Doping accusations vs Lance Armstrong - I'm bored of it

keyser__soze

DonDaddyD wrote:

Perhaps some should seek their own advice.

If anyone's being arrogant it's you thinking I was referring to you specifically :roll: There are several people not exactly covering themselves in glory with some posts on this thread.

roger_merriman

Why should it be brushed under carpet?

it's not that long ago really, plus he's still competing in sport ironmans and the like.

only 2 years ago the winner of the TDF, later had his win taken away for doping, the idea that it was once dirty and now is clean is hopelessly optimistic.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

For me, the lay-fan, I've pretty much written of the 90s era of pro-cyclists.
..................
What I see from the French is a nation who love cycling seen it beeen marred for a decade and who are now ready to wash their hands of that ugly era and get back to loving professional cycling.

If you are going to write off years for drug use then you pretty much have to write off every TdF up to and including 2010.
Drugs and or treatments have always been used and unless a strong message is sent, with punishment, that you won't get off with it then drugs/treatments will continue to be used.

This is about determining if a wrong has to be made right but more importantly - Giving that message for the good of the future.

DonDaddyD

Keyser__Soze wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Perhaps some should seek their own advice.

If anyone's being arrogant it's you thinking I was referring to you specifically :roll: There are several people not exactly covering themselves in glory with some posts on this thread.

That's not arrogance that's making a mistake.

Perhaps you should have made your post, and who you were addressing clearer.

If you are going to write off years for drug use then you pretty much have to write off every TdF up to and including 2010.
Drugs and or treatments have always been used and unless a strong message is sent, with punishment, that you won't get off with it then drugs/treatments will continue to be used and someone else says they did. Yeah, sure, the mud slinging (it is because a bad Lance sample has never emerged) it doesn't tarnish the sport and cast a cloud over it...

This is about determining if a wrong has to be made right but more importantly - Giving that message for the good of the future.

Lets continually test and investigate Boardman, Indurain and every living cyclist who has won something on the basis that they might have taken drugs.

Contador was tested and banned because he was found to have a banned substance in his sample. There was no question that there was something banned in his sample. The debate was (i) how and (ii) would it enhance performance. Then the letter of the law was questioned and upheld.

Lance's sample, to my knoweledge, has never been found ^thus^. This case is because people are stepping forward to say he doped. He probably did do, as did every other bloody cyclist during that era. Fact is, this was never proven. Now they can retest the samples they took back then (assuming they kept them) or his clean samples now (assuming they are clean). But honestly, without an actual sample what good does this trial do. What does it achieve? Either there is physical proof he doped or not. If not, let it lie.

jonny_trousers

DonDaddyD wrote:

Lets continually test and investigate Boardman, Indurain and every living cyclist who has won something on the basis that they might have taken drugs.

Isn't it now accepted that Indurain also had chemical assistance, but he, like Mercx, is still held in massive esteem (forgive my ignorance here, perhaps Miguel Indurain admitted doping, which would make him different to the LA case).

I'm still open to persuasion in the LA case, and as a relative newcomer to pro road racing I'm learning a lot, but it does seem a little like, no sooner has one case been dropped against him than another is opened. Feels like, because of his stature, certain people are just not willing to let it go the way they are with other riders of that era.

DonDaddyD

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Lets continually test and investigate Boardman, Indurain and every living cyclist who has won something on the basis that they might have taken drugs.

Isn't it now accepted that Indurain also had chemical assistance, but he, like Mercx, is still held in massive esteem (forgive my ignorance here, perhaps Miguel Indurain admitted doping, which would make him different to the LA case).
.

I'm sorry admitting doping doesn't absolve the person from cheating. It doesn't make it easier to swallow or suddenly acceptible. Mercx, great as he was, is a cheat.

I'm still open to persuasion in the LA case, and as a relative newcomer to pro road racing I'm learning a lot, but it does seem a little like, no sooner has one case been dropped against him than another is opened. Feels like, because of his stature, certain people are just not willing to let it go the way they are with other riders of that era.

I agree.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Lets continually test and investigate Boardman, Indurain and every living cyclist who has won something on the basis that they might have taken drugs.

Isn't it now accepted that Indurain also had chemical assistance, but he, like Mercx, is still held in massive esteem (forgive my ignorance here, perhaps Miguel Indurain admitted doping, which would make him different to the LA case).
.

I'm sorry admitting doping doesn't absolve the person from cheating. It doesn't make it easier to swallow or suddenly acceptible. Mercx, great as he was, is a cheat.

I'm still open to persuasion in the LA case, and as a relative newcomer to pro road racing I'm learning a lot, but it does seem a little like, no sooner has one case been dropped against him than another is opened. Feels like, because of his stature, certain people are just not willing to let it go the way they are with other riders of that era.

I agree.

The trouble is that doping was so widespread throughout most of the history of professional cycling that the idea that you would gain some sort of advantage over your competitors starts to fall apart. The other point to make is that doping never transformed some nobody into a World Champion - different drugs have different effects whether it be just blocking the pain of hours in the saddle, or changing part of a rider's physiology, or blood chemistry. Early doping was almost laughably crude by today's medical standards, and those like Fignon, who have written frankly about their use, suggest that it wasn't unheard of to be given something by a soigneur that actually seemed to have a negative effect on performance.

The reason Merckx and Indurain are still revered is that is pretty obvious even to the 'lay fan' that they would have been champions regardless. Maybe their palmares would have been slightly different, but they would still be remembered as great cyclists.

roger_merriman

DonDaddyD wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Lets continually test and investigate Boardman, Indurain and every living cyclist who has won something on the basis that they might have taken drugs.

Isn't it now accepted that Indurain also had chemical assistance, but he, like Mercx, is still held in massive esteem (forgive my ignorance here, perhaps Miguel Indurain admitted doping, which would make him different to the LA case).
.

I'm sorry admitting doping doesn't absolve the person from cheating. It doesn't make it easier to swallow or suddenly acceptible. Mercx, great as he was, is a cheat.

I'm still open to persuasion in the LA case, and as a relative newcomer to pro road racing I'm learning a lot, but it does seem a little like, no sooner has one case been dropped against him than another is opened. Feels like, because of his stature, certain people are just not willing to let it go the way they are with other riders of that era.

I agree.

this is the letter http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf

yes it has a lot of folks said you did, but it also is about 09/10 blood samples, that where constant with Blood manipulation, by EPO and/or blood transfusition.

he should be looked at that for that.

tailwindhome

DDD. You do understand that the charges in this investigation don't just apply to Armstrong?

They apply to doctors currently within sport and one of the most influencial figures currently active in cycling.

pangolin

I doubt he'll reply TWH, he's bored of all these accusations.

edhornby

ok DDD what's your opinion on Pantani and Ullrich
they won tours, they never tested positive
they are both known to be doped up to the gills

hence why repeating 'lance never failed a test' is daft, and 'where is the blood evidence' is also daft because without a failed test notification the UCI won't legally release any blood samples

kind of ironic mentioning indurain and boardman in the same sentence....

Anonymous

Ben6899 wrote:

CiB wrote:

Being 'a long time ago' is a puerile argument.

Exactly. That's what Nazi war criminals try to hide behind.

Godwin-esque ? What a strange comparison, mass genocide and a 6 year World war against a handful of athletes wanting to go faster on bikes........ :roll:

Anonymous

Also, is it not fair to say that if you investigate 1 athlete on accusations that you would have to investigate all athletes from every sport where doping may be used ? Why single out 1 individual. I don't believe USADA is exclusively about cycling. If you go back 10 or 15 years, surely in the manner of fairness and being thorough you have a look at everyone ?

Trouble is LA (not Louis, but lance ) has held himself up to the limelight, raised foundations for cancer and sport and has had a lot of money from a lot of very high profile sponsors, not to mention dominating the TDF and other races for years when he competed. A lot of companies (monied companies) like Nike, Oakley and Trek would have had a lot to lose backing a doper who was so successful and prolific. Seems it may be a case of "we" cannot prosecute him due to financial pressure from his backers and maybe political future, a lot of people had and have a lot to lose if LA is found guilty. On the other hand, these companies may have backed him all this time due to the fact he rides clean and there is no risk elevating everything in profit and positive perception terms.

Even so to have come back from Stage 4 seminoma cancer and still be a competitive ahtlete is to be applauded, dope or not, dope elevates what you already are capable of, not the whole of it.

I really want him to be clean, optimism can be a bind though.

bigmat

dmclite-2.0 wrote:

Also, is it not fair to say that if you investigate 1 athlete on accusations that you would have to investigate all athletes from every sport where doping may be used ? Why single out 1 individual. I don't believe USADA is exclusively about cycling. If you go back 10 or 15 years, surely in the manner of fairness and being thorough you have a look at everyone ?

Trouble is LA (not Louis, but lance ) has held himself up to the limelight, raised foundations for cancer and sport and has had a lot of money from a lot of very high profile sponsors, not to mention dominating the TDF and other races for years when he competed. A lot of companies (monied companies) like Nike, Oakley and Trek would have had a lot to lose backing a doper who was so successful and prolific. Seems it may be a case of "we" cannot prosecute him due to financial pressure from his backers and maybe political future, a lot of people had and have a lot to lose if LA is found guilty. On the other hand, these companies may have backed him all this time due to the fact he rides clean and there is no risk elevating everything in profit and positive perception terms.

Even so to have come back from Stage 4 seminoma cancer and still be a competitive ahtlete is to be applauded, dope or not, dope elevates what you already are capable of, not the whole of it.

I really want him to be clean, optimism can be a bind though.

Agreed, its an impressive feat. Even without the cancer, winning 7 tours takes a huge amount of discipline, organisation and focus. I don't wish to pass judgment on him, I just think its ridiculous that he claims not to have doped when it is increasingly clear that he did.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble is that doping was so widespread throughout most of the history of professional cycling that the idea that you would gain some sort of advantage over your competitors starts to fall apart. The other point to make is that doping never transformed some nobody into a World Champion - different drugs have different effects whether it be just blocking the pain of hours in the saddle, or changing part of a rider's physiology, or blood chemistry. Early doping was almost laughably crude by today's medical standards, and those like Fignon, who have written frankly about their use, suggest that it wasn't unheard of to be given something by a soigneur that actually seemed to have a negative effect on performance.

The reason Merckx and Indurain are still revered is that is pretty obvious even to the 'lay fan' that they would have been champions regardless. Maybe their palmares would have been slightly different, but they would still be remembered as great cyclists.

I'm not so sure about that. A couple of years ago I read a Tommy Simpson book - cant remember what it was called now - but part of it explained that even then if you were at the top of the pyramid, you could afford the best drugs. Which means the best masking agents, the most efficient drugs to achieve the result you want, etc. If you can't afford that stuff, you're using what are basically blunt instruments.

It explained pretty convincingly that there never such a thing as a level playing field, whether everyone's doping or no one's doing.

msmancunia

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble is that doping was so widespread throughout most of the history of professional cycling that the idea that you would gain some sort of advantage over your competitors starts to fall apart. The other point to make is that doping never transformed some nobody into a World Champion - different drugs have different effects whether it be just blocking the pain of hours in the saddle, or changing part of a rider's physiology, or blood chemistry. Early doping was almost laughably crude by today's medical standards, and those like Fignon, who have written frankly about their use, suggest that it wasn't unheard of to be given something by a soigneur that actually seemed to have a negative effect on performance.

The reason Merckx and Indurain are still revered is that is pretty obvious even to the 'lay fan' that they would have been champions regardless. Maybe their palmares would have been slightly different, but they would still be remembered as great cyclists.

I'm not so sure about that. A couple of years ago I read a Tommy Simpson book - cant remember what it was called now - but part of it explained that even then if you were at the top of the pyramid, you could afford the best drugs. Which means the best masking agents, the most efficient drugs to achieve the result you want, etc. If you can't afford that stuff, you're using what are basically blunt instruments.

It explained pretty convincingly that there never such a thing as a level playing field, whether everyone's doping or no one's doing.

I know a couple of sports scientists who say the same thing. They said that even if you turned the tables and said "ok - dope as much as you like, then it's a level playing field" it wouldn't be. in addition to who could afford the best drugs, it would no longer be a competition between cyclists. Instead, the winner would be decided during the competition between the doping manufacturers on who could get the best product out there.

tailwindhome

Is there anyone who now believes that Armstrong didn't cheat?

I don't mean 'hope' he didn't or not care either way, but actually still believe he raced clean?

......

Been thinking about the conundrum of what to do about the 7 tainted Tours. I reckon that if the top 3 finishers are later found to have doped then the race is declared null and void. Shouldn't take too long to get Wikipedia updated

......

DDD, you're correct that what you are expressing is an opinion. IIRC you have argued on previous threads all opinions aren't equal. In this case it would be my opinion that your opinion isn't based on any understanding of the facts of what is actually happening here.

bigmat

msmancunia wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble is that doping was so widespread throughout most of the history of professional cycling that the idea that you would gain some sort of advantage over your competitors starts to fall apart. The other point to make is that doping never transformed some nobody into a World Champion - different drugs have different effects whether it be just blocking the pain of hours in the saddle, or changing part of a rider's physiology, or blood chemistry. Early doping was almost laughably crude by today's medical standards, and those like Fignon, who have written frankly about their use, suggest that it wasn't unheard of to be given something by a soigneur that actually seemed to have a negative effect on performance.

The reason Merckx and Indurain are still revered is that is pretty obvious even to the 'lay fan' that they would have been champions regardless. Maybe their palmares would have been slightly different, but they would still be remembered as great cyclists.

I'm not so sure about that. A couple of years ago I read a Tommy Simpson book - cant remember what it was called now - but part of it explained that even then if you were at the top of the pyramid, you could afford the best drugs. Which means the best masking agents, the most efficient drugs to achieve the result you want, etc. If you can't afford that stuff, you're using what are basically blunt instruments.

It explained pretty convincingly that there never such a thing as a level playing field, whether everyone's doping or no one's doing.

I know a couple of sports scientists who say the same thing. They said that even if you turned the tables and said "ok - dope as much as you like, then it's a level playing field" it wouldn't be. in addition to who could afford the best drugs, it would no longer be a competition between cyclists. Instead, the winner would be decided during the competition between the doping manufacturers on who could get the best product out there.

There's also the question of who is the best responder to drugs. Take EPO, if you have a naturally high haematocrit, you stand to gain far less by artificially raising it to the permissible threshold. Those days are gone thankfully, but it helps understand why somebody like Lance was able to benefit quite so much.

DonDaddyD

TWH wrote:

DDD, you're correct that what you are expressing is an opinion. IIRC you have argued on previous threads all opinions aren't equal. In this case it would be my opinion that your opinion isn't based on any understanding of the facts of what is actually happening here.

And I know you are armed ready to post the sentence where I said all opinions aren't equal. I think that comment relates to Rick Chasey, a non-parent, expressing an opinion about parenting. I believe in the context of THAT conversation I said that it is likely he may think differently. It's not that his opinion wasn't valid, it was that it may lack the necessary experience to carry validity. It would be like me telling you how to manage how ever many kids you have or giving advice on how to raise a teenager, I have an opinion, it can be heard, but it may carry less weight.

THIS discussion, however, is about a perception of the continual cases bought against Lance Armstrong and the overall negative effect it is having on the spectators of the sport who would prefer to simply move on. I accept that not everyone is the same or shares the same view, this is why I'm sounding this out. For me, enough people have died due to doping, exiled, ostricised for it to be apparent that doping in sport, especially cycling, isn't worth it. Bringing this case against Lance now, for me, achieves little. His title/s will be awarded to maybe the 4th, 5th, 6th highest GC competitior of whatever year (because they all doped) and no one will care. Lance will probably take some flak and then repackage/re-market himself release a book about the culture of dopoing and it will sell. But no one will be surprised and I doubt anything more will have been learned, after all, we believe he did, do we not?

Now if a sample was found to be think with baned substances and these charges were based on that then fair enough. But this is an investigation into whether Lance doped with the investigators trying to find evidence and statements. Seems petty at this stage. IMO.

First.Aspect

Pardon me for saying, but no one seems genuinely bored by this subject.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Is there anyone who now believes that Armstrong didn't cheat?

I don't mean 'hope' he didn't or not care either way, but actually still believe he raced clean?

Dodging the question slightly, I'll put up and say that any athlete deserves to be treated as having raced clean unless he is proven to have or admits to having doped.

Subjective/prejudiced beliefs - meh. What's the basis of the "belief"?

This is why I have some difficulty with the USADA's approach, so far as it is based on evidence "consistent with doping", but which falls short of a positive test. If you implement a testing regime, stand by it. It's a massive cheat (oh, the irony) to have a testing system that you disregard when it suits you to. Hell, you might as well say that any rider who beat someone subsequently found to have doped has exhibited signs "consistent with doping", have a little hearing at which the irrefutable race results are presented, and then ban them too.

TailWindHome wrote:

Been thinking about the conundrum of what to do about the 7 tainted Tours. I reckon that if the top 3 finishers are later found to have doped then the race is declared null and void. Shouldn't take too long to get Wikipedia updated

Messrs Clean in P4, P5 and P6 would not be happy with that.

Plus that might put the Centenary Tour back a few years.

mattshrops

Quote"what everyone on this thread has said"


Ultimately it doesn't matter what anyone on here thinks -its not in our hands and it will be what it will be.

#yoga mode:acceptance

rjsterry

msmancunia wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble is that doping was so widespread throughout most of the history of professional cycling that the idea that you would gain some sort of advantage over your competitors starts to fall apart. The other point to make is that doping never transformed some nobody into a World Champion - different drugs have different effects whether it be just blocking the pain of hours in the saddle, or changing part of a rider's physiology, or blood chemistry. Early doping was almost laughably crude by today's medical standards, and those like Fignon, who have written frankly about their use, suggest that it wasn't unheard of to be given something by a soigneur that actually seemed to have a negative effect on performance.

The reason Merckx and Indurain are still revered is that is pretty obvious even to the 'lay fan' that they would have been champions regardless. Maybe their palmares would have been slightly different, but they would still be remembered as great cyclists.

I'm not so sure about that. A couple of years ago I read a Tommy Simpson book - cant remember what it was called now - but part of it explained that even then if you were at the top of the pyramid, you could afford the best drugs. Which means the best masking agents, the most efficient drugs to achieve the result you want, etc. If you can't afford that stuff, you're using what are basically blunt instruments.

It explained pretty convincingly that there never such a thing as a level playing field, whether everyone's doping or no one's doing.

I know a couple of sports scientists who say the same thing. They said that even if you turned the tables and said "ok - dope as much as you like, then it's a level playing field" it wouldn't be. in addition to who could afford the best drugs, it would no longer be a competition between cyclists. Instead, the winner would be decided during the competition between the doping manufacturers on who could get the best product out there.

Agreed. And as Mat points out different people respond in different ways to different drugs. Perhaps I should have qualified that highlighted sentence with the word "guaranteed". The depiction in the Fignon book sounds pretty random, with team staff or other riders offering him 'something' to help with the next stage. Much like other illegal drugs, it might provide a performance advantage, it might do nothing or worse.

daviesee

rjsterry wrote:

......... Much like other illegal drugs, it might provide a performance advantage, it might do nothing or worse.

Which is why you need a good doctor.
The Ferrari of doctors maybe?

tailwindhome

http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-usps7102012

Boom!

The other respondents in this case have either asked for and been granted a five-day extension to complete their response, or have requested to move forward with an arbitration hearing where all evidence will be presented, witness testimony will be given under oath, and an independent group of arbitrators will ultimately decide the outcome of the case. USADA will continue to follow all of the established procedures that were approved by athletes, the U.S. Olympic Committee, and all Olympic sports organizations in compliance with federal law

First.Aspect

Well its interesting I guess, but I assume that these people were "tried" in absentia? The names are Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral, Dr. Michele Ferrari and Jose “Pepe” Marti. They don't appear to be American. So all this story says, unless I am mistaken, is "USADA agrees with itself".
You just know this one will run and run, with Armstrong eventually getting acquitted and litigating the bollocks of USADA for lost income, defamation and anything else his attorneys can cram into another 80 page "brief".