dog

Dave_1 wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

Let'g get back to the robber/ rubber wimmin' that was simply hilarious!

:?: which thread? :?

Dave - about pages 2 or 3 of this thread - Belokki's comments are a hoot, but the Faye Dunaway bit simply flew over his head!

blazing_saddles

Grimone wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I wonder if this is a prime example of the opposite way in which factions are viewing this ongoing situation.
I know what I think lies beneath the sensationalist prose, but do others have a similar take?
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/19122008/58/ ... trong.html

Do the pro Armstrong camp take this to be another attack?

The URL that you posted states something that a lot of the anti Armstrong posters are forgetting;

"The rider himself has always denied doping and the UCI cleared him in 2006".

Enough said.

Grimone wrote:

So anybody that is succesful at the major tour's then? Seems that way to me. Contador was implicated in the Operacion Puerto scandal so i can understand that one a little more.

Contador has always denied doping and was cleared by his federation and the UCI in 2006.
So, you set different standards of proof, for individual riders. Nice consistency.
I suspect you are not the only one to uphold this set of values.

aurelio_-_banned

Grimone wrote:

The URL that you posted states something that a lot of the anti Armstrong posters are forgetting;

"The rider himself has always denied doping and the UCI cleared him in 2006".

Enough said.

Er, would that be the same UCI which recently come out against retrospective testing; that accepted a pre-dated TUE from Armstrong when he tested positive for corticoids even though only days earlier Armstrong had publicly stated that he had no such exemptions; that did the same for Laurent Brochard when he tested positive after he `won` the world RR championships; whose former president, Hein Verbruggen, dismissed out of hand the revelations of people like Graham Obree and Giles Delion about doping in the pro ranks, whose current President, Pat McQuaid, last year argued that organised doping was a thing of the past in pro cycling, etc. etc. etc? :roll:

sicrow

YAWN - again

Cunobelin

Grimone wrote:

"The rider himself has always denied doping and the UCI cleared him in 2006".

Enough said.

It's a bit like Witchcraft - you are guilty until proven guilty, and simple things like being cleared by the investigating body are irrelevant.


Just get on with it - put a pointy hat on him, a false nose and burn him!

Subluxator

The only one that will ever know if Lance has doped is Lance (and anyone else involved in the process if he has indeed doped). Yes, It's hard to believe that he can crush a bunch of dopers while being clean himself. However, Hard to belive does not equal guilty. If Lance was ever to test positive, then I would look down on him as much as anyone just as I do all the other dopers. I however won't convict a guy with no CREDIBLE evidence. Would I be shocked if he tests positive? Not really..but until then i'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt.

I ask myself, why would Lance risk doping now..or risk it for tour number 6 or 7? You can say alot of things about Lance, but you can't say he is stupid! With the passport system, they no longer need to catch you with a positive..you can't hide the manipulations. As far as possibly missing a test, which I don't believe happened until it's reported by a reputable source, they are just getting it setup. If 6 months from now he is not on a regular testing protocol with Catlin then that would be a problem.

I think there are two camps in regards to Lance...either you dislike him as a person so you skew the "facts" to help support your view of him..or you like him and you skew them the other way. Neither can be proved....but I get that there are alot of Lance haters! I can't think of one cyclist that I dislike that hasn't been convicted of doping. I guess i'm a "glass half full" kind of guy...Life is much more enjoyable that way.

Trev36

Subluxator wrote:

If 6 months from now he is not on a regular testing protocol with Catlin then that would be a problem.

I tend to think that not having setup the testing with Catlin should be an issue. Armstrong will probably have retired again in 6months time, straight after the 09 TDF.

Quote taken from http://www.velonews.com/article/83572 (back in Sept 08 )

“I know as much as anybody does how to beat the system; he’s not going to beat me,” Catlin told The New York Times.

On Wednesday, Armstrong said the Astana team will pay for Catlin's program.

'I knew there would be questions about my performances ... I didn't want to leave any doubt. I will do anything Don asks me to do," he said.

"I know there is not enough money anywhere to buy off Don Catlin."

He said that all his lab testing results will be published on the web. "You guys can all analyze it and look for small differences yourselves."

I'm no doping expert (far from it) but would the passport method be easy enough to manipulate given he has only had to have proved some blood sample (I don't know how many) over the last 5-6 months. eg: If your Hct level was naturally low 40's with a smart Doctor on board to blood boost you up to a higher level for your sample test data?
Therefore setting a unnaturally higher datum to work against for all testing days and races. (I'm assuming they know when they have to provide blood samples for the passport).

Obviously the system is more complicated but you get my drift.
This is where the testing procedures done by Catlin sounded like they were to be very thorough and actually search for anomalies or manipulations etc.

So given Armstrong's supposedly can't come to an agreement or find time to sort out details etc. (as read in interviews) if he finally does get to Catlin in the next 2 weeks prior to the TDU (which I highly doubt if he will at all) I would imagine the boat has been missed to gain loads of useful data.

I tend to think that the announcement regarding the Catlin testing was simply just a PR blindside to dupe the general public.
In the quote "I will do anything Don asks me to do" sounds pretty false to me, otherwise we'd all be able to see published data from Catlin over the last few months.
Sounds more like Catlin has been used.

Subluxator

Your basically proving Lance's point. From your post, even if he doesn't test positive he is positive because he and only he has a magic way of defeating the testers. I wasn't implying that I would be fine if Lance starts with Catlin 2 weeks beore the tour..my point was, when it gets to July and you can look back and see that yes, they got the testing going in January, then everyone should feel fine with that. It's not the UCI, i'm sure they don't have testers all over the world to test Lance whenver they want.

I also think your concept of these early months of his training is completely backwards. He could easily explain away significant improvements in his physiology by the fact that he went from being relatively untrained to training like a mad man.

Also, if 7 months before the tour is so important for doping and not the weeks leading up to and during the race, why do so many morons test positive during the competition? If he is cheating, he will be caught.

I'm not blindly defending him, but I can't convict someone with out evidence or jump to conclusions months ahead of time. And, like I said before, who reported this missed test? Why is Cyclingnews, or Velonews not reporting it? I haven't seen a quote from Catlin on one of these reputable sites. All the Lance haters just want to hang him and need no proof to do so.

Yes, the guy can be arogant, but you can't get to his level without deep self belief. Some people who reach that level in sport and life choose to be fake politicly correct, some don't. I for one, can't stand listening to the non stop cliche's from the typical athlete...why even interview them? I can respect a man for his opinion and who he is.

As far as doping in the past...my opinion is "more likely than not". I'm not one to say "everyone was doing it so it was ok". Yes, as far as the competition goes he was still the best on a level playing field so I can't take away from his accomplishments on the bike...My judgement of his character however would be different. Just for one second put yourself in the shoes of a soon to be or current pro cyclist 10 years ago knowing that the only way to continue to do what you love is to cheat like everyone else? But of course at that point, it's not really cheating your opponents..your just cheating the public.

That is why I want doping to stop more than any other reason, so that those that would otherwise never consider doing such a thing, have to choose between doing it, or quiting.

Kléber

Subluxator wrote:

Yes, as far as the competition goes he was still the best on a level playing field so I can't take away from his accomplishments on the bike... ...Just for one second put yourself in the shoes of a soon to be or current pro cyclist 10 years ago knowing that the only way to continue to do what you love is to cheat like everyone else...
...That is why I want doping to stop more than any other reason, so that those that would otherwise never consider doing such a thing, have to choose between doing it, or quiting.

It doesn't work like this, riders don't just face a choice of doping or not. Once a rider starts doping, he might begin with cortisone to help those aching legs. Maybe he'll use a steroid patch next to help in training. Then maybe a course of growth hormone. Then insulin. Then we get to EPO. Then how far do you go with each product?

EPO is bad for you under normal doses, it even comes with a health warning on the box so chemo patients are made aware of the risks and the patient has to sign a disclaimer as clinical tests reveal EPO increases your risk of strokes and incidences of cancer. A doper uses much bigger doses than the clinical trials. Do you push it to 50% haematocrit, do you push it to 60%?

Matt Rendell suggests that Pantani was racing with a haematocrit of 60% or more, he was competing against many cheats on a count of 50-55%. So doping just isn't a level playing field, the winner can be the one most willing to dope, to take the biggest doses and to risk their health.

Subluxator

Kléber wrote:

Subluxator wrote:

Yes, as far as the competition goes he was still the best on a level playing field so I can't take away from his accomplishments on the bike... ...Just for one second put yourself in the shoes of a soon to be or current pro cyclist 10 years ago knowing that the only way to continue to do what you love is to cheat like everyone else...
...That is why I want doping to stop more than any other reason, so that those that would otherwise never consider doing such a thing, have to choose between doing it, or quiting.

It doesn't work like this, riders don't just face a choice of doping or not. Once a rider starts doping, he might begin with cortisone to help those aching legs. Maybe he'll use a steroid patch next to help in training. Then maybe a course of growth hormone. Then insulin. Then we get to EPO. Then how far do you go with each product?

EPO is bad for you under normal doses, it even comes with a health warning on the box so chemo patients are made aware of the risks and the patient has to sign a disclaimer as clinical tests reveal EPO increases your risk of strokes and incidences of cancer. A doper uses much bigger doses than the clinical trials. Do you push it to 50% haematocrit, do you push it to 60%?

Matt Rendell suggests that Pantani was racing with a haematocrit of 60% or more, he was competing against many cheats on a count of 50-55%. So doping just isn't a level playing field, the winner can be the one most willing to dope, to take the biggest doses and to risk their health.

Wow, you sure have alot of info on how people "dope"...I'm sure that is exactly how every doper who has ever doped has done it. :roll: But really, did you say anything different that what I just said? All you did was break down what you think the process of doping is. I'm sure there are plenty of riders that went ahead and skipped the small steps and went straight to EPO..but obviously you know more about that than I do. I'm a Doctor by the way, but thanks for the explanation on how it can affect the human body.

The point is, riders were forced to make a choice..and yes included in that choice was risking their health, and that is pretty sad to me. Just as a famous person has the right to walk away from fame and fortune if they can't stand the spotlight, a pro cyclist has the right to walk away from the sport rather than dope. That however, isn't a decision that should have to be made.

As far as Armstrong, if in anyones opinion they want to "think" that Lance has doped..I won't argue with that as everyone is entitled to their opinion and to a certain extent I agree. However, if you want to argue that it has been proven that he has doped or is doping..your sadly mistaken. There is a reason that a process has been setup for doping, chain of posession, testing procedures etc. These so called positives from 1999 or 2000 that were tested years after the fact are irrelevent. Am I denying that they might truly be legit positive tests? No I'm not. But can you prove that someone didn't taint the sample or that the sample wasn't stored or tested correctly? Probably not. Therefore, I choose to ignore the finding..you choose to convict. Your choice not to let the facts get in the way.

Kléber

I didn't even mention Armstrong.

As for riders risking their health, do you think the witchdoctor earning a fortune from "preparing" them sits down and walks the athlete through the risks involved and briefs them on the potential side effects? The choice to dope isn't an informed one.

ultralight

"witchdoctor" or which doctor?

Subluxator

Intelligence of the riders, and people in general is a completely different topic. There is a large majority of people that think just because a drug is given to them by their doctor that it must be good for them. They make zero effort to educate themselves on the fact that any foriegn substance put into the human body has a negative affect, some significantly more than others. This however, has nothing to do with the topic of doping. Nothing I or anyone can do about peoples lack of IQ.