'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

shaka

No

Can never find cycling gear in Tk Max

Sacksian

He hasn't gone away, you know...

Find it astonishing that he still believes he should be able to compete in ANY sport:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/apr/04/lance-armstrong-return-blocked

petethedrummer

No

All that's left is a guest spot on Man vs Food. I don't think competitive eating falls under the WADA umbrella.

Halloween Jack

Maybe he could round up a team for eggheads?

Sacksian

What about Pointless?

Captain Havoc

He has withdrawn, I'm sure he's used to that though, boom, boom.

Morrisseeee

No

HGH in the NFL (American Football), interesting that the analysts think up to 50% are using HGH !! ..........and yet the cyclists get a bad name, doh!

godtabh

Morrisseeee wrote: »

HGH in the NFL (American Football), interesting that the analysts think up to 50% are using HGH !! ..........and yet the cyclists get a bad name, doh!

if the baseball stats game out it would probably make the nfl/cycling look clean!

leftism

No

"How Lance Armstrong Ruined Everything" by David O'Doherty

ednwireland

much as i hate to bring this up

UCI likely to face renewed criticism after it was claimed that Lance Armstrong produced four positive tests for use of banned substances during 1999 edition of the Tour de France rather than just one as previously reported.

Armstrong had previously admitted to using corticosteroids for a saddle sore during the 1999 Tour. The Texan, though, had produced a back-dated Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) which had been accepted by the UCI.

A leaked internal UCI memo now shows that Armstrong, who went on to win seven Tours before later being stripped of his titles, produced four positive tests on July 4, 14, 15 and 21, according to Belgian newspaper Het Nieuwsblad.

The original TUE, prepared by team doctor Luis García Del Moral, cleared Armstrong to use corticosteroids despite being added to the banned substance list days before the prologue in Le Puy du Fou.

The internal UCI memo from January 2013 reveals that Armstrong faced 12 doping controls during the 21-day race, while UCI attorney Philippe Verbiest claimed that the quantities of corticosteroids found in Armstrong were minimal, despite being high enough to be considered illegal.

http://www.independent.ie/incoming/lance-amstrong-tested-positive-four-times-in-1999-tour-de-france-29200854.html

Slo_Rida

ednwireland wrote: »

much as i hate to bring this up



http://www.independent.ie/incoming/lance-amstrong-tested-positive-four-times-in-1999-tour-de-france-29200854.html[/QUOTE]

I've been waiting to hear the debate on this....

RobFowl

No

Slo_Rida wrote: »

I've been waiting to hear the debate on this....

It happened, not enough people felt strongly enough about it though, so "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".

Leroy42

They weren't positive results though, they were non negative. It would appear from the (admittedly internal UCI documents so pinch of salt needed) that while the results did raise concerns it wasn't enough to claim a positive. Privacy rules dictate that unless a result is positive it cannot be commented on except that it's negative. Hindsight is of course great, but I'm not sure this is the story that many people seem to think it is.

mcgratheoin

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

They weren't positive results though, they were non negative.

I thought the "non-negatives" or suspicious values were the EPO tour de Suisse blood values? This story mentions nothing about the corticosteroid tests not being over the limit.

RobFowl

No

Test results are interpreted in different ways.
Teh levels set for "positives" have to withstand the full rigours of the courts for the bar is set very high.
On the vast majority of tests though, a lower level they show pretty much whether the athlete is doping or not.
While the reports are usually issued as positive or negative, in real terms the actual result gives a reading which is much less clear cut.

Leroy42

From my reading of it, the test results were consistent (again this is based on an internal CI document so....) with use of a cream and as such were not regarding as doping, at least not enough to pursue it. Bear in mind that LA had already submitted a TUE for the previous test.

Not saying that they shouldn't have spotted it, more so that it is easy now to see it as part of a much wider issue, knowledge they didn't (or maybe did?) have at the time. But again, it doesn't look good for the UCI and seems to suggest that even though all the warning signs were there they failed to act on them and target LA.

While the results may not have been enough to warrant his explusion, surely it was part of wider evidence over the years such that the UCI should have been on top of him. When Landis etc started coming out that should have been the missing piece, instead they chose to pretend that nothing had ever happened and all these 'stories' were groundless.

All these little details are showing that to be very much not the case.

RobFowl

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

From my reading of it, the test results were consistent (again this is based on an internal CI document so....) with use of a cream and as such were not regarding as doping, at least not enough to pursue it. Bear in mind that LA had already submitted a TUE for the previous test.

Not saying that they shouldn't have spotted it, more so that it is easy now to see it as part of a much wider issue, knowledge they didn't (or maybe did?) have at the time. But again, it doesn't look good for the UCI and seems to suggest that even though all the warning signs were there they failed to act on them and target LA.

While the results may not have been enough to warrant his explusion, surely it was part of wider evidence over the years such that the UCI should have been on top of him. When Landis etc started coming out that should have been the missing piece, instead they chose to pretend that nothing had ever happened and all these 'stories' were groundless.

All these little details are showing that to be very much not the case.

The test result for corticosteroids basically give a figure as a result.
The threshold is set at say 1000 but over say 700 would be fairly certain it wasn't present naturally.

I fear this is just another example of haw lax the UCI were in enforcing the antidoping rules. Just recall that if this had been acted on Armstrong would have been turfed out of the 99 tour and we would all be in a better position now....

But we're all happy for doping to carry on so wtf......

MPFG

No

"How Lance Armstrong ruined my life"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snLWkqWLY1g

Capt'n Midnight

No

RobFowl wrote: »

Test results are interpreted in different ways.

It's like the old Scottish verdict of "not proven"

They can't prove beyond all resonable doubt that the sample contains more than the allowed limit, nor could they prove beyond all resonable doubt that it doesn't show something


If they don't already have a category they should have one for these range of test results. It would depend on the test some are clearer than others.

Even if it was as simple as saying how many riders would have failed had the limits been X instead of Y.

Flandria

No

And finally, the big one...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-justice-department-file-complaint-in-armstrong-whistleblower-lawsuit

Flandria

No

And finally, the big one...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-justice-department-file-complaint-in-armstrong-whistleblower-lawsuit

mcgratheoin

No

RobFowl wrote:

On the vast majority of tests though, a lower level they show pretty much whether the athlete is doping or not.
While the reports are usually issued as positive or negative, in real terms the actual result gives a reading which is much less clear cut.

Hang on a minute, the one thing to remember here is that the results were not "abnormal" or "suspicious" or anything like that - they were clearly over the limit and it was a positive test.

Leroy42 wrote:

Not saying that they shouldn't have spotted it, more so that it is easy now to see it as part of a much wider issue, knowledge they didn't (or maybe did?) have at the time. But again, it doesn't look good for the UCI and seems to suggest that even though all the warning signs were there they failed to act on them and target LA.

They did spot it though, that's the point. Lance tested positive for corticosteroids, he was caught by the testers, and the UCI shenanigans then come into play regarding the TUE. We've all heard how the UCI told Contador that his positive was as a result of contaminated food - did they also tell Armstrong that his result was probably as a result of a saddle-sore cream? Either way, they accepted an illegal document from Armstrong and decided to sweep it under the carpet.

The biggest issue with the UCI has never been their failure to identify drug users, it has been the way in which they consciously aided and abetted those drug users to evade prosecution.

TheBlaaMan

No

You'd have to laugh......

Lance apparently needed attention to his rim, but it wasn't a mechanic he was looking for...

I bet the good ol' boys in Texas will be thrilled with this news.....

Lumen

Not as amusing as the taint-tickling, but did this get posted yet?

From the usually reliable source of quality journalism...

Disgraced Lance Armstrong sells Texas home where he taped confessional Oprah interview for 'at least $3.1M' as he faces huge legal bills
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307291/Lance-Armstrong-sells-Texas-estate-faces-huge-legal-bills.html

fat bloke

No

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

You'd have to laugh......

Lance apparently needed attention to his rim, but it wasn't a mechanic he was looking for...

I bet the good ol' boys in Texas will be thrilled with this news.....

Must have been that night he developed his penchant for having smoke blown up his a$$. Little wonder he got on so well with the UCI. Fnar fnar fnar

kumate_champ07

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

You'd have to laugh......

Lance apparently needed attention to his rim, but it wasn't a mechanic he was looking for...

I bet the good ol' boys in Texas will be thrilled with this news.....

clinchers?

mcgratheoin

No

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

clinchers?

clenchers?

laraghrider

Lumen wrote: »

Disgraced Lance Armstrong sells Texas home where he taped confessional Oprah interview for 'at least $3.1M' as he faces huge legal bills
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307291/Lance-Armstrong-sells-Texas-estate-faces-huge-legal-bills.html

Sadly that's only half the story...

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/lance-armstrong-buys-new-austin-house-days-selling-mansion-article-1.1320973

Lumen

laraghrider wrote: »

Sadly that's only half the story...

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/lance-armstrong-buys-new-austin-house-days-selling-mansion-article-1.1320973

"Armstrong’s new pad boasts five bedrooms and 6.5 baths, according to Redfin"

Ha! Good luck filling your half-bath Lance!

TheBlaaMan

No

Lumen wrote: »

"Armstrong’s new pad boasts five bedrooms and 6.5 baths, according to Redfin"

Ha! Good luck filling your half-bath Lance!

That half-bath is for leaning over.........;)