AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Never one to back away from a fight, Lance Armstrong is finally giving in and the cost of quitting is steep: His seven Tour de France titles could be gone as soon as Friday.
The superstar cyclist, whose stirring victories after his comeback from cancer helped him transcend sports, chose not to pursue arbitration in the drug case brought against him by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. That was his last option in his bitter fight with USADA and his decision set the stage for the titles to be stripped and his name to be all but wiped from the record books of the sport he once ruled.
Travis Tygart, USADA's chief executive, left no doubt that was the next step. He said Armstrong would lose the titles as soon as Friday and be hit with a lifetime ban, even though he is retired and turning 41 next month.
Still to be heard from was the sport's governing body, the International Cycling Union, which had backed Armstrong's legal challenge to USADA's authority. Tygart said the UCI was "bound to recognize our decision and impose it" as a signer of the World Anti-Doping Code.
"They have no choice but to strip the titles under the code," he said.
Armstrong clearly knew his legacy would be blemished by his decision. He said he has grown tired of defending himself in a seemingly never-ending fight against charges that he doped while piling up more Tour victories than anyone ever. He has consistently pointed to the hundreds of drug tests that he passed as proof of his innocence during his extraordinary run of Tour titles from 1999 to 2005.
"There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, `Enough is enough.' For me, that time is now," Armstrong said Thursday night, hours before the deadline to enter arbitration. He called the USADA investigation an "unconstitutional witch hunt."
"I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999," he said. "The toll this has taken on my family and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today - finished with this nonsense."
USADA treated Armstrong's decision as an admission of guilt, hanging the label of drug cheat on an athlete who was a hero to thousands for overcoming life-threatening testicular cancer and for his foundation's support for cancer research. Armstrong could lose other awards, event titles and cash earnings, and the International Olympic Committee might look at the bronze medal he won in the 2000 Games.
"It is a sad day for all of us who love sport and athletes," Tygart said. "It's a heartbreaking example of win-at-all-costs overtaking the fair and safe option. There's no success in cheating to win."
Johan Bruyneel, Armstrong's longtime coach, said the Texan is a victim of a legal process run amok.
"Lance has never withdrawn from a fair fight in his life so his decision today underlines what an unjust process this has been," Bruyneel wrote on his personal website on Friday.
While Tygart said the agency can strip the Tour titles, Armstrong disputed that, insisting his decision is not an admission of guilt but a refusal to enter an arbitration process he believes is unfair.
"USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles," he said. "I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours."
Armstrong's comments notwithstanding, USADA has exercised its power to sanction athletes and strip their results regularly. Its website shows that it has issued 21 sanctions in 2012 so far in sports ranging from cycling to track to boxing to judo, with 17 of the athletes losing their results.
At the headquarters of Tour organizer ASO outside of Paris on Friday, spokesman Fabrice Tiano said Tour director Christian Prudhomme was not immediately available for comment because he was in urgent meetings about the case.
Armstrong walked away from the sport for good in 2011 without being charged following a two-year federal criminal investigation into many of the same accusations he faces from USADA.
The federal probe was closed in February, but USADA announced in June it had evidence Armstrong used banned substances and methods - and encouraged their use by teammates. The agency also said it had blood tests from 2009 and 2010 that were "fully consistent" with blood doping.
Included in USADA's evidence were emails written by Armstrong's former U.S. Postal Service teammate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after a positive drug test. Landis' emails to a USA Cycling official detailed allegations of a complex doping program on the team.
USADA also said it had 10 former Armstrong teammates ready to testify against him. Other than suggesting they include Landis and Tyler Hamilton, both of whom have admitted to doping offenses, the agency has refused to say who they are or specifically what they would say.
USADA maintains that Armstrong used banned substances as far back as 1996, including the blood-booster EPO and steroids, as well as blood transfusions.
"There is zero physical evidence to support (the) outlandish and heinous claims," Armstrong said. "The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of (doping) controls I have passed with flying colors."
Armstrong sued USADA in Austin, Texas, where he lives, in an attempt to block the case and was supported by the UCI. A judge threw out the case on Monday, siding with USADA despite questioning the agency's pursuit of Armstrong in his retirement.
"USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives," such as politics or publicity, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks wrote.
The ultra-competitive Armstrong still had the option to press his innocence in arbitration, which would have included a hearing during which evidence against him would have been presented. But the cyclist has said he believes most people have already made up their minds about whether he's a fraud or a persecuted hero.
And so he did something virtually unthinkable for him: He quit before a fight was over, a stunning move for an athlete who built his reputation on not only beating cancer, but forcing himself through grueling offseason workouts no one else could match, then crushing his rivals in the Alps and the Pyrenees.
"Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances," he said. "I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities."
Although he had already been crowned a world champion and won individual stages at the Tour de France, Armstrong was still relatively unknown in the U.S. until he won the epic race for the first time in 1999. It was the ultimate comeback tale: When diagnosed with cancer, doctors had given him less than a 50 percent chance of survival before surgery and brutal cycles of chemotherapy saved his life.
Armstrong's riveting victories, his work for cancer awareness and his gossip-page romances with rocker Sheryl Crow, fashion designer Tory Burch and actress Kate Hudson made him a figure who transcended sports.
His dominance of the Tour de France elevated the sport's popularity in the U.S. to unprecedented levels. His story and success helped sell millions of the "Livestrong" plastic yellow wrist bracelets, and enabled him to enlist lawmakers and global policymakers to promote cancer awareness and research. His Lance Armstrong Foundation has raised nearly $500 million since its founding in 1997.
Jeffery C. Gervey, chairman of the foundation, issued a statement of support.
"Faced with a biased process whose outcome seems predetermined, Lance chose to put his family and his foundation first," Gervey said. "The leadership of the Lance Armstrong Foundation remain incredibly proud of our founder's achievements, both on and off the bike."
Questions surfaced even as Armstrong was on his way to his first Tour victory. He was leading the 1999 race when a trace amount of a banned anti-inflammatory corticosteroid was found in his urine; cycling officials said he was authorized to use a small amount of a cream to treat saddle sores.
After Armstrong's second victory in 2000, French judicial officials investigated his Postal Service team for drug use. That investigation ended with no charges, but the allegations kept coming.
Others close to Armstrong were caught up in the investigations, too: Bruyneel, the coach of Armstrong's teams, and three members of the medical staff and a consultant were also charged. Bruyneel is taking his case to arbitration, while two medical team staffers and consulting doctor Michele Ferrari didn't formally contest the charges and were issued lifetime bans by USADA. Ferrari later said he was innocent.
Armstrong was criticized for his relationship with Ferrari, who was banned by Italian authorities over doping charges in 2002. Former personal and team assistants accused Armstrong of having steroids in an apartment in Spain and disposing of syringes that were used for injections.
In 2004, a Dallas-based promotions company initially refused to pay him a $5 million bonus for winning his sixth Tour de France because it wanted to investigate allegations raised by media in Europe. Testimony in that case included former teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife, Betsy, saying Armstrong told doctors during his 1996 cancer treatments that he had taken a cornucopia of steroids and performance-enhancing drugs.
Two books published in Europe, "L.A. Confidential" and "L.A. Official," also raised doping allegations and, in 2005, French magazine L'Equipe reported that retested urine samples from the 1999 Tour showed EPO use.
Armstrong fought every accusation with denials and, in some cases, lawsuits against media outlets that reported them.
He retired in 2005 and almost immediately considered a comeback before deciding to stay on the sidelines - in part because he didn't want to keep answering doping questions. Three years later, Armstrong was 36 and itching to ride again. He came back to finish third in the 2009 Tour de France.
Armstrong raced again in 2010 under the cloud of the federal investigation. Early last year, he quit for good, making a brief return as a triathlete until the USADA investigation shut him down.
"He had a right to contest the charges," WADA President John Fahey said after Armstrong's announcement. "He chose not to. The simple fact is that his refusal to examine the evidence means the charges had substance in them."
---
AP National Writer Eddie Pells and AP Sports Writer Dennis Passa contributed to this report.
Saw this on the BBC earlier on. Seems like the USADA are being vindictive as he has complied with various tests and passed them.
The simple fact is that his refusal to examine the evidence means the charges had substance in them.
maximumtrolling.jpg
These allegations started to surface in France, and we all know what classy fethers they have been recently when it comes to cycling. Not that I'm saying that they made them up... but they probably did.
We see the improbable and the highly unlikely now as some form of cheating in sports.
The American sports psyche was irreparably harmed when baseball found out its most cherished stars took steroids to bulk up, shorten their lifespans, and reach meteoric heights in statistical categories.
It is no surprise the USA governing body on cycling is persecuting Lance Armstrong; they do not want to be seen in the light of MLB's blunders with doping.
The thing is, Lance has never failed a drug test (not without secondary sample validation, suggesting possible sample tampering?) In, well, ever...
Most of the 'evidence' that the USADA apparently has, is former teammates who may or may not be jealous...and according to espn, most of the 'people evidence' gathered are guys wno have tested positive, go figure.
I think lance himself said it best, that this is an unconstitutional witch hunt.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The thing is, Lance has never failed a drug test (not without secondary sample validation, suggesting possible sample tampering?) In, well, ever...
Frazzled wrote: I still don't understand why anyone cares. If you want to turn yourself into a SpazzMariniez HURR! then fine by me.
Are you saying you don't care if they cheat or that you don't think it should be considered cheating?
Option B. I care about cheating, but not the act itself. I don't think professional sports should care. Juice up baby. The first who literally turns himself into the Hulk wins $50mm!
No matter what though, its still wrong to be French.
Seems like a lot of rumour mongering and finger pointing than actual evidence. The fact that it has been going on for a number of years just means he's just had enough more than an admission of guilt, but they're clearly keen to spin it that way.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The thing is, Lance has never failed a drug test (not without secondary sample validation, suggesting possible sample tampering?) In, well, ever...
Blood doping doesn't involve drugs.
Right. Most of the methods of blood doping which were rife in cycling have been undetectable until recent developments in testing. The USADA charged Armstrong with doping in 2009 based on blood samples he gave BESIDES the allegations.
I don't think anyone who takes half an interest in cycling would be surprised that the guy who won everything during cycling's dirtiest era ever was not involved somehow.
Frazzled wrote: I still don't understand why anyone cares. If you want to turn yourself into a SpazzMariniez HURR! then fine by me.
1. It's cheating as the rules currently stand.
As a parent, teacher, and someone active in youth sports I don't find cheating or drug use two things I want to teach kids, nor see in their role models.
Not to mention the slippery slope: if it is allowed in the pros then how long befor it is ok in college? IF it is ok in college then how long before some coach/parent thinks it is a great way to help his high school team make it to states, Little league next?, etc.
Your thoughts on drug use and what is healthy for kids and young adults must be a bit different in Texas I guess...
Also if you wanted to give free reign for athletes to take whatever they wanted then the only people winning things would be the people willing to take the drugs. Meanwhile the perfectly capable female swimmers, for example, who don't want to end up looking like men are cast out of the sport because they can't keep up.
It is no surprise the USA governing body on cycling is persecuting Lance Armstrong; they do not want to be seen in the light of MLB's blunders with doping.
War:
As far as I know no US cycling body is involved. There IS an anti doping agency that apparently has an axe to grind. The international cycling body , the one the USADA expects to strip his titles, supports LA against them.
Frazzled wrote: I still don't understand why anyone cares. If you want to turn yourself into a SpazzMariniez HURR! then fine by me.
1. It's cheating as the rules currently stand.
As a parent, teacher, and someone active in youth sports I don't find cheating or drug use two things I want to teach kids, nor see in their role models.
Not to mention the slippery slope: if it is allowed in the pros then how long befor it is ok in college? IF it is ok in college then how long before some coach/parent thinks it is a great way to help his high school team make it to states, Little league next?, etc.
Your thoughts on drug use and what is healthy for kids and young adults must be a bit different in Texas I guess...
As noted I said no to cheating. My point is why should it be against the rules?
While I'd never rule out that Lance may have cheated, I do think that the way he's been treated since 1999 is ridiculous. Right off the bat he was accused of cheating and it just got worse and worse every year. At this point, accusing Lance Armstrong of cheating has become some people's careers.
As noted I said no to cheating. My point is [u][i][b]why should it be against the rules?
Because it is dangerous, unneeded, sets a bad precident and is repugnant on some level? Because athletes already teach our children enough bad things, we dont have to add using dangerous drugs to increase one's game stats?
CT GAMER wrote: Your thoughts on drug use and what is healthy for kids and young adults must be a bit different in Texas I guess...
Have you SEEN our football teams???
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Glorioski wrote: Also if you wanted to give free reign for athletes to take whatever they wanted then the only people winning things would be the people willing to take the drugs. Meanwhile the perfectly capable female swimmers, for example, who don't want to end up looking like men are cast out of the sport because they can't keep up.
Glorioski 471996 4690436 wrote:Also if you wanted to give free reign for athletes to take whatever they wanted then the only people winning things would be the people willing to take the drugs. Meanwhile the perfectly capable female swimmers, for example, who don't want to end up looking like men are cast out of the sport because they can't keep up.
Shiwen complied with all the tests at the olympics and was fine. The only allegations were unfounded sour grapes from some US swimming coach.
...also most of the article you just linked to is saying the exact same thing. There's also a part in it where the USA team say that the coach's allegations do not represent their own views.
Also even if she was doing something untoward it makes no difference to my point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I'm using the word also far too often.
Glorioski 471996 4690436 wrote:Also if you wanted to give free reign for athletes to take whatever they wanted then the only people winning things would be the people willing to take the drugs. Meanwhile the perfectly capable female swimmers, for example, who don't want to end up looking like men are cast out of the sport because they can't keep up.
Shiwen complied with all the tests at the olympics and was fine. The only allegations were unfounded sour grapes from some US swimming coach.
...also most of the article you just linked to is saying the exact same thing. There's also a part in it where the USA team say that the coach's allegations do not represent their own views.
Also even if she was doing something untoward it makes no difference to my point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sounds like the allegations against Armstrong actually...
Also I'm using the word also far too often.
Armstrong complied with all the tests at the olympics and Tour de France and was fine. The only allegations were unfounded sour grapes from some disgraced US cyclist.
It's good to see you coming to the defense of Lance Armstrong...
Glorioski wrote:
Armstrong complied with all the tests at the olympics and Tour de France and was fine. The only allegations were unfounded sour grapes from some disgraced US cyclist.
It's good to see you coming to the defense of Lance Armstrong...
Frazzled wrote:
Glorioski wrote:Shiwen complied with all the tests at the olympics and was fine. The only allegations were unfounded sour grapes from some US swimming coach.
...also most of the article you just linked to is saying the exact same thing. There's also a part in it where the USA team say that the coach's allegations do not represent their own views.
Also even if she was doing something untoward it makes no difference to my point.
Sounds like the allegations against Armstrong actually...
So a US coach saying a swimmers time was dubious based on nothing but the time itself is the same as a subject blood sample in 2009 and ten riders claiming to have heard or seen Armstrong associated with blood doping. What planet are you on?
Honestly, I kinda think it's reasonable to ask some questions when you see athletic performances that are far outside the norm or by people who hadn't shown that level of ability before. I think it's reasonable to ask how a nation the size of Jamaica is producing that many athletes with world-class speed, for instance.
And before someone says I'm a butthurt American, what I just said applies to the U.S. women's 4x100 that just wrecked what was a long-standing -- and certainly PED-assisted -- world record just a couple weeks ago. It's not just that they broke a tainted record, they beat it by like a half-second. Which is lot. I loved watching the performance, but if I'm king of the Olympics, I probably order them to get tested another time. And FloJo is probably the case study for excessive athletic improvement later in a career.
Athletes have lost the privilege to say "don't question my performances" because we've seen how many are willing to do whatever it takes to win. As a group, they've made their bed and now they have to lie in it.
Glorioski wrote: Armstrong complied with all the tests at the olympics and Tour de France and was fine. The only allegations were unfounded sour grapes from some disgraced US cyclist.
It's good to see you coming to the defense of Lance Armstrong...
Frazzled wrote:
Glorioski wrote:Shiwen complied with all the tests at the olympics and was fine. The only allegations were unfounded sour grapes from some US swimming coach.
...also most of the article you just linked to is saying the exact same thing. There's also a part in it where the USA team say that the coach's allegations do not represent their own views.
Also even if she was doing something untoward it makes no difference to my point.
Sounds like the allegations against Armstrong actually...
So a US coach saying a swimmers time was dubious based on nothing but the time itself is the same as a subject blood sample in 2009 and ten riders claiming to have heard or seen Armstrong associated with blood doping. What planet are you on?
Planet Frazzled. Come on in boys, the water's fine.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Witch hunt because someone at the USADA wants to make his balls feel bigger probably.
Or, you know, they are doing their job and investigating doping in the US.
AustonT wrote: If there are ten riders; what are their names?
If there are blood samples that are positive for doping; why was the federal investigation ended?
The federal investigation was to do with defrauding of the government, drug trafficking and money laundering. The charges from the USDA have come after they asked to look at evidence from that case.
The USADA reminds me of a few other national agencies with a penchant for being huge dicks, namely the ATF
Not surprising at all that a federal agency is being a PITA to a national hero (right? right?)just out of principle, based on loose evidence. I wish him the best of luck though.
The point is they need to be harsh on the cycling because up until they did it was possibly the dirtiest sport on the planet for doping and drug cheats. If Lance Armstrong does get stripped of his titles then the riders they give it too will be one third of the way through the peleton.
Captain Fantastic wrote: The USADA reminds me of a few other national agencies with a penchant for being huge dicks, namely the ATF
Not surprising at all that a federal agency is being a PITA to a national hero (right? right?)just out of principle, based on loose evidence. I wish him the best of luck though.
If it was "loose evidence" he'd contest it. Instead it's ten guys testifying against him, among other things. Would you be shocked to learn that the #2 in every Tour de France Armstrong won has also been implicated in doping? It was, and perhaps still is, the dirtiest professional sport other than MLB and the NFL.
AustonT wrote: If there are ten riders; what are their names?
If there are blood samples that are positive for doping; why was the federal investigation ended?
The federal investigation was to do with defrauding of the government, drug trafficking and money laundering.
ROFL
New York Times wrote:Because the doping allegations involved activities outside the United States, the investigation focused on secondary events like the source of the money on possible drug purchases and whether Armstrong and the team defrauded the Postal Service when they promised to adhere to antidoping rules as part of the sponsorship agreement.
The charges from the USDA have come after they asked to look at evidence from that case.
And bs, the USADA provided the witnesses and then sat in on thier interviews.
New York Daily News wrote:The letter from USADA says more than 10 cyclists and other team employees gave first-hand accounts of the doping, but doesn’t name them — a fact that Armstrong’s attorney decried as “unconscionable.” Some of the witnesses told their stories to a grand jury that was investigating Armstrong for fraud until a federal prosecutor called the probe off earlier this year. Other witnesses were interviewed by federal agents at meetings that USADA’s CEO, Travis Tygart, sat in on.
Bids the question what planet you are on. But don't worry it's just a witch hunt if you're a Chinese swimmer.
Hmm, I had no idea. I tend to imagine the Tour de France, being rather infamous and sophisticated, would have nothing to do do with doping. I always assumed that in these international events, the athletes would reflect poorly on their countries if they doped.
People will cheat at anything they can't win though
Don't be stupid. He's contested it since 1999. But he's retiring and, after more than a decade of fighting never-ending accusations that have never been proven true, he just wants to, well, retire.
I don't know whether or not he doped-- the evidence doesn't seem to support it ,but whatever-- but this is not an admission of guilt. People who say it is are donkey-caves.
AustonT wrote:If there are ten riders; what are their names?
If there are blood samples that are positive for doping; why was the federal investigation ended?
The federal investigation was to do with defrauding of the government, drug trafficking and money laundering.
ROFL
New York Times wrote:Because the doping allegations involved activities outside the United States, the investigation focused on secondary events like the source of the money on possible drug purchases and whether Armstrong and the team defrauded the Postal Service when they promised to adhere to antidoping rules as part of the sponsorship agreement.
I'm not sure what you're laughing about, you just quoted an article saying the same thing I said.
AustonT wrote:If there are ten riders; what are their names?
If there are blood samples that are positive for doping; why was the federal investigation ended?
The federal investigation was to do with defrauding of the government, drug trafficking and money laundering.
ROFL
New York Times wrote:Because the doping allegations involved activities outside the United States, the investigation focused on secondary events like the source of the money on possible drug purchases and whether Armstrong and the team defrauded the Postal Service when they promised to adhere to antidoping rules as part of the sponsorship agreement.
I'm not sure what you're laughing about, you just quoted an article saying the same thing I said.
I'm laughing AT you. If you haven't made the connection yet the federal case was about doping, it used the legal tools available. As described in the text I posted. Here I'll rewrite it for you and if you don't get it then I frankly don't care.
Because the doping allegations involved activities outside the United States, the investigation focused on secondary events like the source of the money on possible drug purchases (DOPE) and whether Armstrong and the team defrauded the Postal Service (BY DOPING) when they promised to adhere to antidoping rules as part of the sponsorship agreement.
The federal case was about doping, if you want to continue to be obtuse I release you to it. You can also tell me about how Al Capone went to Alcatraz for tax fraud so his federal case wasn't about organized crime.
AustonT wrote:If there are ten riders; what are their names?
If there are blood samples that are positive for doping; why was the federal investigation ended?
The federal investigation was to do with defrauding of the government, drug trafficking and money laundering.
ROFL
New York Times wrote:Because the doping allegations involved activities outside the United States, the investigation focused on secondary events like the source of the money on possible drug purchases and whether Armstrong and the team defrauded the Postal Service when they promised to adhere to antidoping rules as part of the sponsorship agreement.
I'm not sure what you're laughing about, you just quoted an article saying the same thing I said.
I'm laughing AT you. If you haven't made the connection yet the federal case was about doping, it used the legal tools available. As described in the text I posted. Here I'll rewrite it for you and if you don't get it then I frankly don't care.
Because the doping allegations involved activities outside the United States, the investigation focused on secondary events like the source of the money on possible drug purchases (DOPE) and whether Armstrong and the team defrauded the Postal Service (BY DOPING) when they promised to adhere to antidoping rules as part of the sponsorship agreement.
The federal case was about doping, if you want to continue to be obtuse I release you to it. You can also tell me about how Al Capone went to Alcatraz for tax fraud so his federal case wasn't about organized crime.
You should probably laugh at yourself. From the same article:
"The possible crimes being investigated included the defrauding of the government, drug trafficking, money laundering and conspiracy involving Armstrong and other top cyclists."
The Armstrong case had its genesis in doping allegations. But because sports doping is not in and of itself a federal crime, the case would have been built around fraud, conspiracy and other charges related to the violation of his team's contract with the U.S. Postal Service, which specifically prohibited doping.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You'll notice when I respond to you my posts aren't laced with insults like yours. That's not because I'm a nice person necessarily. It's because when your talking to someone who doesn't know anything about what he is talking about they make enough of a fool out of themselves.
As a parent, teacher, and someone active in youth sports I don't find cheating or drug use two things I want to teach kids, nor see in their role models.
Being able to cheat and get away with it is an important life skill.
Not to mention the slippery slope: if it is allowed in the pros then how long befor it is ok in college? IF it is ok in college then how long before some coach/parent thinks it is a great way to help his high school team make it to states, Little league next?, etc.
Ah, the slippery slope. A favorite of those on a moral crusade.
Most importantly though, if he is stripped of his titles (and the experts are saying the USADA have no jurisdiction on this) then who gets the titles? Most of the guys that finished second to him are convicted drug cheats This is one big shut sandwich
LA is totally spot on when he talks about witnesses cutting deals in order to get off their own doping charges.
I do find is somewhat funny that since he won the first TDF, they haven't found any good evidence to support or suggest that he was using PEDs of any type (including blood doping), and there are mountains of evidence of his workouts and diets to support exactly what he's been saying since at least '99
I personally dont think he was doping or really care because while an extremely amazing event of sheer endurance, the tour de france to me is incredibly boring. like how many people actually sit around and watch like 2 weeks of just dudes pedaling?
I personally dont think he was doping or really care because while an extremely amazing event of sheer endurance, the tour de france to me is incredibly boring. like how many people actually sit around and watch like 2 weeks of just dudes pedaling?
Right because that's all it is. It's not one of the most tactical sports on earth it's just a glorified exercycle session.
As a parent, teacher, and someone active in youth sports I don't find cheating or drug use two things I want to teach kids, nor see in their role models.
Being able to cheat and get away with it is an important life skill.
As a parent, teacher, and someone active in youth sports I don't find cheating or drug use two things I want to teach kids, nor see in their role models.
Being able to cheat and get away with it is an important life skill.
Not to mention the slippery slope: if it is allowed in the pros then how long befor it is ok in college? IF it is ok in college then how long before some coach/parent thinks it is a great way to help his high school team make it to states, Little league next?, etc.
Ah, the slippery slope. A favorite of those on a moral crusade.
Funny how they won't take the denials of a person with a clean set of drug tests at face value, but they do feel happy to accept the claims of people who *have* failed their drug tests. Even if he is guilty, what more can you reasonably ask of someone who can produce a clean set of results?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Funny how they won't take the denials of a person with a clean set of drug tests at face value, but they do feel happy to accept the claims of people who *have* failed their drug tests. Even if he is guilty, what more can you reasonably ask of someone who can produce a clean set of results?
That's the bit that gets me confused.
Basically the argument is : you beat guys who were using PED ergo you probably were using them despite no physical evidence. Also these guys who are sore at you and did get caught say you were using PED.
My gut guess is he was using PED and the others are pissed that he didn't get caught and they did, drag you down and all that. However, from a legal perspective there is no physical evidence and he passed the tests. Now the body are changing the goalposts to disqualify him.
Also on the subject of PED : who cares? Its ok to go into a hypobaric oxygen chamber to increase your O2 saturation but its not ok to harvest your red blood cells and re-inject them to have the same effect. Ultimately just let everyone do what they want, do not provide financial motivations in order to win. that way it won't be worth the shame.
That said I do think that currently if anyone is found using PED they should be life banned. Straight up, they are cheating, using drugs and basically defrauding the game they are competing in.
The tests were inadequate, that has been proven. The only thing he can do is contest the charges, it would be the best thing for him to do whatever the result. It makes no sense for him to ignore the charges because he's sick of it when that action itself will mean he has to deal with the speculation for the rest of his life.
edit: seems his titles have officially been stripped now.
I personally dont think he was doping or really care because while an extremely amazing event of sheer endurance, the tour de france to me is incredibly boring. like how many people actually sit around and watch like 2 weeks of just dudes pedaling?
Right because that's all it is. It's not one of the most tactical sports on earth it's just a glorified exercycle session.
If you're trying to say bike riding is one of the most tactical sports on earth I'm honestly confused. I understand theres plenty of thought about whos leading, how far they go per day, how much energy to expend, etc. but that still doesnt make weeks of guys riding bikes exciting television to watch. Im sure the finish line is exciting, but all the days before that just arent really that exciting to me. sorry. and i'm gonna guess tv ratings are gonna agree with me.
whether or not you like it if you want a tactical sport watch american football.
I personally dont think he was doping or really care because while an extremely amazing event of sheer endurance, the tour de france to me is incredibly boring. like how many people actually sit around and watch like 2 weeks of just dudes pedaling?
Right because that's all it is. It's not one of the most tactical sports on earth it's just a glorified exercycle session.
If you're trying to say bike riding is one of the most tactical sports on earth I'm honestly confused. I understand theres plenty of thought about whos leading, how far they go per day, how much energy to expend, etc. but that still doesnt make weeks of guys riding bikes exciting television to watch. Im sure the finish line is exciting, but all the days before that just arent really that exciting to me. sorry. and i'm gonna guess tv ratings are gonna agree with me.
whether or not you like it if you want a tactical sport watch american football.
Honestly dude, it really depends on your level of involvement with the sport... I have never done a "grand tour" or Stage race, but I have great love of cycling and spend great amounts of time and money on the sport.. Saying that American Football is tactical is laughable... Although, if you want to be technical, Cycling is more Strategic than it is Tactical (and believe me there is a huge difference)
And excitement is all relative... I used to play football, but can no longer watch an entire game.. However, I CAN watch an entire TDF, Paris-Roubaix, Paris-Nice, etc. or an entire Rugby match, entire Baseball season, you get the idea... its all in what you like.
I personally dont think he was doping or really care because while an extremely amazing event of sheer endurance, the tour de france to me is incredibly boring. like how many people actually sit around and watch like 2 weeks of just dudes pedaling?
Right because that's all it is. It's not one of the most tactical sports on earth it's just a glorified exercycle session.
If you're trying to say bike riding is one of the most tactical sports on earth I'm honestly confused. I understand theres plenty of thought about whos leading, how far they go per day, how much energy to expend, etc.
It sounds like your only knowledge of the TDF is the time trial stages.
I personally dont think he was doping or really care because while an extremely amazing event of sheer endurance, the tour de france to me is incredibly boring. like how many people actually sit around and watch like 2 weeks of just dudes pedaling?
Right because that's all it is. It's not one of the most tactical sports on earth it's just a glorified exercycle session.
If you're trying to say bike riding is one of the most tactical sports on earth I'm honestly confused. I understand theres plenty of thought about whos leading, how far they go per day, how much energy to expend, etc. but that still doesnt make weeks of guys riding bikes exciting television to watch. Im sure the finish line is exciting, but all the days before that just arent really that exciting to me. sorry. and i'm gonna guess tv ratings are gonna agree with me.
whether or not you like it if you want a tactical sport watch american football.
Honestly dude, it really depends on your level of involvement with the sport... I have never done a "grand tour" or Stage race, but I have great love of cycling and spend great amounts of time and money on the sport.. Saying that American Football is tactical is laughable... Although, if you want to be technical, Cycling is more Strategic than it is Tactical (and believe me there is a huge difference)
And excitement is all relative... I used to play football, but can no longer watch an entire game.. However, I CAN watch an entire TDF, Paris-Roubaix, Paris-Nice, etc. or an entire Rugby match, entire Baseball season, you get the idea... its all in what you like.
You dont use tactics in football? like what are all those plays then? just random guesses to throw the ball and hope? or is every player on the field assigned a specific role in every play?
Also I never said theres not a lot of thought in the tour de france. all i was saying is that other sports have WAY higher ratings. not saying this makes any sport better than the other, some are just less exciting to the majority of people. hence more exciting in general.
VIEWERSHIP: Based on the strength of the new format, with the first-ever live broadcast network coverage, this year’s Tour de France has produced viewership gains for the NBC Sports Group.
Through Sunday, July 15, after 15 live telecasts (13 on NBCSN, 2 on NBC) the Tour de France has averaged 409,000 viewers, up 29 percent from last year’s coverage on NBCSN (317,000).
The two live NBC broadcasts on July 7 and 8, the first time the race was ever live on a broadcast network, each drew over 1 million viewers.
The total audience for all Tour de France telecasts this year, including encores, is 17.1 million viewers, up 69 percent from last year’s 10.1 million viewers at this point in the Tour.
Also I never said theres not a lot of thought in the tour de france. all i was saying is that other sports have WAY higher ratings. not saying this makes any sport better than the other, some are just less exciting to the majority of people. hence more exciting in general.
Again, its all in what someone personally considers exciting. So yeah, more people may watch football, doesn't necessarily make it more exciting for all of them.. I know plenty of people who's only interest in football, is how their pool or fantasy team is doing and beyond that couldn't give two feths about it.
Also I never said theres not a lot of thought in the tour de france. all i was saying is that other sports have WAY higher ratings. not saying this makes any sport better than the other, some are just less exciting to the majority of people. hence more exciting in general.
Again, its all in what someone personally considers exciting
I personally dont think he was doping or really care because while an extremely amazing event of sheer endurance, the tour de france to me is incredibly boring. like how many people actually sit around and watch like 2 weeks of just dudes pedaling?
Right because that's all it is. It's not one of the most tactical sports on earth it's just a glorified exercycle session.
If you're trying to say bike riding is one of the most tactical sports on earth I'm honestly confused. I understand theres plenty of thought about whos leading, how far they go per day, how much energy to expend, etc.
It sounds like your only knowledge of the TDF is the time trial stages.
Pretty sure your confusing tactics with strategy, as another poster already alluded to,
I personally dont think he was doping or really care because while an extremely amazing event of sheer endurance, the tour de france to me is incredibly boring. like how many people actually sit around and watch like 2 weeks of just dudes pedaling?
Right because that's all it is. It's not one of the most tactical sports on earth it's just a glorified exercycle session.
If you're trying to say bike riding is one of the most tactical sports on earth I'm honestly confused. I understand theres plenty of thought about whos leading, how far they go per day, how much energy to expend, etc.
It sounds like your only knowledge of the TDF is the time trial stages.
Pretty sure your confusing tactics with strategy, as another poster already alluded to,
Pretty sure any difference between the two is fairly nebulous. Not that it would make any sense of what you just said if it wasn't.
Also I never said theres not a lot of thought in the tour de france. all i was saying is that other sports have WAY higher ratings. not saying this makes any sport better than the other, some are just less exciting to the majority of people. hence more exciting in general.
Again, its all in what someone personally considers exciting. So yeah, more people may watch football, doesn't necessarily make it more exciting for all of them.. I know plenty of people who's only interest in football, is how their pool or fantasy team is doing and beyond that couldn't give two feths about it.
But if more people are saying something is more exciting doesn't that make it by extension more exciting? I dunno getting OT so.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: If you're trying to say bike riding is one of the most tactical sports on earth I'm honestly confused. I understand theres plenty of thought about whos leading, how far they go per day, how much energy to expend, etc.
Suggests you have no experience of the TDF aside from the time trial stages. That point has nothing to do with the difference between tactics and strategy.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: If you're trying to say bike riding is one of the most tactical sports on earth I'm honestly confused. I understand theres plenty of thought about whos leading, how far they go per day, how much energy to expend, etc.
Suggests you have no experience of the TDF aside from the time trial stages. That point has nothing to do with the difference between tactics and strategy.
Please tell me the tactics?
1. Pedal Hard.
2. Pedal Not As Hard.
3. Not Pedal.
But to put that all together over multiple days and still have the juice to win? Strategy my friend. They are different. Unless pedaling has been taken out of the tour de france. And Im not naive enough to think there arent a lot of very smart people behind the scene there, just doesnt make bike riding a tactical sport. and sorry rest of Dakka for taking this OT.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: If you're trying to say bike riding is one of the most tactical sports on earth I'm honestly confused. I understand theres plenty of thought about whos leading, how far they go per day, how much energy to expend, etc.
Suggests you have no experience of the TDF aside from the time trial stages. That point has nothing to do with the difference between tactics and strategy.
Please tell me the tactics?
1. Pedal Hard.
2. Pedal Not As Hard.
3. Not Pedal.
But to put that all together over multiple days and still have the juice to win? Strategy my friend. They are different. Unless pedaling has been taken out of the tour de france. And Im not naive enough to think there arent a lot of very smart people behind the scene there, just doesnt make bike riding a tactical sport. and sorry rest of Dakka for taking this OT.
You're only proving your ignorance.
Road races are comprised of thousands of tactics. For example if a team is controlling the peleton a single rider can attack the group to try and form a breakaway. If a breakaway contains a team member a rider can try to slow down the peleton. etcetera etcetera. An example of a strategy would be working together the entirety of the race as a team in order to achieve a sprint finish, where your sprinter, who has been sitting behind the group doing less work, will then attack.
The point is all you seem to have ever seen is individual time trials where the riders are nowhere near each other.
You know what Glorioski? I'm gonna concede your victory. Your right. I dont know all too much about the tour de france. since this thread is heading OT and especially with your last example Im gonna say I was speaking from ignorance. Sorry.
In my defense its Friday night and Im drunk. Sorry for any inflammatory comments.
Still think football is more tactical though. And I used to HATE it!
DutchKillsRambo wrote: You know what Glorioski? I'm gonna concede your victory. Your right. I dont know all too much about the tour de france. since this thread is heading OT and especially with your last example Im gonna say I was speaking from ignorance. Sorry.
In my defense its Friday night and Im drunk. Sorry for any inflammatory comments.
Still think football is more tactical though. And I used to HATE it!
go figure you used to hate it.. your sign says you're from Buffalo.. I'd hate football more if I were from Buffalo as well
As it stands, the USADA seems to be clutching at straws, or going Inquisition on Lance... sort of a "we'll absolve you of your sins once you confess, but to help you along with that, we're gonna put you on this wooden bench and attach these chains to your wrists and ankles"
Dont touch the BuffaLOVE man. I dont care if we rank in the top ten for poorest, fattest, and rudest cities in America. We still got.... pretty dope city hall? seriously if your a fan of art deco architecture google it.
Glorioski wrote: The tests were inadequate, that has been proven. The only thing he can do is contest the charges, it would be the best thing for him to do whatever the result. It makes no sense for him to ignore the charges because he's sick of it when that action itself will mean he has to deal with the speculation for the rest of his life.
edit: seems his titles have officially been stripped now.
Let me ask you this - Would you participate in a "trial" where the prosecutor was also the judge, handpicked the jury, and required you to prove you were innocent, rather than they prove you guilty? Because that is the exact situation here. Participating in that system only lends to it's legitimacy. Since it has none really, why bother? He would have lost anyway, and not because the charges were too damning, but because out of 60 cases, USADA has only found 2 people innocent of charges.
Also, his titles have not been officially stripped. USADA does not have that authority.
olympia wrote: It was, and perhaps still is, the dirtiest professional sport other than MLB and the NFL.
On the BBC news this morning they mentioned that the 'power to weight ratio' (or what ever it is) of the cyclists in the TDF this year is approximately 10% lower than it was in previous years. I think thats quite suggestive.
I talked with my dad yesterday who is one of those guys who enjoys watching the Tour De France. He's friends with a semi-pro cyclist (didn't name him) who has trained with some of these guys, and the guy said that EVERYONE who was doing it was doping-likely including Lance (he didn't flat out confirm or deny Lance's usage). All he did was level the playing field-everyone else was doing it, he'd be performing at a lesser ability if he didn't. I was told the doping improved times by 1%, which seems miniscule, right? But the difference between 1st and 2nd had been 7 seconds in one race-now, that 1% difference, out of the length of the race actually changes the differences in time to 700 seconds: over a full ten minutes on their non-drugged ability. That's how it was explained to me. Again, if he was doping, he leveled the playing field-he didn't do anything the other racers didn't. And if they strip his title, they have to strip the title itself for the past ten years-nobody was clean. Anyway, that's the message I got yesterday-this kind of stuff is actually really important to my dad, so there was no reason for him to pass me false information.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The thing is, Lance has never failed a drug test (not without secondary sample validation, suggesting possible sample tampering?) In, well, ever...
Most of the 'evidence' that the USADA apparently has, is former teammates who may or may not be jealous...and according to espn, most of the 'people evidence' gathered are guys wno have tested positive, go figure.
I think lance himself said it best, that this is an unconstitutional witch hunt.
Nah, that's not even half plausible. The guy dominated the sport at a time when most everyone was on something. He 'retired' right when they were to bring in a test for the compound people have testified he was taking. There's strong evidence he recieved tip-offs as to when he was about to be tested.
And now he just gives up all the titles he worked so hard to earn? It'd be absolutely amazing if he wasn't taking drugs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: As noted I said no to cheating. My point is why should it be against the rules?
Because it would produce a competitive environment where the only way to win would be to take dangerous, life reducing chemicals?
Do we want the life of every athlete to match that of Flo Jo?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: I talked with my dad yesterday who is one of those guys who enjoys watching the Tour De France. He's friends with a semi-pro cyclist (didn't name him) who has trained with some of these guys, and the guy said that EVERYONE who was doing it was doping-likely including Lance (he didn't flat out confirm or deny Lance's usage). All he did was level the playing field-everyone else was doing it, he'd be performing at a lesser ability if he didn't. I was told the doping improved times by 1%, which seems miniscule, right? But the difference between 1st and 2nd had been 7 seconds in one race-now, that 1% difference, out of the length of the race actually changes the differences in time to 700 seconds: over a full ten minutes on their non-drugged ability. That's how it was explained to me. Again, if he was doping, he leveled the playing field-he didn't do anything the other racers didn't. And if they strip his title, they have to strip the title itself for the past ten years-nobody was clean. Anyway, that's the message I got yesterday-this kind of stuff is actually really important to my dad, so there was no reason for him to pass me false information.
Basically, in last Armstrong's last win for instance they can't give them to the second placed performer as he's already been convicted, and a guy at work told me the third place guy is likely to be found guilty before long as well.
The idea that Armstrong was absolutely dominating over a drug fueled field while staying clean himself is kind of silly.
Just looked it up, and fair enough, her condition was entirely unrelated to her (almost certain) drug use. I thought that the autopsy was inconclusive on any drug use.
I'm just curious why they are backtracking. Seems silly to me.
If Armstrong was "doping" he was doing it in a way that wasn't tested for and therefore wasn't wrong until recently. Now they can test for this type of thing and he's retiring. As was already stated, everyone seems to have been on an even field and now that they have a test to prevent it in the future everyone will be again. So he's still an athlete that won those competitiions. Seems stupid to change the rules on some of his wins over a decade later.....
But it wasn't an even field. There are riders like Graeme Obree who took a hard no stance on drugs and was sacked by his team because of it. The cheaters don't deserve credit because they pushed people like him out of the sport.
Ahhh, so now we are including people that didn't compete in the races in question. We should totally hand the titles to the peole that were standing at the finish line, odds are they weren't using.
I hate to break it to you. This isn't like baseball where the majority of players weren't using while Bonds & McGuire were. It appears all the top racers were using. Meaning it's likely that Armstrong would have won if no one was using.
And I'll admit to limited knowledge on blood doping. Why is it bad?
Hulksmash wrote: I'm just curious why they are backtracking. Seems silly to me.
If Armstrong was "doping" he was doing it in a way that wasn't tested for and therefore wasn't wrong until recently. Now they can test for this type of thing and he's retiring. As was already stated, everyone seems to have been on an even field and now that they have a test to prevent it in the future everyone will be again. So he's still an athlete that won those competitiions. Seems stupid to change the rules on some of his wins over a decade later.....
So if he's not being tested for slightvariantPED1001 vs slightvarientPED1000 and can get away with cheating it's ok?
Those tests must be hella specific to not pick up on minor variants.
And from what I understood, and maybe I misunderstood it, was that he may be guilty of blood doping. Which didn't seem like it could be against the rules if they couldn't measure it and that only now can they measure it it breaks the rules and now they are going back and retro-ing past tournament wins for something they can't prove.
I'm just confused as to why the hell it would matter. Even if he was doping so was everyone else in the top level of his sport (which is ridiculous but that's another story) so it was an even race. Not seeing why it's necessary to go backward with it instead of just going forward.
Hulksmash wrote: Ahhh, so now we are including people that didn't compete in the races in question. We should totally hand the titles to the peole that were standing at the finish line, odds are they weren't using.
I hate to break it to you. This isn't like baseball where the majority of players weren't using while Bonds & McGuire were. It appears all the top racers were using. Meaning it's likely that Armstrong would have won if no one was using.
And I'll admit to limited knowledge on blood doping. Why is it bad?
If they're doping by using EPO then it is very dangerous.
EPO boosts red blood cell production which increases the amount of oxygen that can be transported through the body. It was developed to treat anaemia. I've been prescribed it before.
By increasing the level of red blood cells it increases the viscosity of the blood, which has resulted in several athletes dying of heart attacks in their sleep. To get the performance boosts they want they have to take a dose which is beyond what any doctor would prescribe which will raise their blood viscosity to dangerous levels. If they then sleep their heart rate drops and becomes unable to push the thickened blood around their body. There are instances of cyclists who had to ride an exercise bike non-stop after taking EPO to keep their heart rate up to avoid cardiac arrest.
If they're doing it through transfusions (siphon blood after strenuous exercise or after spending time at high altitude when the red blood cell count is naturally higher then put it back in at a later date) then the dangers lie in the storage, transportation and infusion of the blood. If the blood is improperly stored then it could give the athlete blood poisoning when introduced to their bloodstream.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote: Those tests must be hella specific to not pick up on minor variants.
And from what I understood, and maybe I misunderstood it, was that he may be guilty of blood doping. Which didn't seem like it could be against the rules if they couldn't measure it and that only now can they measure it it breaks the rules and now they are going back and retro-ing past tournament wins for something they can't prove.
I'm just confused as to why the hell it would matter. Even if he was doping so was everyone else in the top level of his sport (which is ridiculous but that's another story) so it was an even race. Not seeing why it's necessary to go backward with it instead of just going forward.
Doping has always been against the rules, whether they could detect it or not.
Thank you. I understand much better now. I'll stand by my I don't care because I feel it's a level playing field but understand better the concerns and issues surrounding this at least a little better.
Sidenote: Since EPO is a medication wouldn't that have show up on a test? Or does it move through the system to fast? Just curious.
Jihadin wrote: Hhhhhmmmmm the only highlight I'm interested in on TDF is the wrecks.
Same here. Also, they should have some chicks in bikinis passing out beer on their bikes if they want my attention. OR, get this, drunken biking. I beer/shot per mile. THAT I'd totally watch.
I like biking, don't get me wrong. I'm getting a bike rack for my car so that I can go to Brazos Bend State Park and take some pictures of Gators and such.
I just don't find the Tour de France to be compelling TV, not to take anything away from you fine gents that enjoy it, naturally...
Jihadin wrote: Hhhhhmmmmm the only highlight I'm interested in on TDF is the wrecks.
Same here. Also, they should have some chicks in bikinis passing out beer on their bikes if they want my attention. OR, get this, drunken biking. I beer/shot per mile. THAT I'd totally watch.
I like biking, don't get me wrong. I'm getting a bike rack for my car so that I can go to Brazos Bend State Park and take some pictures of Gators and such.
I just don't find the Tour de France to be compelling TV, not to take anything away from you fine gents that enjoy it, naturally...
Brazos bend baby. Don't forget to take a picture of the sign "do not feed or molest the aligators" (ok who tried to 'molest' an alligator - thats top ten in historical bad moves). Whe i was a younger they noted there was something like 3mm ducks in the region in winter. Seriously. I don't know about now.
Is Crabb River Road still windy? Used to wind out the gears on a Z28 through there for fun.
I don't know what Crabb River Road is, but I've had all kinds of fun hiking at Brazos Bend. Last trip, I saw 23 Alligators. A handful were over 8'. Fun times!
kronk wrote: I don't know what Crabb River Road is, but I've had all kinds of fun hiking at Brazos Bend. Last trip, I saw 23 Alligators. A handful were over 8'. Fun times!
That used to be the name of a road to get there. Very twisty. Perfect to play gear shifting speed racer on.
Might not even exist any more. Its been a few years.
Hulksmash wrote: Thank you. I understand much better now. I'll stand by my I don't care because I feel it's a level playing field but understand better the concerns and issues surrounding this at least a little better.
Sidenote: Since EPO is a medication wouldn't that have show up on a test? Or does it move through the system to fast? Just curious.
EPO is a naturally occurring chemical, so testing for it was tricky. It took until 2000 for a test which could differentiate between synthetic EPO and the naturally occurring hormone to be developed.
Hulksmash wrote: And I'll admit to limited knowledge on blood doping. Why is it bad?
From The Wiki.
The term blood doping originally meant doping with blood, i.e. the transfusion of red blood cells. Red blood cells are uniquely suited to this process because they can be concentrated, frozen and later thawed with little loss of viability or activity. There are two possible types of transfusion: homologous and autologous. In a homologous transfusion, red blood cells from a compatible donor are harvested, concentrated and then transfused into the athlete’s circulation prior to endurance competitions. In an autologous transfusion, the athlete's own red blood cells are harvested well in advance of competition and then re-introduced before a critical event. For some time after the harvesting the athlete may be anemic.
Both types of transfusion can be dangerous because of the risk of infection and the potential toxicity of improperly stored blood. Homologous transfusions present the additional risks of communication of infectious diseases and the possibility of a transfusion reaction. From a logistical standpoint, either type of transfusion requires the athlete to surreptitiously transport frozen red blood cells, thaw and re-infuse them in a non-clinical setting and then dispose of the medical paraphernalia.
In the late 1980s, an advance in medicine led to an entirely new form of blood doping involving the hormone erythropoietin (EPO). EPO is a naturally occurring hormone growth factor that stimulates the formation of red blood cells. Recombinant DNA technology made it possible to produce EPO economically on a large scale and it was approved in US and Europe as a pharmaceutical product for the treatment of anemia resulting from renal failure or cancer chemotherapy. Easily injected under the skin, pharmaceutical EPO can boost hematocrit for six to twenty-four weeks, or longer.
EPO is not free of health hazards: excessive use of the hormone can raise hematocrit above 70% which can cause polycythemia, a condition wherein the level of red blood cells in the blood is abnormally high. This causes the blood to be more viscous than normal, a condition that strains the heart. Some elite athletes who died of heart failure — usually during sleep, when heart rate is naturally low—were found to have unnaturally high red blood cell concentrations in their blood.
Hulksmash wrote: I'm just curious why they are backtracking. Seems silly to me.
If Armstrong was "doping" he was doing it in a way that wasn't tested for and therefore wasn't wrong until recently. Now they can test for this type of thing and he's retiring. As was already stated, everyone seems to have been on an even field and now that they have a test to prevent it in the future everyone will be again. So he's still an athlete that won those competitiions. Seems stupid to change the rules on some of his wins over a decade later.....
"Everyone else was doing it" is not an excuse for cheating.
Armstrong was cheating, so he deserves to be called on it and had his titles taken from him. If the field was so full of drug cheats that you can't reliably give the titles over to someone who wasn't cheating, then you don't give anyone the titles. You just say the field was full of people who were using illegal means to improve their performance and no-one will be given the titles for that period of time.
Hulksmash wrote: I'm just curious why they are backtracking. Seems silly to me.
If Armstrong was "doping" he was doing it in a way that wasn't tested for and therefore wasn't wrong until recently. Now they can test for this type of thing and he's retiring. As was already stated, everyone seems to have been on an even field and now that they have a test to prevent it in the future everyone will be again. So he's still an athlete that won those competitiions. Seems stupid to change the rules on some of his wins over a decade later.....
"Everyone else was doing it" is not an excuse for cheating.
Armstrong was cheating, so he deserves to be called on it and had his titles taken from him. If the field was so full of drug cheats that you can't reliably give the titles over to someone who wasn't cheating, then you don't give anyone the titles. You just say the field was full of people who were using illegal means to improve their performance and no-one will be given the titles for that period of time.
They've tried proving it for something like 16 years now. Right now they don't really have proof so much as questionable hearsay from confessed dopers who have nothing to lose anyway. You can try to claim "oh it's obvious he was cheating", but that's not proof either, that's pointless, baseless conjecture.
Well obviously he's guilty since he's not fighting any more guys. I mean, fighting it for a decade doesn't count, it only matters that he's not fighting it now so GUILTY!
Either way I don't really care since it's cycling. It just reeks of witch hunt. And if the field was already so rife with cheaters (why make something illegal if you can't track it?) then to hell with it.
They've tried proving it for something like 16 years now. Right now they don't really have proof so much as questionable hearsay from confessed dopers who have nothing to lose anyway. You can try to claim "oh it's obvious he was cheating", but that's not proof either, that's pointless, baseless conjecture.
Current drug tests supposedly have proven that he had drugs in his system, they just didn't have the tech to scan for them a decade ago. Still sucks, because even if he did, all he did was level the playing field-everyone else was doing it, so he could stay pure and lose, or even out with them and win. Did he do the right thing? No. Did he go above and beyond what everyone else did? Also no. If his title is stripped, the records for the past decade need to be wiped away as well, and the whole TDF needs to be restarted over.
They've tried proving it for something like 16 years now. Right now they don't really have proof so much as questionable hearsay from confessed dopers who have nothing to lose anyway. You can try to claim "oh it's obvious he was cheating", but that's not proof either, that's pointless, baseless conjecture.
I hate to agree, but I must. I have no love for Armstrong or all the wannabe poopeyheads clogging the roads in Austin with their holier than thou attitude. But he never tested positive. Sorry, suck it up and move on.
They've tried proving it for something like 16 years now. Right now they don't really have proof so much as questionable hearsay from confessed dopers who have nothing to lose anyway. You can try to claim "oh it's obvious he was cheating", but that's not proof either, that's pointless, baseless conjecture.
One of the reasons they've tried proving it for so long is that very few people have any personal love for Lance Armstrong. He's reportedly a dick even by the standards of professional athletes, who I normally defend for deserving to be dicks.
Now for the big question: When's wiggins going to get caught? The cycling community as a whole seems to reckon it'll either be fairly quick (e.g. within a year) or a reasonably long time (years or possibly decades). When do you reckon it'll be?
p_gray99 wrote: Now for the big question: When's wiggins going to get caught? The cycling community as a whole seems to reckon it'll either be fairly quick (e.g. within a year) or a reasonably long time (years or possibly decades). When do you reckon it'll be?
Wiggins hates doping. The team he raced with in the 2007 Tour De France pulled out after two of their riders were caught doping and he threw away his kit and vowed to never ride for them again.
He did an article on his thoughts on doping for the Guardian here.
Yeah, but they've got Sky behind them. With that much power there's going to be a way, and did you see the tour last year? There wasn't any competition at all! Wiggins was saying from the first week what he was planning to do when he'd won. Sure, it may not be doping, but there's not a whole load of doubt that he's using something, if not against the rules then at least against the spirit of the competition, and that the riders from other teams don't have the opportunity to use or don't want to use.
p_gray99 wrote: Yeah, but they've got Sky behind them. With that much power there's going to be a way, and did you see the tour last year? There wasn't any competition at all! Wiggins was saying from the first week what he was planning to do when he'd won. Sure, it may not be doping, but there's not a whole load of doubt that he's using something, if not against the rules then at least against the spirit of the competition, and that the riders from other teams don't have the opportunity to use or don't want to use.
Team Sky's manager is Dave Brailsford, who is also in charge of Team GB for our Olympic cycling. So Team Sky has the benefit of being led by the best manager in the world, as proven by our complete domination of track cycling in the Olympics.
If Team Sky were to be found to be doping or using other performance enhancing drugs then Brailsford would lose his position in Team GB and there would probably also be calls for him to be stripped of his CBE. He is also being recommended for a Knighthood, which would no doubt not last long if he was caught cheating.
There is too much to lose for the team and british cycling overall to risk using drugs.
p_gray99 wrote: Yeah, but they've got Sky behind them. With that much power there's going to be a way, and did you see the tour last year? There wasn't any competition at all! Wiggins was saying from the first week what he was planning to do when he'd won. Sure, it may not be doping, but there's not a whole load of doubt that he's using something, if not against the rules then at least against the spirit of the competition, and that the riders from other teams don't have the opportunity to use or don't want to use.
Team Sky's manager is Dave Brailsford, who is also in charge of Team GB for our Olympic cycling. So Team Sky has the benefit of being led by the best manager in the world, as proven by our complete domination of track cycling in the Olympics.
If Team Sky were to be found to be doping or using other performance enhancing drugs then Brailsford would lose his position in Team GB and there would probably also be calls for him to be stripped of his CBE. He is also being recommended for a Knighthood, which would no doubt not last long if he was caught cheating.
There is too much to lose for the team and british cycling overall to risk using drugs.
You could just as easily say that 7 tour de france wins is too much to risk, if he didn't get good results in the tour de france or on the track then he wouldn't be in position for a knighthood.
Ok, sure, it's a bit more delicate than just using drugs. Quite a few people are saying it could easily be that they just payed the opposition teams a reasonable amount to lower the level of competition that they were up against, or something similar. But, let's be honest, there should have been more competition than that. Perhaps had it been completely fair sky still would have won (though Froome was fairly obviously being held back, though as this is almost expected of sky no-one batted an eyelid) but everyone expected Evans to put up more of a fight, and if it was completely fair Wiggins probably wouldn't have spoken about what he'd do when he won simply because it's never a certainty in cycling. Even Merckx, arguably the best cyclist ever, only won 1/3 of the stages he ever rode. Perhaps Wiggins was just taking it for granted, but if that was the case he was taking a pretty big risk with all those mountain stages coming up.
Is this turning into a 'The winner is obviously using drugs because he's so much better than everyone else?' kind of thing?
Because you get that with video games when butt hurt 12 year olds shout hacker because you killed them when they think they should have killed you...
purplefood wrote: Is this turning into a 'The winner is obviously using drugs because he's so much better than everyone else?' kind of thing?
Because you get that with video games when butt hurt 12 year olds shout hacker because you killed them when they think they should have killed you...
"OMG HAX!" "Who and how?" "Your KDR is greater than mine and you're a girl, you must be HAX!"
purplefood wrote: Is this turning into a 'The winner is obviously using drugs because he's so much better than everyone else?' kind of thing?
Because you get that with video games when butt hurt 12 year olds shout hacker because you killed them when they think they should have killed you...
"OMG HAX!" "Who and how?" "Your KDR is greater than mine and you're a girl, you must be HAX!"
They've tried proving it for something like 16 years now. Right now they don't really have proof so much as questionable hearsay from confessed dopers who have nothing to lose anyway. You can try to claim "oh it's obvious he was cheating", but that's not proof either, that's pointless, baseless conjecture.
Uh, they were in the process of formally charging him and testing the evidence they had built up. Armstrong opted not to defend himself.
When a guy is charged with a crime, and decides to avoid trial and just plead guilty... we don't go around saying 'we can't say he's a criminal because he wasn't actually convicted in a court of law'... that'd be silly, and Armstrong's case is no different. If he doesn't want to get called a cheater, then he should man up and go to court and defend himself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I hate to agree, but I must. I have no love for Armstrong or all the wannabe poopeyheads clogging the roads in Austin with their holier than thou attitude. But he never tested positive. Sorry, suck it up and move on.
Testing for EPO was very limited during his time in the sport. When testing improved he retired immediately. Multiple people have come forward stating they knew he used EPO. When he was asked to defend himself against these allegations he said he wouldn't, and accepted being stripped of his titles.
Yeah, after five million, and knowing that it could take years in a fight stacked against me after sixteen YEARS of the bs already. I'd flip the table, flip the bird and walk out too. It's the definition of a witch hunt. You're guilty and they're going to keep changing the rules until they can prove it.
Yeah, after five million, and knowing that it could take years in a fight stacked against me after sixteen YEARS of the bs already. I'd flip the table, flip the bird and walk out too. It's the definition of a witch hunt. You're guilty and they're going to keep changing the rules until they can prove it.
Exactly this. After over a decade of defending yourself, spending a large portion of time and money...sometimes you just have to give up-they won't be happy til it's over. Frankly, I DO believe he doped, especially after what I was told by my dad (mentioned earlier in the thread), but again it was a level playing field-he didn't do it to gain an advantage, merely to be on par with the other guys. If none of them had doped, he'd still have won (likely). I have no love of Armstrong either: after his wife stood by him through all the cancer and never gave up on him, he gave her the boot for Sheryl Crow as soon as his cancer went into remission. Nice guy? Hardly. But if they choose to find him guilty, every other cyclist needs to be tested as extensively as he was, go through the same crap, and lose all their previous medals as well if they were doping. Even playing field is the key here. Baseball players, basketball players and football players don't go through this crap-they get tested ONE day during pre-season, they know when it's coming, and that's it. They can start their steroid use after the test is done, stop with a reasonable amount of time before the next test the following year, and they're golden. Treat them all the same-if you want to test cyclists one way, test other athletes the same way. Fairness is key. Treat them all equally, administer RANDOM tests, and anyone caught is to be fired on the spot and return any salary for the contract they are currently in that they have already received. Guarantee at least 50-75% of drug usage will end for athletes, with only the Russian-Roulette lovers continuing to do it.
When a guy is charged with a crime, and decides to avoid trial and just plead guilty... we don't go around saying 'we can't say he's a criminal because he wasn't actually convicted in a court of law'... that'd be silly, and Armstrong's case is no different. If he doesn't want to get called a cheater, then he should man up and go to court and defend himself.
Interestingly if this were a criminal case the accusations being levied against Armstrong would be well past the statute of limitations for similar crimes.
But either way, that is pretty much how it works. A person is not a criminal until he's convicted in a court of law. Though in this case a better analogy would be entering a plea of no contest, rather than a guilty plea. Of course as this would be arbitration rather than a criminal proceeding the analogy is still not perfect.
dogma wrote: Interestingly if this were a criminal case the accusations being levied against Armstrong would be well past the statute of limitations for similar crimes.
Which would possibly make it reasonable to claim 'this is all too meaningless and too far in the past to bother with now', but wouldn't actually mean he didn't cheat.
But either way, that is pretty much how it works. A person is not a criminal until he's convicted in a court of law. Though in this case a better analogy would be entering a plea of no contest, rather than a guilty plea. Of course as this would be arbitration rather than a criminal proceeding the analogy is still not perfect.
Point is, it still makes a nonsense of the 'he didn't cheat because never got convicted' argument. Well, he was asked to come for arbitration, and declined. It's a nonsense to say a process never found him guilty when he refuses to submit to any such process.
Honestly this whole thing makes me think of the Assange case. If a person is worried about the process being unjust then submit to it and bring the world's media attention to how unjust that process is. That's how you do something meaningful, something principled. Instead they just cry that the system isn't fair, fail entirely to give any real reason in which the system is unfair, and instead claim their innocence and hide from the courts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Well, I don't know if you paid any attention, but he didn't do this.
Also, using your analogy, he's gone through something like septuple jeopardy.
No, because this he has been under one grand jury investigation... in which he simply gave testimony and wasn't required to give any kind of defence. This case of arbitration would have been the first time he actually defended himself in any process, if he had contested it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Frankly, I feel that the ruling here is much like the ruling against Samsung earlier, it's motivated more by nationalism than by actual fact or law.
Because the sport itself was strongly dominated by non-Americans who have put pressure on the organization to press charges despite having no real evidence.
Not everything is dominated by Americans. And it's not like Americans don't get accused of the same things (and in some cases, the accusations are absolutely true).
Has anyone or any of these articles mentioned him having cancer, and the drug treatments used being reflected in doping tests? From the posts in this discussion I haven't read any mention of this. If there was then never mind.
VermGho5t wrote: Has anyone or any of these articles mentioned him having cancer, and the drug treatments used being reflected in doping tests? From the posts in this discussion I haven't read any mention of this. If there was then never mind.
purplefood wrote: Is this turning into a 'The winner is obviously using drugs because he's so much better than everyone else?' kind of thing?
Because you get that with video games when butt hurt 12 year olds shout hacker because you killed them when they think they should have killed you...
Yeah, Ok, it's not just that he's so much better than everyone else, though. It's that not only do they happen to have the best sprinter and the two best stage racers, it's also that Wiggins was never that good on the road before, and seems to have suddenly become far better. Sure, he was good on the track before, but that's a completely different type of racing to road racing: It's like being good at the 400m sprint then becoming a 100m sprinter. Possible, sure, but become that good in one year? Dubious.
purplefood wrote: Is this turning into a 'The winner is obviously using drugs because he's so much better than everyone else?' kind of thing?
Because you get that with video games when butt hurt 12 year olds shout hacker because you killed them when they think they should have killed you...
Yeah, Ok, it's not just that he's so much better than everyone else, though. It's that not only do they happen to have the best sprinter and the two best stage racers, it's also that Wiggins was never that good on the road before, and seems to have suddenly become far better. Sure, he was good on the track before, but that's a completely different type of racing to road racing: It's like being good at the 400m sprint then becoming a 100m sprinter. Possible, sure, but become that good in one year? Dubious.
Wiggins had been less good on the road because he had focused on the track. His focus switched from track to road in 2008, after the Beijing Olympics, so he's had 4 years of practice to reach this point.
He came 4th in the Tour de France in 2009, so it's not as if he came from nowhere to win it this year.
purplefood wrote: Is this turning into a 'The winner is obviously using drugs because he's so much better than everyone else?' kind of thing?
Because you get that with video games when butt hurt 12 year olds shout hacker because you killed them when they think they should have killed you...
Yeah, Ok, it's not just that he's so much better than everyone else, though. It's that not only do they happen to have the best sprinter and the two best stage racers, it's also that Wiggins was never that good on the road before, and seems to have suddenly become far better. Sure, he was good on the track before, but that's a completely different type of racing to road racing: It's like being good at the 400m sprint then becoming a 100m sprinter. Possible, sure, but become that good in one year? Dubious.
Wiggins had been less good on the road because he had focused on the track. His focus switched from track to road in 2008, after the Beijing Olympics, so he's had 4 years of practice to reach this point.
He came 4th in the Tour de France in 2009, so it's not as if he came from nowhere to win it this year.
VermGho5t wrote: Has anyone or any of these articles mentioned him having cancer, and the drug treatments used being reflected in doping tests? From the posts in this discussion I haven't read any mention of this. If there was then never mind.
Nope, none of the "current" round of articles that I've read have mentioned it... Come to think of it, I don't think the question has been raised by any previous article. I wonder what, if any affect the Cancer Treatment drugs he used would have, even long after they were done?
purplefood wrote: Is this turning into a 'The winner is obviously using drugs because he's so much better than everyone else?' kind of thing?
Because you get that with video games when butt hurt 12 year olds shout hacker because you killed them when they think they should have killed you...
Yeah, Ok, it's not just that he's so much better than everyone else, though. It's that not only do they happen to have the best sprinter and the two best stage racers, it's also that Wiggins was never that good on the road before, and seems to have suddenly become far better. Sure, he was good on the track before, but that's a completely different type of racing to road racing: It's like being good at the 400m sprint then becoming a 100m sprinter. Possible, sure, but become that good in one year? Dubious.
Wiggins had been less good on the road because he had focused on the track. His focus switched from track to road in 2008, after the Beijing Olympics, so he's had 4 years of practice to reach this point.
He came 4th in the Tour de France in 2009, so it's not as if he came from nowhere to win it this year.
4th is a long way from first, especially as he was 6 minutes down (which is quite a big gap) and Andy Schleck has beaten him considerably not only in that tour but in the ones after it as well. Sure, 4 years to improve, and good track sprinters have become good road sprinters quite easily, but time trials are pretty different to any other race you're likely to find on the track, which is the only way Wiggins managed to win the tour.
Nearly every single one of the people coming forward in this latest round of "Get Armstrong" have previously tested positive. Whether he did or did not cheat is nothing compared to the impact that he has had with LiveSTRONG and other charities.
I'm sorry, but if, after 16 years of ZERO positive tests, you STILL think he did indeed dope, then by all means go on then. I personally see it the same way that Armstrong himself does, a witch hunt.
Actually only six of the 15 riders were known dopers. A large number of them have come out as cheats and accepted punishments by giving evidence. The report is indefensibly damning.
What evidence?? Verbal testimony? that's hardly admissible by itself.
Even Roger Clemens' accusers had a "syringe that was used to inject steroids in the 90s"
If USADA cannot provide hard physical evidence that has been tested and vetted with proper forensic techniques, I'm sorry, they don't really have much to stand on.
Beside the fact that you can't win the tour de france alone and the majority of Armstrong's team during his wins are now self confessed dopers, there are records of money transfers and e-mails to drug suppliers and failed tests in the 1000 page file they have compiled as evidence. They have a hell of a lot to stand on.
My question is, why the hell are they still going after him, after all these years and all the passed tests? I don't see the USADA going after every single suspected doper in every Tour in the past 15 years, so why Lance? If they do this for him, they should go back and strip the titles for everyone. And also, even if is guilty as charged, and they strip his titles, in every single case the next in line is either a known, or suspected doper. So what's the point?
rubiksnoob wrote: My question is, why the hell are they still going after him, after all these years and all the passed tests? I don't see the USADA going after every single suspected doper in every Tour in the past 15 years, so why Lance? If they do this for him, they should go back and strip the titles for everyone. And also, even if is guilty as charged, and they strip his titles, in every single case the next in line is either a known, or suspected doper. So what's the point?
You must be blind. Already 5 cyclists, including several who still compete, have been striped of titles and received bans as a direct result of yesterday's publication. The evidence seems to suggest he was the ringleader and organised much of the doping so it should be no wonder why the US Anti Doping Agency would do their job and base an investigation around him if the suspected him of that.
Sorry but anyone still wanting to call 'witchhunt' really need to look at what has just been released. Games up, Armstrong is a cheat. Cycling can move on.
rubiksnoob wrote: My question is, why the hell are they still going after him, after all these years and all the passed tests? I don't see the USADA going after every single suspected doper in every Tour in the past 15 years, so why Lance? If they do this for him, they should go back and strip the titles for everyone. And also, even if is guilty as charged, and they strip his titles, in every single case the next in line is either a known, or suspected doper. So what's the point?
A.. Because he's a and French hate anyone thats a bigger then they are?
B. The French hold grudges forever and can't be arsed to actually win themselves?
C. Competitive cycling is not a real sport but just a giant sponsorship with legs?
D. Frazzled hates all the wannabe Armstrongs in Austin and hopes they all get severe jock itch?
D. Frazzled hates all the wannabe Armstrongs in Austin and hopes they all get severe jock itch?
We are united in hatred once more!
I'm not even remotely interested in cycling because I actually cycle a few times a month just to stay fit, and I hate cyclists, with their ridiculously expensive bikes, gak pants, pointy helmets and most importantly pansy peddling ability. I fly past them on my nasty as feth Carrera I got for £200 in Halfords. Since Britain became good at cycling, that Austin mentality has hit all of Britain, I'm fething sick of seeing gangs of hipsters out on their bikes in their gak outfits....
Rant aside, Mels claim of it being motivated by nationalism seem pretty ridiculous, people don't hate Lance because hes American, they hate him because he seems like a total spanker! I didnt even know who he was at first, it was my American missus who told me he was a conceited prick with a God complex.
Anyway, after yesterdays BBC news... The bloke looks about as guilty as Jimmy fething Saville!
Now would be a great time for me to air my personal opinions on an aspect of the subject matter being discussed and rip it apart by likening it to effeminate left wing pacifists using all of the three expletives I know, numerous times. This is all in an effort to give you a picture of me, mattyrm, as a no nonsense hard man who flosses his teeth with razor wire.
Thanks mattyrm, your contributions in the off topic forum are always worth a read.
Now would be a great time for me to air my personal opinions on an aspect of the subject matter being discussed and rip it apart by likening it to effeminate left wing pacifists using all of the three expletives I know, numerous times. This is all in an effort to give you a picture of me, mattyrm, as a no nonsense hard man who flosses his teeth with razor wire.
Thanks mattyrm, your contributions in the off topic forum are always worth a read.
D. Frazzled hates all the wannabe Armstrongs in Austin and hopes they all get severe jock itch?
We are united in hatred once more!
I'm not even remotely interested in cycling because I actually cycle a few times a month just to stay fit, and I hate cyclists, with their ridiculously expensive bikes, gak pants, pointy helmets and most importantly pansy peddling ability. I fly past them on my nasty as feth Carrera I got for £200 in Halfords. Since Britain became good at cycling, that Austin mentality has hit all of Britain, I'm fething sick of seeing gangs of hipsters out on their bikes in their gak outfits....
Yes! Ok except the speeding past them part, I'm slower than cold snot with my burned out knees. But whats the rush. That water bottle's not just water you know...
Frazzled biking uniform consists of baseball cap, and shirt/shorts/shoes I was wearing at the time. The Wife wears one of those styrofoam helmets and I kept pointing and laughing Nelson style until she sicked the kids on me.
If that can provide evidence he was using illegal substances in any of his races then that individual race can be disqualiied, they can even ban him now for what its worth. But it would be grossly unjust to attempt to strip him of anything without firm evidence on a case by case basis.
I would like to know how they are going to get this after the fact. Let him go.
This is one big shut sandwich 
and French hate anyone thats a bigger 
