Lance armstrong drops fight against doping charges

buck65

fishy fishy wrote: »

vice versa

and whats even funnier, is that "the dogs on the street" knew he was a cheat, then why even watch? now that
could be termed as gullible.

Lance Armstrong,Marco Pantani and Jan Ullrich turned me off the sport. I stopped watching a long time ago.

Loomis

I never followed cycling but common sense tells you what these guys do is/should be beyond man's natural abilities.
To me it's pretty obvious what and why Armstrong is doing here. He's backing out before damning evidence comes out had he fought the investigation and probably, stupidly, hoping they drop the issue without announcing findings so he can in some weird way insist he's clean cause he never tested positive etc.

The claim of never failing a test rings incredibly hollow with me since reading this recently. It made watching the Olympics a lot less exciting.

Angel Heredia (supplied Marion Jones, among other Olympians, with drugs) interview. A bit long but fascinating/depressing.
http://www.pendlayforum.com/showthread.php?t=6611

flutered

Ronin247 wrote: »

Tetrahydrogestrinone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrogestrinone Was a drug developed by the Americans which was undetectable and was known by its street name "The Clear" because when tested the results came back Clear.

Ben Johnson took part in "The Dirtiest Race In History" with most of the participants having since been implicated in some doping controversey or other.Johnson has said that he was on steroids for seven years and the only reason he was done for doping was that his sample was tampered with,this leaves the question "how could he have been tested so many times and never came up positive?"

I fear that all top athletes are at it.

ben johnson was tested positive by a vote of 11 against 10 by a committeee, linford christee was cleared by the same majority, then again the jamacian authoritys will not allow any testing of their athleats at home, this has been the case for years, in one way i do not blame armstrong for giving up, just imagine each day for 13 years hearing the same thing, recieving letters emails etc, it has to wear one down, saying that i believe the athleate with the best chemist has the best chance, take a pic of most top footballers phisique, most of them would have won a mr europe 6 or seven years ago, rugby players suddenly bulk up, and get unreal bodys, actually any one in top level sport can now be considered for finger pointing by most, pls excuse my spelling.

fishy fishy

GerM wrote: »

And the multiple people who were involved with his career and saw him doing this and/or facilitated his actions. For example, the masseuse who, as discussed on radio this morning, gave a 7 hour interview detailing specific incidents and examples of Armstrong doping right down to purchasing concealer to hide tell tale marks on his skin.

so everyone knew he was at it but kept schtum, until now. How very convenient. Wow, wonder what else they might be hiding - wouldn't trust that lot really.

drdeadlift

kneemos wrote: »

If they're all on drugs it's a level playing field,whats the problem.His team mates turning against him after all this time definitely looks suspect.

The us agency responsible for this case said it would take cases against those cyclists asked to give evidence against Armstrong if they did not comply(blackmail),.

What ****im use is a drug test if they dont need them to convict

Jerrica

fishy fishy wrote: »

so everyone knew he was at it but kept schtum, until now. How very convenient.

Probably tbh. Think about it, if these people talked, their whole careers would be on the line. There's massive money involved in sponsorship too and that filters down into the whole support team. It paid for them to keep quiet until their backs were against the wall. Not convenience, self-preservation.

buck65

Until now?
Are you serious?? This investigation has been going on since the early 2000's Armstrong has tried to block and discredit everyone involved in this for years. The USADA are just ready to finish the guy off now with their evidence.
I gave you too much credit , you haven't a ****ing clue what you're talking about.

roadrunner16

mackg wrote: »

Has he made much money? Does he get to keep that?

If the answer to both questions is yes I'm sure he'll survive.

"Armstrong’s decision, according to the World Anti-Doping Code, means he will be stripped of his seven Tour titles, the bronze medal he won at the 2000 Olympics and all other titles, awards and money he won from August 1998 forward."

also means he can't coach , or be involved in any way with competitive cycling .

GerM

fishy fishy wrote: »

so everyone knew he was at it but kept schtum, until now. How very convenient. Wow, wonder what else they might be hiding - wouldn't trust that lot really.

These interviews were conducted years ago and were freely available. Suspect your user name is a hint now! I'll graciously bow out!

buck65

Jerrica wrote: »

Probably tbh. Think about it, if these people talked, their whole careers would be on the line. There's massive money involved in sponsorship too and that filters down into the whole support team. It paid for them to keep quiet until their backs were against the wall. Not convenience, self-preservation.

Alot of these guys - Tyler Hamilton, Frankie Andreu, our own Emma O Reilly have been on the record for years giving evidence of witnessing Armstrong taking or talking about haven taken drugs.
It is just now that USADA have added a few more testimonies from athletes even closer to Armstrong that he knows he's done for.

seamus

Cycling of course isn't the only sport where this is happening, it's just been the one with the most detections historically.

It's a cyclical problem (no pun intended). While it's easy to think that doping leads to hollow victories, and so only a handful of people will cheat (e.g. not many footballers deliberately throw games), the problem is that the cheaters steal everyone else's victories.
So when you're at the top level and competing to the maximum of your abilities, yet still getting lamped out of it by the guy who's doping, then you're going to consider doping. When it turns out that all of the top guys are doping, then in essence the only way you have a hope of getting to the top tier is to start doping too. Then it's no longer cheating, it's just levelling the field, and your victories are real victories, not hollow ones.

The reason it's such a problem in cycling is that drug-taking has been endemic pretty much since the TdF started. It's an endurance event off the scale. And not only that, it's a race. So an "anything and everything" approach to keeping onesself going was normal and encouraged. It was 1965 before doping was banned, but by then it was already ingrained, and once it's in the sport it's very hard to get it out again due to the ripple effect I mention above where in order to get to the top tier, you have to compete on a dope-for-dope level.

Perhaps they need a ten-year clampdown to weed it out - weekly doping tests for every professional rider. Also require them (as a condition of membership of UCI) to agree that if they are found guilty of doping, all titles, prize money and sponsorship are forfeit. I.e. if you are found guilty of doping, you lose everything.
Some riders will still take the risk using cleverer drugs and methods, but it might be enough to scare everyone else straight.

hardCopy

fishy fishy wrote: »

so everyone knew he was at it but kept schtum, until now. How very convenient. Wow, wonder what else they might be hiding - wouldn't trust that lot really.

Who kept schtum? He's been accused by people all around him for years.

Here's a nice catalogue of the various claims: http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/you-jury

He was even being called out here on boards in 2005: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=3073607

The whole myth of being the most tested athlete on the planet is completely made up. Nobody tested him 500 times: http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/

There was also the Simeoni incident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Simeoni#Feud_with_Lance_Armstrong

maximoose

Mr. Anderson wrote: »

Angel Heredia (supplied Marion Jones, among other Olympians, with drugs) interview. A bit long but fascinating/depressing.
http://www.pendlayforum.com/showthread.php?t=6611

That was a great read, crazy stuff.

fishy fishy

Jerrica wrote: »

Probably tbh. Think about it, if these people talked, their whole careers would be on the line. There's massive money involved in sponsorship too and that filters down into the whole support team. It paid for them to keep quiet until their backs were against the wall. Not convenience, self-preservation.

ah that explains it.
Known for years but kept quiet - these lot should be stripped as well then. whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I can't believe people sat and watched this farce if they were so sure the competitors were drugged up. That was a little silly wasn't it.

Logical Fallacy

V_Moth wrote: »

Except we don't really have an idea about the long-term effects of using those substances. Look at roid rage for example.

Look at roid rage? You mean the fact that it is a myth with absolutely no evidence to support it?

Jerrica

fishy fishy wrote: »

ah that explains it.
Known for years but kept quiet - these lot should be stripped as well then. whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

yeah, you're definitely trolling. How can a team physio be stripped?

Also that was just my take on it in a very general, buck65 corrected me on the specifics of the Armstrong case (thank you buck65 )

Ted!

Ghandee wrote: »

I froze dried one of his nuts.
I keep it in a glass case now and stare at it frequently.

You kind of just reworded our joke, but...ha!

Scanlas The 2nd

flutered wrote: »

Ronin247 wrote: »

Tetrahydrogestrinone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrogestrinone Was a drug developed by the Americans which was undetectable and was known by its street name "The Clear" because when tested the results came back Clear.

Ben Johnson took part in "The Dirtiest Race In History" with most of the participants having since been implicated in some doping controversey or other.Johnson has said that he was on steroids for seven years and the only reason he was done for doping was that his sample was tampered with,this leaves the question "how could he have been tested so many times and never came up positive?"

I fear that all top athletes are at it.

ben johnson was tested positive by a vote of 11 against 10 by a committeee, linford christee was cleared by the same majority, then again the jamacian authoritys will not allow any testing of their athleats at home, this has been the case for years, in one way i do not blame armstrong for giving up, just imagine each day for 13 years hearing the same thing, recieving letters emails etc, it has to wear one down, saying that i believe the athleate with the best chemist has the best chance, take a pic of most top footballers phisique, most of them would have won a mr europe 6 or seven years ago, rugby players suddenly bulk up, and get unreal bodys, actually any one in top level sport can now be considered for finger pointing by most, pls excuse my spelling.

You do realise it's not that hard to get footballers' bodies, I wouldnt be far off and I only go to the gym two or three times a week.

Quorum

Mr. Anderson wrote: »

Angel Heredia (supplied Marion Jones, among other Olympians, with drugs) interview. A bit long but fascinating/depressing.
http://www.pendlayforum.com/showthread.php?t=6611

What a great read. He's so deadpan about it all!

fishy fishy

Jerrica wrote: »

yeah, you're definitely trolling. How can a team physio be stripped?

Also that was just my take on it in a very general, buck65 corrected me on the specifics of the Armstrong case (thank you buck65 )

why would I be trolling :roll eyes:
I;m just saying that if they all knew he was at it, and kept quiet, they are part of the problem and should be also stripped of their earnings and entitlements.
whats trolling about that. Or if having an alternative view now the equivalent of trolling?

Jerrica

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

You do realise it's not that hard to get footballers' bodies, I wouldnt be far off and I only go to the gym two or three times a week.

When people say 'footballers body' they generally mean of the Christiano Ronaldo kind. Not the chubby Ronaldo kind.

The second one anyone could have. The first is a whole other story and few could successfully achieve. You could do it clean, no problem, but it's generally a lot more difficult than only going to the gym 2/3 times a week (unless you're incredibly gifted genetically).

aloyisious

I listened to the Kimmage/Armstrong question and answer exchange and, if what was played was all there was recorded, then it's obvious Lance was intent on NOT answering the posed question. The "who are you" bit followed immediately by Lance saying why he refused to do an interview with Paul, made it obvious that he already knew who Paul was and had his "throw them off the scent" response ready. The bottom line is that Lance did not answer the question put to him by Paul from the floor.

I hope that the US cycling authorities go ahead with publicizing Lance's 2009 and 2010 test results which are rumoured to be positive for doping, whether they are positive or negative There's no point in letting any person away with doping if the evidence is there, merely because he throw's his hands up and, in effect, say's "I can't get a fair trial". There's also those who are on the US Cycling's list of witnesses. They'll forever be equally as suspect as Lance 'til the air is cleared by them stating in public what they allegedly saw/did.

As for the "strip him of his titles" bit, the US cycling authorities are to recommend that Lance be stripped of his medals. I take that to mean that it's up to L.C.L/T.D.F to remove Lance from it's T.D.F winners lists and pass the medals to the 2nd placed of those T.D.F years, as the US did not award him those. I heard on one of today's news clips that the FBI were going to investigate the matter but by Lance doing what he did, that may not proceed. I'd imagine Lance and his legal people would not like the FBI and the US D.O.J getting their teeth into him.

peejay01

For anyone that is interested in reading about scientific proof that Lance has doped in the past, read this http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

It's a bit long but very interesting.

I am involved in researching possible new methods in the detection of recombinant EPO in urine and have collaborated with Mike on a project and he saw the positive results for Lances Tour de France 99 samples. As the urine based test for EPO wasn't introduced until 2000 and the samples were tested for research purposes, they could not be used by the UCI to ban Armstrong.

From personal experience I can tell you that catching someone doping with EPO is not easy. In some cases (pre 2009), using a series of small injections (microdosing), the detection window for a positive test can be as low as 12 hours.

That was when the WADA guidelines stated that there must be at least 80% of basic isoforms in the sample. The guidelines were changed in 2009 to make the criteria more stringent. Even with these new guidelines it is still difficult to catch cheaters. New forms of recombinant EPO that are nearly identical to human EPO and molecules that mimic EPO but aren't structurally similar make detection more difficult.

I have seen some test's that a trained observer would know that there is recombinant EPO in a sample but because it doesn't satisfy WADA criteria, it has to be passed.

Every time we bring out new technology, there is a new drug or way to avoid detection waiting in the wings. To be honest, I think pro cycling and doping will go hand in hand for years to come.


My 2 cents.

Quorum

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

You do realise it's not that hard to get footballers' bodies, I wouldnt be far off and I only go to the gym two or three times a week.

I'm suddenly reminded of Homer Simpson's snow sculpture of himself as a chiselled God. :pac:

opinion guy

Jerrica wrote: »

When people say 'footballers body' they generally mean of the Christiano Ronaldo kind. Not the chubby Ronaldo kind.

The second one anyone could have. The first is a whole other story and few could successfully achieve. You could do it clean, no problem, but it's generally a lot more difficult than only going to the gym 2/3 times a week (unless you're incredibly gifted genetically).

Rubbish. Go to mainland Europe and most guys walking down the street are closer to the skinny Ronaldo than the chubby one. WE are simply accustomed to fatness in Ireland

SHOVELLER

kfallon wrote: »

He was nothing but a run of the mill team cyclist for years, I remember him getting a Stage victory for the team he rode for the day after one of their cyclists died years ago. Then he got cancer, recovered (fair play to him) and came back as Superman, it was obvious he was on drugs and tbh I'm actually delighted he's been caught. However I can never take cycling serious anymore, it seems to me they are all on something.

He was not a run of the mill team cyclist. At 21 he won the World Championships. Pictures and videos of his performance show a big muscular athlete.

After he recovered from cancer he had slimmed down knowing that his previous build would never help to win major tours.

Also he has a higher than average capacity for oxygen intake.

I'm going against the grain here by saying I still believe him.

Why would a guy who nearly died from cancer knowingly inject himself with cocktails of harmful substances?

Why would a guy with his talent and resources cheat?

Sorry I find it inconceivable that someone who has raised half a billion dollars in the fight against cancer is a cheat.

Anyway I would say Kimmage and Walsh are overjoyed.

Jerrica

opinion guy wrote: »

Rubbish. Got to mainland Europe and most guys walking down the street are closer to the skinny Ronaldo than the chubby one. WE are simply accustomed to fatness in Ireland

Where did I mention Europe? I was addressing a poster here. Go to an Irish gym and how many blokes do you see like Ronaldo there? How many of the guys you hang around with look like that?

Wibbs

peejay01 wrote: »

For anyone that is interested in reading about scientific proof that Lance has doped in the past, read this http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

It's a bit long but very interesting.

It is indeed. Thx for the link and your inside track knowledge too PJ.

I am involved in researching possible new methods in the detection of recombinant EPO in urine and have collaborated with Mike on a project and he saw the positive results for Lances Tour de France 99 samples. As the urine based test for EPO wasn't introduced until 2000 and the samples were tested for research purposes, they could not be used by the UCI to ban Armstrong.

As the chap in the above link put it;

"There is no doubt in my mind these samples contain synthetic EPO, they belong to Lance Armstrong, and there's no conceivable way that I can see that a lab could've spiked them in a way that the data has presented itself. So there is no doubt in my mind he took EPO during the '99 Tour."Emphasis mine. There you have it folks. Never failed my arse. I love how he doesn't usually say "never took drugs", but "never failed a test". Game over Armstrong(and a load of the other top placed riders).

Every time we bring out new technology, there is a new drug or way to avoid detection waiting in the wings. To be honest, I think pro cycling and doping will go hand in hand for years to come.

Ditto, especially among the big tour winners. Among the single stage winners etc I'm quite sure there are clean guys, it's when people are consistently on top I'm very suspicious. Excelling in a one day event is certainly well possible in an all out superhuman effort, but then to come back the next day and do the same 120% effort again? Eh hellooooo?

Quorum

opinion guy wrote: »

Rubbish. Go to mainland Europe and most guys walking down the street are closer to the skinny Ronaldo than the chubby one. WE are simply accustomed to fatness in Ireland

That poster likely was talking about Ireland...
And it's one thing being skinny, it's another being in shape.

opinion guy

Jerrica wrote: »

Where did I mention Europe? I was addressing a poster here. Go to an Irish gym and how many blokes do you see like Ronaldo there? How many of the guys you hang around with look like that?

My point was that in mainland Europe most guys look like that. Its not the momentous doping requiring feat you are making it out to be - the other poster was right.
I was in Paris recently and I felt obese as pretty much everyone on the street looked like skinny Ronaldo. Do you think all of Paris are doping ? No. (Unless you count coffee, cigarettes and cocaine )

Quorum wrote: »

That poster likely was talking about Ireland...
And it's one thing being skinny, it's another being in shape.

It doens't require doping in Ireland to be skinny/built if its common in France Germany etc.

The other poster was correct. It doens't take much effort to be built like a soccer player - most of them are simply skinny and not that built. Go for a dialy run, do some pushups and crunches -don't eat too much lard. No drugs required