[paulg]

lalldonn, on 2012-August-24, 15:43, said:

Let us not forget this!

This is a better write-up of the recent cheating episode in Scrabble.

[jdeegan]

Evidently, almost everybody in cycling was employing some form of performance enhancing drugs back in the day. The tests at the time couldn't detect what Lance was doing. Lance recently was faced with an odd situation. He could submit to arbitration or do what he did. Arbitration has come down 58-2 against accused dopers in recent years. Testimony from former team mates who say (and probably did see) Lance using drugs might have carried the day. Of course, most of these team mates have admitted using drugs as well.

Some people say it is conceivable that this could benefit Hamman, et. al. It is sure to be embarrassing to the cycling organizers (which they richly deserve) because if Lance didn't win the Tour de France, who did? All of the other top finishers have already admitted to doping.

[onoway]

The news stories about Armstrong today say that he passed all the drug tests that he was ever given. The testing picked up a whole whack of people who lost to him, so if he was guilty why didnt/couldn't they find it? Doesn't there have to be some sort of hard evidence?

It's pretty scary if they can do this without any evidence except rumour and gossip and the belief that somehow he must have been cheating to do so well. Salem, anyone?

[Stephen Tu]

onoway, on 2012-August-24, 17:27, said:

The news stories about Armstrong today say that he passed all the drug tests that he was ever given.

Officially passed. But there are allegations about positive tests covered up. And re-tests of frozen urine using more modern tests coming back positive. And allegations of positive samples from his 2009/2010 comeback years.

Quote

The testing picked up a whole whack of people who lost to him, so if he was guilty why didnt/couldn't they find it? Doesn't there have to be some sort of hard evidence?

Testing actually only caught a few riders. A lot were caught up in investigations like Operación Puerto . Things where police get tipped off, then find a bunch of drugs, or IV bags, or bags of blood with team coaches/doctors/managers in their cars or hotel rooms.

Quote

It's pretty scary if they can do this without any evidence except rumour and gossip and the belief that somehow he must have been cheating to do so well. Salem, anyone?

To me, testimony of multiple teammates & team employees under oath to a federal grand jury, who say they specifically were part of a team-sponsored doping program, and personally saw him take drugs or talk about doping, is reasonable evidence and more than just "rumour and gossip".

[mike777]

wtf are you guys talking about:


48% of nfl players would take 5 years off their lives to win superbowl


most understand they will live last ten years in a wheelchair from football.

now add in a cheap, safe, effective way to enhance performance by taking a pill......sure........


the war is lost!


All of us I repeat all of us will take human performance enhancing drugs as they become cheaper...safer and work better.


all of these posts are just an argument to make these drugs faster,...cheaper...now!

[onoway]

Well, it all seems very strange and sad and I don't understand the point of it all. He's retired in any case and if they couldn't catch him in spite of their best efforts over the years he was competing then I think they should have let it go. A sort of double jeapordy thing seems to me to be going on here.

In the Olympics, if the officials found evidence of drugs, they didnt send their findings to an arbitration committee, they sent the athletes packing and said why. That's clean and fair. If they don't find anything within a reasonable period of time then that should be that. Years is not a reasonable period of time.

I just listened to an interview with a former teammate who had testified that he overheard discussion in a hospital about performance enhancing practices. The guy came off like a sanctimonious slimebag with his comments. Sorta like a murderer pointing the finger at someone else because he's cut a deal if he will nail somebody the police have been after. It was interesting that he volunteered a couple of times that he was really really surprised that Armstrong has given up fighting about this..why should he have been surprised, if Armstrong was indeed guilty?

It makes the Cycling organization look petty, ungrateful and a bit silly..He brought competitive cycling to the attention of many many people who otherwise would never even have heard of it. Now the organization just looks silly as they seemingly have no idea who (if anyone) actually won those races, as all the other top finishers apparently were already found to have been doing something illegal.

It is undoubtedly stoking the ego of someone (who has likely not ever actually accomplished anything of note in his own life) to have destroyed the man's legacy but I can't see how it has done anything else positive.

[sfi]

onoway, on 2012-August-25, 02:17, said:

In the Olympics, if the officials found evidence of drugs, they didnt send their findings to an arbitration committee, they sent the athletes packing and said why. That's clean and fair. If they don't find anything within a reasonable period of time then that should be that. Years is not a reasonable period of time.

The Olympics have an eight year timeframe in which to catch someone for drugs. Someone during the London Olympics was stripped of a bronze medal from Greece, and the article highlighted that they had just met that deadline.

Not germane to the Armstrong case, but IMO there is nothing wrong with holding samples for tests using future technology. The Olympic timeframe doesn't seem ridiculous on the face of it.

[Cyberyeti]

My understanding was that the allegation was he had a team of expert doctors behind him that were very good with masking agents that were not banned (many others were), and that's a large part of the reason he never tested positive.

If retests are proving positive, I'm sure USADA will publish this evidence. This is the key thing I want to see, if they haven't kept the samples from the 7 tours, that's their problem. Hearsay, particularly from proven drug cheats is suspect.

[Fluffy]

billw55, on 2012-August-24, 05:59, said:

So it seems. I'm guessing they wont try to take back the prize money though.

It's an unfortunate situation. Either explanation is plausible. He gave up because he is guilty? Sure, I can believe that. He's not guilty, but gave up because he's sick of it? I can believe that too. I suppose I will never know for sure. But I won't lose any sleep over it.

I know for sure that he cheated, the only question is if he cheated any more than those who finished second/third/etc

[Fluffy]

onoway, on 2012-August-24, 17:27, said:

The news stories about Armstrong today say that he passed all the drug tests that he was ever given. The testing picked up a whole whack of people who lost to him, so if he was guilty why didnt/couldn't they find it? Doesn't there have to be some sort of hard evidence?

It's pretty scary if they can do this without any evidence except rumour and gossip and the belief that somehow he must have been cheating to do so well. Salem, anyone?

Passing a doping test now is not enough, due to cheaters being more scientifically advanced than anti-cheaters they make you pass anti-doping tests in the future with previous samples that had been conserved once it has been researched the doping techniques of that time.

[Cyberyeti]

onoway, on 2012-August-25, 02:17, said:

It makes the Cycling organization look petty, ungrateful and a bit silly..He brought competitive cycling to the attention of many many people who otherwise would never even have heard of it. Now the organization just looks silly as they seemingly have no idea who (if anyone) actually won those races, as all the other top finishers apparently were already found to have been doing something illegal.

This is an uninformed comment, the action was taken by US anti doping agency not the cycling governing body the UCI. I suspect it ended up with them as he is no longer a cyclist (I know the UCI handed it over but not precisely why).

My suspicion also is that they won't award the wins to anybody else.

[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on 2012-August-25, 06:24, said:

I know for sure that he cheated, the only question is if he cheated any more than those who finished second/third/etc

I wouldn't say I knew for sure, but seems likely, given that in this year's tour they were significantly slower up all the climbs than in Armstrong's era. There is also the possibility that he was taking something legal then but not legal now.

[jonottawa]

Fluffy, on 2012-August-25, 06:24, said:

I know for sure that he cheated, the only question is if he cheated any more than those who finished second/third/etc

I can't say for sure he doped, but it seems very likely.

Is it his performance alone that makes it a 'sure thing' for you, or is it some claim/evidence you've seen or the combination of the two?

Do folks think Usain Bolt is cheating? Or Michael Phelps?

[kenberg]

mike777, on 2012-August-25, 01:43, said:

48% of nfl players would take 5 years off their lives to win superbowl

57% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

People are free to make their choices. Me, I would take the extra five years. Perhaps that's lack of ambition?. My choice remains the same.

The world has changed, I have changed, all of this doping is not a change I welcome. Fundamentally I am repulsed by it. Logic aside, rational thought aside, money aside, I just find it repulsive. If that's big time sports, I'll live my way, they can live their way.

[paulg]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-25, 07:20, said:

I wouldn't say I knew for sure, but seems likely, given that in this year's tour they were significantly slower up all the climbs than in Armstrong's era. There is also the possibility that he was taking something legal then but not legal now.

I watched a lot of the British coverage of this year's TdF and they made a number of comments about the speed these days. As well as the speeds up the climbs, the peloton was slower during the flatter stages. In particular, the commentators thought this was due to fewer 'non-stars' using drugs and so the peloton not recovering as quickly as it did in the past.

[Fluffy]

jonottawa, on 2012-August-25, 08:00, said:

Is it his performance alone that makes it a 'sure thing' for you, or is it some claim/evidence you've seen or the combination of the two?

The fact he became better after chemotherapy, wich allowed him to take some substances forbidden to other cyclers is a great indicator for me, not deffinitive though. But it is mostly my knowdledge of that sport, everyone is using something. there was a stadistic some years ago that 40% of pro cyclers where diagnosed to have Asthma problems. Come on lol. Asthma pro athletes? Yeah, that way they can use some substances under medical excuses and avoid "cheating"

I heard an interview of a cycler who won a tour once in the 60s, Federico Martin Bahamontes, he said he was so happy since every cycler who beat him in his era had already died years ago because of everything they used to cheat. He in his mid 80s still felt very healthy. But he refused to talk about nowdays cycling because to him this is no real sport, more like biochemistry contest.

[Fluffy]

BTW I just read that olympic basket champions refused to do anti-doping test and were allowed by COI, the reason is that NBA players take some things that are allowed in USA but disallowed internationally

[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on 2012-August-25, 09:49, said:

The fact he became better after chemotherapy, wich allowed him to take some substances forbidden to other cyclers is a great indicator for me, not deffinitive though. But it is mostly my knowdledge of that sport, everyone is using something. there was a stadistic some years ago that 40% of pro cyclers where diagnosed to have Asthma problems. Come on lol. Asthma pro athletes? Yeah, that way they can use some substances under medical excuses and avoid "cheating"

I heard an interview of a cycler who won a tour once in the 60s, Federico Martin Bahamontes, he said he was so happy since every cycler who beat him in his era had already died years ago because of everything they used to cheat. He in his mid 80s still felt very healthy. But he refused to talk about nowdays cycling because to him this is no real sport, more like biochemistry contest.

In the 60s they were almost all on speed and various other things.

Armstrong was prescribed steroids while on his cancer treatment, but he also LOST a lot of weight which is not the normal steroid beneficial effect which is to put on muscle mass. Basically he lost pretty much all his body fat which would have helped him considerably (and this is what he said benefitted him considerably). I thought they'd clamped down on which asthma inhalers you were allowed to use now in sport, so the old really beneficial ones were no longer permitted.

Baseball has had its steroid age, NFL is having its crisis now with concussions but also steroid related deaths http://en.wikipedia....iki/Lyle_Alzado for an early example.

I watched an interview with a doctor with an interest in doping during the Olympics, and he said that getting caught in competition was a stupidity test, the drugs were all done 9 months ago in training and the intelligent athletes had long since stopped taking them so would pass tests.

[gwnn]

Armstrong responds. http://www.theonion....in-a-way,29317/

[blackshoe]

I tend to doubt very much that Lance Armstrong wrote that article. If he did, then some drug he took seems to have addled his brain.