Lance Armstrong

[jjtt99 0]

I'm wondering what everyone thinks of the latest Lance Armstrong allogations?

I know the European cycling world as always been against him because he's not one of their own, but at the same time, six positive tests on his 1999 samples?

As unfortunate as it is for me to say this, the speed of his cancer recovery and seven Tour de France titles seems a little too good to be true. I hope I'm wrong but often where there is smoke there is fire.

JJ

[Chadd 916]

If I understand correctly, the false positive rate is so high with that test that they require both an A sample and B sample to both test positive before it is considered conclusive. For them to knowingly use a test with a high failure rate without the additional samples to verify the result is unethical.

While I agree with the "smoke-fire" concept, they have been trying to prove his guilt for years with no success. To wait for his retirement from cycling and use samples that were determined to be clean at the time and now say they are dirty, smells like a vendetta. Notice how quick the new tour organizer was to discredit Armstrong. I smell a set-up.

[Jim A 4]

the biggest thing is whether the proteins in the EPO that is not part of the body's natural production stays in that state for so long...while most urine can be frozen for 6+ years at -20 to -40 celsius...the proteins in EPO begin to detriorate in as little as 6 to 8 months...nevermind that recently a cyclist showed how without even taking EPO he could generate a "false positive" and i find it hard to believe that 15 people used it during the '98 festina affair and an equal # as well in '99 since it was nearly the death of le tour...

but the converse is there are lot of things on the outside that can point to it..Armstrong's long career with Carmichael..who also coached Greg Strock who was diagonosed with a very rare disease (Armstrong's cancer is very rare in a young, fit 20something in itself) etc..so it should be interesting..but L'Equipe has been going after him for years..so the source doesn't help...

[kosydar 0]

I've never thought that he was guilty. Then again I'm a big fan, so its probably wishful thinking.

[Jim A 4]

the thing to remember is that cycling is a lot of staying ahead of the curve..ie. Actovegin wasn't illegal in '00 but was slated to be in the coming months and USPS went 100 miles out of the way to dispose of it.....even now with Tyler Hamilton getting nabbed for blood doping..it looks like Phonak just goofed up and gave Hamilton and a teammate each others blood, although the same type...so he tested positive for doping..he probably was before..but its hard to test positive for your own rbc's..

I doubt Lance was stupid enough to use EPO...he pushed the rules to their limit..and brought a new style of training for a grand tour with his prep, recon and team selection that the euros don't like...never mind dominating it for 6 out of 7 victories...

[ktang 34]

The timing and the source are suspicious to me, but even people who are jingoistic, malicious, jealous, and unethical in trying to discredit him have a small chance in being correct in their findings. I don't think we can really know until the evidence is reviewed by an independent source, and even they can come back with inconclusive results.

Also, L'Equipe showed that the positive samples' IDs matched the IDs that Armstrong allegedly signed; with L'Equipe's vendetta against Armstrong, perhaps they tampered with the samples' IDs?

[jjtt99 0]

An interesting discussion. Sounds like most people are on Armstrong's side. What about?

Barry Bonds

Marian Jones

Mark McGwire

My point is, unfortunately, it would often seem "the best of the best" have skeletons in their closet. Truth or envy? Likely a combination of both.

I have always been, and likely, always will be a huge sports fan. But I am not as nieve as I use to be thinking it's "pure". I guess there always was and always will be cheats. The tough part is determining who is and who isn't.

JJ

[ktang 34]

McGwire: he had the decency to not "talk about the past" during the congressional hearings on steroid abuse in MLB, so I think he did it and didn't want to lie (just avoid). I also heard a rumour that he had a liver transplant shortly after he retired.

Jones and Bonds: I think they knew what Balco was putting into their supplements and creams.

To make the discussion even more interesting: do you think these performance aids should be illegal? And, if so, because they are potentially harmful or because they are a form of cheating?

Either way, the allure of getting the edge on your competitors, or at least keeping up with the ones who are cheating, must be pretty high for elite athletes.

Sadly, one of the dads on my son's hockey team last year was seriously talking about getting human growth hormone for his son so that "they" could get to the "next level".

Soon, athletes will be able to abuse gene modification therapies to get an edge, too.

[Jim A 4]

One of the things that separates Lance from most of the other athletes we're discussing is that he has been tested hundreds of times a year..every day at the tour..even if he isn't the leader..even this year prior to the start of the TTT i think..Disco was the only one tested..and he made the vampires as they call them walk them through the main area of the hotel..where the press was to show this..

plus he's tested at least 3x per year while OOC or out of compettiion..where the UCI just shows up ..he pees..they go home..so its unlike other sports where you aren't tested until the season starts...

[ktang 34]

About the multitude of tests that Lance underwent: I think the premise of the exposé in L'Equipe was that, in 1999, there was no known test for EPO, so cheaters could take EPO back then with impunity. Now there is a semi-accurate test, so the old samples are being re-tested and some of these tests are coming back positive. If Hamilton's team could make a mistake with the blood doping, maybe Lance's team could also make a mistake with EPO? I hope that L'Equipe is just making all of this up.

I think that, similarly, the Balco designer steroid also could not be detected until somebody slipped a sample of the designer steroid to the testing agency so that a method to detect its presence in urine or blood could be developed. So, the story goes, Bonds, Jones, and other cheaters could use the designer steroid and still pass all known testing at the time.

The testers are usually a step behind the substance designers / abusers, and genetic modification will be even more difficult to detect. Unless the athletes start growing hooves, tails, and horns.

Is it right or wrong to use these substances? I think it's against the spirit of competition: you train and practice to compete better.

Others think that these substances are really just another training aid. There was a poll among pro athletes, and the majority would take a substance that would guarantee improved performance even if it took 5 years off their lives - bad message to the next generation from their heroes.

[Hockeyman9621 0]

I think these should be illegal because many of these guys are taking the easy route by taking these. I think taking these is a form of laziness, and it's so unfair to the guys who don't want to screw up their liver/follow the rules.

[Jason Harris 31]

A lot of people believe "whatever it takes to win."

That's certainly a noble sentiment when it's referring to somebody who plays through a broken leg in the championship game, knowing he'll have all off-season to heal. But doing whatever it takes to win could easily step over the boundaries into cheating, or injuring other players or winning positions on teams that wouldn't be won otherwise.

I think a better way to ask if using steriods is akin to cheating (of course, we know it is according to laws and regulations), is what would you think if there was a chess championship and it turned out the winner had had a processor placed just behind his ear that sped up his brain? I think almost everybody would say, "Man, that's cheating!" but for some reason people don't have a problem with athletes ingesting items that speed up their limbs.

PS I'm giving no opinion on Armstrong. I'm just talking in general terms.

[Adam91 0]

I've always somewhat suspected Armstrong. I mean to even be able to complete the Tour you need to be in amazing shape and for him to be in that much better shape then everyone else for that long a period of time seems somewhat suspicous. But as most people will probably responed to this question " It's cycling who cares?" Cycling is not a major sport in North America and probably never will be.

[Hockeyman9621 0]

I've always somewhat suspected Armstrong. I mean to even be able to complete the Tour you need to be in amazing shape and for him to be in that much better shape then everyone else for that long a period of time seems somewhat suspicous. But as most people will probably responed to this question " It's cycling who cares?" Cycling is not a major sport in North America and probably never will be.

Exactly, if an American who overcame cancer then won tour de France 7 times doesn't get people interested in cycling then nothing will...

[Edge 0]

I've always somewhat suspected Armstrong. I mean to even be able to complete the Tour you need to be in amazing shape and for him to be in that much better shape then everyone else for that long a period of time seems somewhat suspicous. But as most people will probably responed to this question " It's cycling who cares?" Cycling is not a major sport in North America and probably never will be.

Exactly, if an American who overcame cancer then won tour de France 7 times doesn't get people interested in cycling then nothing will...

Lance Armstrong is the reason I'm interested in Cycling.

I don't think he is guilty just because they've been trying to prove it for so long and have no true proof. Like said by someone else, it seems a little fishy to be doing all of this after he retires. I mean his background and popularity is positive with the whole cancer recovery and his success and it shouldn't be ruined.

I have to say I am biased. I'm a huge L A fan.

[hip check 0]

The ICC and the Tour de France tests the leader (yellow jersey) every day they are in the jersey. They also test the stage winner. They also randomly test any number of riders whenever they get the whim.

That said, Lance Armstrong has been in the yellow jersey through 85 days of his tour victories, plus he had numerous stage wins without being in the yellow jersey. He has been tested 'randomly' more times than any other rider. His teammates have been tested a significant number of times. Without his teammates could he have survived the mountains, win the team TTs? Lose a teammate, lose the Tour? Possibly.

He used the term 'witch-hunt' in his Larry King interview the other night. It's well known that the French press dislike him, why else bring up something 7 years old?

We'll never know the truth, and it sucks we now live in an era where we question great feats and athletic ability because there may be some cheating going on. <_<

[Hockeyman9621 0]

I've always somewhat suspected Armstrong. I mean to even be able to complete the Tour you need to be in amazing shape and for him to be in that much better shape then everyone else for that long a period of time seems somewhat suspicous. But as most people will probably responed to this question " It's cycling who cares?" Cycling is not a major sport in North America and probably never will be.

Exactly, if an American who overcame cancer then won tour de France 7 times doesn't get people interested in cycling then nothing will...

Lance Armstrong is the reason I'm interested in Cycling.

I don't think he is guilty just because they've been trying to prove it for so long and have no true proof. Like said by someone else, it seems a little fishy to be doing all of this after he retires. I mean his background and popularity is positive with the whole cancer recovery and his success and it shouldn't be ruined.

I have to say I am biased. I'm a huge L A fan.

No offense, but I doubt your "interested" in the actual sport. Someone who is actually interested in cycling would be able to name at least 5 other cyclists without looking them up. I'd put money on it that you cant. Not picking a fight, just proving my point.

[Chadd 916]

I'm not interested in cycling and I could easily name more than 5. You aren't making a point, you are making an accusation and that's a lot like picking a fight.

[MNdgame 0]

I've always somewhat suspected Armstrong. I mean to even be able to complete the Tour you need to be in amazing shape and for him to be in that much better shape then everyone else for that long a period of time seems somewhat suspicous. But as most people will probably responed to this question " It's cycling who cares?" Cycling is not a major sport in North America and probably never will be.

Exactly, if an American who overcame cancer then won tour de France 7 times doesn't get people interested in cycling then nothing will...

Lance Armstrong is the reason I'm interested in Cycling.

I don't think he is guilty just because they've been trying to prove it for so long and have no true proof. Like said by someone else, it seems a little fishy to be doing all of this after he retires. I mean his background and popularity is positive with the whole cancer recovery and his success and it shouldn't be ruined.

I have to say I am biased. I'm a huge L A fan.

No offense, but I doubt your "interested" in the actual sport. Someone who is actually interested in cycling would be able to name at least 5 other cyclists without looking them up. I'd put money on it that you cant. Not picking a fight, just proving my point.

Im pretty sure you could occasionally watch cycling and name more than 5 people...

[jrwarrior16 0]

im reading lances book for school right now and to accuse him after wat he has been trough is pathetic. in one part of the book which i jus read he talks about in 98 how riders use epo to get and edge and he says that he would never put that in his body. i believe that he is not a cheater and just has a very strong will to suceed.

[Chadd 916]

im reading lances book for school right now and to accuse him after wat he has been trough is pathetic. in one part of the book which i jus read he talks about in 98 how riders use epo to get and edge and he says that he would never put that in his body. i believe that he is not a cheater and just has a very strong will to suceed.

Funny, he said he used EPO when fighting cancer. I believe the wording was "it's the only thing that kept me alive." To give him a free pass because he had a tough break like cancer is very generous but it's not really relevant to the issue at hand. The fact he aws tested so regularly without any positive results over so many years is what leads me to believe he is most likely not using banned substances.

[delpiero81 0]

In my opinion i really doubt L. A. never used epo or other illegal substance, but i doubt also for ALL the others atletes.

My friend was an atlete of the "fassa bortolo" team and for what he said EVERYONE was taking illegal substance.

I think he had say the truth also because when i was in highchool one of my classmate was taking epo at 16 (!) and he wasnt a pro!

The cycling has become too much impossible for a "normal" atlete to compete, we have lot of cases on newspaper of even little kids that takes illegal substance because if not they cant win and the sad thing is that most of the time their parents know about it.

And also the sistem of test it's something bad, because the limit that will cause you to be excluded for doping it's far away from what a well trained man have normally (it's something with blood density but cant translate "ematocrito").

Lot of time local police forces makes round ups during races to find illegal substance and despite that they always found something, the cyclers didnt say it's a good think but they always say police has to do it's own bussiness.

I'm very displeased of the situation of cycling, but i think that L. A. has deserved it's own victories, you dont win 7 tour only with doping you must have "legs", and another important thing it's that he made only the tour no "giro d'Italia" no "vuelta d'Espana" so he can be a little fresher that the other guys that makes other long races during season.

Sorry for the long post but there is a lot more to say about the weir world of cycling...

[jrwarrior16 0]

im reading lances book for school right now and to accuse him after wat he has been trough is pathetic. in one part of the book which i jus read he talks about in 98 how riders use epo to get and edge and he says that he would never put that in his body. i believe that he is not a cheater and just has a very strong will to suceed.

Funny, he said he used EPO when fighting cancer. I believe the wording was "it's the only thing that kept me alive." To give him a free pass because he had a tough break like cancer is very generous but it's not really relevant to the issue at hand. The fact he aws tested so regularly without any positive results over so many years is what leads me to believe he is most likely not using banned substances.

i kno he had to use it while he had cancer but in a racing matter he said he would never use it.

[Sven 1]

In porio pro reo. (sp?)

[ktang 34]

Update: the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) is now looking at the evidence.

Yes, L A was tested repeatedly, but L'Equipe's allegation is that the tests from 1999 could not detect EPO, and modern tests can. Let's see what WADA says about the samples.

About his book: in Canseco's first book, written more for kids, Canseco wrote that he never used steroids, and that they don't help... I'm not saying that L A is lying, I'm just saying that just because an athlete wrote that he never used something doesn't mean that he never used it.

I think Delpiero's post about the pro cyclers was very informative. I had known that the cycling teams were doped up in the past, hence the large efforts to clean up cycling (like Major League Baseball and the NFL), but I was shocked that younger kids were also doping up to remain competitive.

I'm hoping that WADA clears the samples.