Armstrong was really good today
Comments
-
But 1999 was the year the UCI accepted a pre-dated TUE from Armstrong when he tested positive for corticosteroids at the Tour. This indicates that the UCI was already intent on protecting Armstrong by this point, both because of his marketing value as a 'cancer survivor' and his importance to them with respects to their plan to 'globalise' cycling and open up the US market. In exploiting this situation Armstrong was already 'manipulating things to his advantage'.paulcuthbert wrote:does that not then work in Armstrong's favour to suggest that he, at least at the time, was playing by the rules and not manipulating things to his advantage?
'If playing by the rules' means not doping, we also need to remember that in addition to the positive for corticosteroids, six of Armstrong's 1999 Tour samples have been found to have Epo in them.0 -
For those that actually witnessed the Tour in 99, the Passage du Gois incident had a significant outcome on the race - riders such as Boogerd, Zulle, Gotti, Escartin and a few others lost 7 minutes, effectively killing their GC chances. LA was never considered a serious GT contender - he was a brash, arrogant upstart that happened to get lucky at the worlds in 96. I remember watching the Sestriere Stage on TV in a hotel in Grenoble - like most other cycling fans there, everyone just realised that USPS were just taking over from where Festina had left off.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
Monty Dog wrote:For those that actually witnessed the Tour in 99, the Passage du Gois incident had a significant outcome on the race - riders such as Boogerd, Zulle, Gotti, Escartin and a few others lost 7 minutes, effectively killing their GC chances. LA was never considered a serious GT contender - he was a brash, arrogant upstart that happened to get lucky at the worlds in 96..
Johan Museeuw :roll:Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
But 1999 was the year the UCI accepted a pre-dated TUE from Armstrong when he tested positive for corticosteroids at the Tour. This indicates that the UCI was already intent on protecting Armstrong by this point, both because of his marketing value as a 'cancer survivor' and his importance to them with respects to their plan to 'globalise' cycling and open up the US market. In exploiting this situation Armstrong was already 'manipulating things to his advantage'.paulcuthbert wrote:does that not then work in Armstrong's favour to suggest that he, at least at the time, was playing by the rules and not manipulating things to his advantage?
'If playing by the rules' means not doping, we also need to remember that in addition to the positive for corticosteroids, six of Armstrong's 1999 Tour samples have been found to have Epo in them.
BB, I would urge you to please take all the evidence that you have / claim to have and call whomever is investigating this LA thing. If you have what you claim to have I'm positve they will be glad to talk to you. In any case this forum is really not the place to see that you get whatever "justice" you want done, done. In the case of some people on here you're "preaching to the choir", for others you've become the local nut case, and for the vast majority on here, well, I'm betting that they don't care. You've said ,and posted
pretty much all you can on here. It's time you gave what you have to Floyd or Greg or whomever if you really want to "fry" LA. This is your last chance to help "get him". Don't miss it because after this it's over, no matter how it turns out.0 -
dennisn wrote:
BB, I would urge you to please take all the evidence that you have / claim to have and call whomever is investigating this LA thing. If you have what you claim to have I'm positve they will be glad to talk to you. In any case this forum is really not the place to see that you get whatever "justice" you want done, done. In the case of some people on here you're "preaching to the choir", for others you've become the local nut case, and for the vast majority on here, well, I'm betting that they don't care. You've said ,and posted
pretty much all you can on here. It's time you gave what you have to Floyd or Greg or whomever if you really want to "fry" LA. This is your last chance to help "get him". Don't miss it because after this it's over, no matter how it turns out.
No way Bernie. You keep it up, the apologists must not allow indifference to win the day.
Denis, stick to your rocking chair/acid anecdotes from the 40s or whenever and leave the truth to others.0 -
dennisn wrote:
BB, I would urge you to please take all the evidence that you have / claim to have and call whomever is investigating this LA thing. If you have what you claim to have I'm positve they will be glad to talk to you.
You talk as if BB makes this evidence up... but it's all well documented. You claim not to be interested and yet you post all the time in partial support of LA. Keep going BB and ignore dennisn. I think it was BB (or some other LA 'hater') who first recommended reading the 'From Lance to Landis' book on a BR forum... reading it certainly changed my mind about LA. Tou use your phrase, 'I would urge you' to read it Dennisn - it might actually change your view of things... even if it doesn't it will certainly mean your posts about all this are better informed.
What have you got to lose?0 -
On an unrelated note - Bruyneel claiming that Armstrong is losing time on purpose now, saving his energy to go for a break and a stage win:
http://www.tsn.ca/other_sports/story/?id=327791
Makes sense as there is no point in him burying himself day in and day out at this point as he is too far down the standings for it to matter.
I wonder when this magical attack will come?0 -
As I understand it, the only actual evidence for Armstrong doping is that he was 'caught' using corticoids which he was able to produce valid medical justification for (and which, it is worth noting, don't actually have a performance enhancing effect), and that some testing of dubious validity on old samples that came out positive?BikingBernie wrote:But 1999 was the year the UCI accepted a pre-dated TUE from Armstrong when he tested positive for corticosteroids at the Tour. This indicates that the UCI was already intent on protecting Armstrong by this point, both because of his marketing value as a 'cancer survivor' and his importance to them with respects to their plan to 'globalise' cycling and open up the US market. In exploiting this situation Armstrong was already 'manipulating things to his advantage'.
'If playing by the rules' means not doping, we also need to remember that in addition to the positive for corticosteroids, six of Armstrong's 1999 Tour samples have been found to have Epo in them.
If the man can actually be shown to have doped by the standards and methodology demanded by the appropriate regulating bodies, then fair enough; yet this has never happened in his enormously successful professional sporting career lasting more than twenty years. Yes, there are a lot of allegations (yet very little evidence...) -- but there are also lots of people with axes to grind and publicity to think about.
The man is an undeniably phenomenal athlete, and I have a great amount of respect for him because of that. I hope it's not something I have to reconsider, but I am prepared to do so.0 -
Not so dubious according to experts in the field:Nerrep wrote:As I understand it, the only actual evidence for Armstrong doping is that he was 'caught' using corticoids ...and that some testing of dubious validity on old samples that came out positive?
UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong
It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.
...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "
http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=17128
"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
Under WADA rules a positive test is not always needed in order to convict someone of doping, as long as there enough other evidence (such as eye-witness testimony, evidence of payments being made for for doping products and so on) in order to 'comfortably satisfy' the investigatory panel that the rider doped.Nerrep wrote:If the man can actually be shown to have doped by the standards and methodology demanded by the appropriate regulating bodies, then fair enough0 -
Pokerface wrote:On an unrelated note - Bruyneel claiming that Armstrong is losing time on purpose now, saving his energy to go for a break and a stage win:
Makes sense as there is no point in him burying himself day in and day out at this point as he is too far down the standings for it to matter.
Given the amount of effort Radioshack are putting in marking every Caisse D'Espargne move form the team jersey, you'd've thought he'd be up there doing that? Leaving it to the Domestiques rather than the team leader every day seems crazy!Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
Nerrep wrote:
As I understand it, the only actual evidence for Armstrong doping is that he was 'caught' using corticoids which he was able to produce valid medical justification for (and which, it is worth noting, don't actually have a performance enhancing effect), and that some testing of dubious validity on old samples that came out positive?BikingBernie wrote:But 1999 was the year the UCI accepted a pre-dated TUE from Armstrong when he tested positive for corticosteroids at the Tour. This indicates that the UCI was already intent on protecting Armstrong by this point, both because of his marketing value as a 'cancer survivor' and his importance to them with respects to their plan to 'globalise' cycling and open up the US market. In exploiting this situation Armstrong was already 'manipulating things to his advantage'.
'If playing by the rules' means not doping, we also need to remember that in addition to the positive for corticosteroids, six of Armstrong's 1999 Tour samples have been found to have Epo in them.
If the man can actually be shown to have doped by the standards and methodology demanded by the appropriate regulating bodies, then fair enough; yet this has never happened in his enormously successful professional sporting career lasting more than twenty years. Yes, there are a lot of allegations (yet very little evidence...) -- but there are also lots of people with axes to grind and publicity to think about.
The man is an undeniably phenomenal athlete, and I have a great amount of respect for him because of that. I hope it's not something I have to reconsider, but I am prepared to do so.
Perhaps you should read this: http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1127.pdf
From the IOC Ethics Committee decision on Armstrong v Pound/WADA (a decision which was spun quite differently by the Armstrong camp)
"After two editions of the Tour de France cycling race in 1998 and 1999, the
leftover samples from those tested as part of the anti-doping controls were
preserved, with the agreement of the athletes, for scientific research purposes
The LNDD performed two studies for research purposes on these samples to
improve the precision and reliability of the test results, particularly as regards the
detection of EPO."
The problem for Armstrong is that 1) the tests were entirely legitimate and 2) he agreed to them (in an interview he says he 'always' ticks the box for samples to be stored). Unfortunately they bit him on the arse. Even the Vrijman report can only point to chain of custody issues but never addressed the issue of the matching numbers (which were sanctioned for use by Armstrong himself). As for 'spiking' - that has been comprehensively debunked by the likes of Ashenden who is currently employed on the Bio Passport. So it's really quite difficult, once one looks at the credible evidence to accept that the 99 samples were anything BUT 'positive' whilst being, as Ressiot was at pains to point out, not able to be used to sanction an athlete.
Ressiot never gets the credit he richly deserved for a proper piece of investigative journalism in the face of the UCI/LA machine0 -
dougzz wrote:dennisn wrote:
BB, I would urge you to please take all the evidence that you have / claim to have and call whomever is investigating this LA thing. If you have what you claim to have I'm positve they will be glad to talk to you. In any case this forum is really not the place to see that you get whatever "justice" you want done, done. In the case of some people on here you're "preaching to the choir", for others you've become the local nut case, and for the vast majority on here, well, I'm betting that they don't care. You've said ,and posted
pretty much all you can on here. It's time you gave what you have to Floyd or Greg or whomever if you really want to "fry" LA. This is your last chance to help "get him". Don't miss it because after this it's over, no matter how it turns out.
No way Bernie. You keep it up, the apologists must not allow indifference to win the day.
Denis, stick to your rocking chair/acid anecdotes from the 40s or whenever and leave the truth to others.
So, if you have evidence "dougzz" why aren't you in touch with the investigators? You
want LA "put away or whatever" this is the time to for people with all this information to strike. I think you'll agree that there is no time better than now to have a U.S. federal investigator take a look at what you have. This is it. This is the big day you've been waiting and wishing for, yet from your post it would appear that you're going to sit on your rocking chair and simply hope things go the way you want them to. So I urge yourself, BB, FF, micron, and whomever else has all this damning evidence to step up
and let yourself, and your info, be known to the people who can actually do something about it because this forum doesn't have any power like that. Step up "doug". Tell THEM what you know, not us, we already know. Are you going to "step up to the plate" or not?0 -
I think you are losing it Dennis. For one thing everything that gets repeated on here is in the public arena. Why tell 'them' what they will be getting first hand from people such as Greg Lemond and, quite possibly all those ex team mates and associates who have 'accused' Armstrong of doping in the past?dennisn wrote:Tell THEM what you know, not us, we already know. Are you going to "step up to the plate" or not?0 -
Oh yeah ... that's right, you don't have any credibility on this or any forum ..BikingBernie wrote:
I think you are losing it Dennis. For one thing everything that gets repeated on here is in the public arena. Why tell 'them' what they will be getting first hand from people such as Greg Lemond and, quite possibly all those ex team mates and associates who have 'accused' Armstrong of doping in the past?dennisn wrote:Tell THEM what you know, not us, we already know. Are you going to "step up to the plate" or not?.. who said that, internet forum people ?0 -
My 'credibility' is an irrelevance. What matters is the evidence that I and others highlight...rockmount wrote:you don't have any credibility on this or any forum ..0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
My 'credibility' is an irrelevance. What matters is the evidence that I and others highlight...rockmount wrote:you don't have any credibility on this or any forum ..
That's what I'm saying BB. I think this investigation needs you to help them bring it all together. Who knows more about LA than you? I think you're really dropping the ball here.
You should be at the forefront of all this. Up rallying the troops. Organizing evidence. Being on the prosecution team. Not hanging out in some forum ranting to the same people over and over. Get out there and fight for what you know(and can most certainly prove) is right. This is what you've wanted to see happen for years. Don't tell me you're not going to get in on the action(so to speak)? This is your best chance to right these tremendous wrongs. I'd actually be really let down if you just sit back and watch.0 -
I feel your pain Dennis. Honestly. Take my word for it, Armstrong's not worth it. He's just some anger-filled egotist who doped his way to 'success'.0
-
BikingBernie wrote:I feel your pain Dennis. Honestly. Take my word for it, Armstrong's not worth it. He's just some anger-filled egotist who doped his way to 'success'.
Ahhhhh, the irony of this statement. If only it were true and you believed it. Then maybe you'd stop banging on about him all the time!0 -
'Not worth it', as in not worthy of the adulation of his disciples...Pokerface wrote:
Ahhhhh, the irony of this statement. If only it were true and you believed it. Then maybe you'd stop banging on about him all the time!BikingBernie wrote:I feel your pain Dennis. Honestly. Take my word for it, Armstrong's not worth it. He's just some anger-filled egotist who doped his way to 'success'.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:I feel your pain Dennis. Honestly. Take my word for it, Armstrong's not worth it. He's just some anger-filled egotist who doped his way to 'success'.
So, for the last, I don't know how many years, you've been ranting and raving about someone who's "not worth it"? I'm not defending him, I'm challenging you to "put him away" like you've always said he deserves. Now all of a sudden he's "not worth it"?
Isn't he the man you want to topple? No horrible fate is to good for him? C'mon BB, show us what you've got. Notify these Federal Agents, show them what you have. You've been claiming that it's all right there in black and white. Don't miss this opportunity to get
these investigators on the right track. It might be the last chance you'll have.0 -
Dennis, may I recommend a few deep breaths, or maybe smoking a spliff?
0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Dennis, may I recommend a few deep breaths, or maybe smoking a spliff?
Time for the Dennis Hopper pic again! You've found a friend/loony in Rockmount in Dennis... perhaps this old chestnut is more apt:
0 -
Velo is a USA magazine I think who I seem to remember thought Andy Hamsen would win the TDF in another year. That is a magazine I've picked up occasionally in the Swanley market stall "magazine clear out sale" if something catches my eye.knedlicky wrote:I had a look in my copy of Velo from July 1999 and it lists as favourites for the GC podium places Boogerd, Tonkov, Escartin, Julich and Gotti, and possibly Olano. Mentioned as outsiders for the podium are Zulle, Rinero, and Armstrong.
That is a surprise that someone had tipped him and if we (clubmates) had seen it then it would have been a joke for us. It turned out to be a joke on us and exactly the same joke we fell for 3 years earlier when it came back from the Majorca training camp that Riis had forcast the same thing. (1996)
The Texan though continued his Magical Joke for several years which we didn't think was funny the first time and just made us cringe more and more every time.
It was so unreal and sad for the sport that he raced for only 2 months of the year.
That makes his total racing miles post cancer equal to about one year of a real professional cyclist because they cannot go home to become a new man again, and again.
There you go a new man and we said the joke was on us with a bit of Magic. A new man indeed and no wonder his performances were different from the other Texan we knew. Thanks.knedlicky wrote:Velo point out, LA's first attempts since his illness to get amongst the top riders went pear-shaped until he left his house at Nice in March 98, after abandoning Paris-Nice, to go back to Texas for 6 months, from where he returned to Europe in Sept 98 as a new man, a classics rider who suddenly and sensationally finished 4th in the Vuelta. The magazine also says that his Spring 99 rides, like the Amstel Gold Race, have continued to show this surprising come-back transformation.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
here's something I don't get about the 99 samples that were tested. From what I read about the tests all they knew when they re-tested them is the unique ID number they had on them or whatever the UCI use to label them. They had no link to LA and just did a standard EPO test.
It was only later, not sure if this was L'Equipe or the UCI asked LA himself what his number was so they could match the samples that he told them.
If he did take EPO then why would he give them the info to match the samples to himself ?0 -
Because he thought he was giving the numbers for another reason - can't recall now, you'd have to read Ressiot's original story. Suffice to say, this was not transparency on Armstrong's part 0
-
BikingBernie wrote:I feel your pain Dennis. Honestly. Take my word for it, Armstrong's not worth it. He's just some anger-filled egotist who doped his way to 'success'.
Actually what dennis is saying is perfectly vaild you have all the evidence and ideas to put LA away or so you keep telling as naseum so lets go for it ..............what are you waiting for punk !Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
On the TV live broadcast I watch, after Riblon and the first 40 or so riders had came in today, one of the commentators said on the air
"This is a message to the producer, don't unnecessarily extend the broadcast and intefere with schedules just to wait for Armstrong to come in, like you did the other day, how he does doesn't matter anymore"
How the mighty fall!
As it was, we did eventually see LA come, because the broadcast only finished after the winner and yellow jersey ceremonies, and he arrived just before the ceremonies took place, at the back of a bunch of 20 riders, 15 mins odd down..0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:BikingBernie wrote:Dennis, may I recommend a few deep breaths, or maybe smoking a spliff?
Time for the Dennis Hopper pic again! You've found a friend/loony in Rockmount in Dennis... perhaps this old chestnut is more apt:
And what are YOU waiting for? An engraved invitation? You know it all too!! This is the day. Never a better time, but it would appear that you too are going to sit back and simply hope. All the talk about about what a terrible person he is and you're not going to do anything about it? If you've got it in you and really know what you're talking about and have all this proof, then put it out there. This is what you've wanted. It's here. It's time. Help these federal cops out.0 -
0
