HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Doping agency claims 'ove...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 11:57 AM

Doping agency claims 'overwhelming' proof of cheating by cyclist Armstrong

Source: NBC News

American cyclist Lance Armstrong was part of “the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen,” the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency said Wednesday in advance of issuing its long-awaited report detailing the evidence it amassed against the seven-time Tour de France champion.

In a news release announcing the evidence behind its decision, which it will send to other bodies that oversee the sport of cycling, the USADA said that Armstrong was part of an orchestrated cheating campaign run by the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team.

It said that evidence of the scheme "is overwhelming," and includes "sworn testimony from 23 people, including 12 former members of the US Postal Service Team (U.S.P.S. Team) with knowledge of the USPS Team’s doping activities, and Lance Armstrong’s use, possession and distribution of dangerous performance-enhancing drugs in violation of sport rules."

It also includes "direct documentary evidence, including financial payments, emails, scientific data and laboratory test results that further prove doping by Lance Armstrong and confirm the disappointing truth about the deceptive activities of the USPS Team, a team that received tens of millions of American taxpayer dollars in funding," the agency said.

Read more: http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/10/14342522-doping-agency-claims-overwhelming-proof-of-cheating-by-cyclist-armstrong?lite

94 replies, 10547 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 94 replies Author Time Post
Reply Doping agency claims 'overwhelming' proof of cheating by cyclist Armstrong (Original post)
IDemo Oct 2012 OP
cliffordu Oct 2012 #1
MADem Oct 2012 #2
madokie Oct 2012 #76
slackmaster Oct 2012 #3
RobinA Oct 2012 #44
closeupready Oct 2012 #4
IDemo Oct 2012 #8
closeupready Oct 2012 #12
glinda Oct 2012 #17
wtmusic Oct 2012 #30
sharp_stick Oct 2012 #5
HuckleB Oct 2012 #21
taught_me_patience Oct 2012 #38
psychopomp Oct 2012 #92
wtmusic Oct 2012 #93
taught_me_patience Oct 2012 #94
Andy Stanton Oct 2012 #6
byeya Oct 2012 #20
adigal Oct 2012 #7
hockeynut57 Oct 2012 #9
just1voice Oct 2012 #74
groundloop Oct 2012 #10
AndyTiedye Oct 2012 #25
Missycim Oct 2012 #34
wtmusic Oct 2012 #46
Blue_Tires Oct 2012 #83
Orrex Oct 2012 #11
brush Oct 2012 #27
BlueMTexpat Oct 2012 #13
OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #14
BlueMTexpat Oct 2012 #16
truebrit71 Oct 2012 #19
Andy Stanton Oct 2012 #23
JudyM Oct 2012 #24
wtmusic Oct 2012 #33
Missycim Oct 2012 #35
wtmusic Oct 2012 #45
truebrit71 Oct 2012 #48
wtmusic Oct 2012 #49
arely staircase Oct 2012 #67
wtmusic Oct 2012 #77
arely staircase Oct 2012 #78
wtmusic Oct 2012 #79
arely staircase Oct 2012 #81
wtmusic Oct 2012 #82
arely staircase Oct 2012 #84
wtmusic Oct 2012 #85
arely staircase Oct 2012 #86
wtmusic Oct 2012 #87
arely staircase Oct 2012 #88
wtmusic Oct 2012 #89
arely staircase Oct 2012 #90
wtmusic Oct 2012 #91
frylock Oct 2012 #63
snooper2 Oct 2012 #22
uppityperson Oct 2012 #18
wtmusic Oct 2012 #31
Blasphemer Oct 2012 #70
DotGone Oct 2012 #71
wtmusic Oct 2012 #80
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #53
DanTex Oct 2012 #57
Myrina Oct 2012 #15
LiberalLovinLug Oct 2012 #26
wtmusic Oct 2012 #32
toby jo Oct 2012 #28
humblebum Oct 2012 #29
wtmusic Oct 2012 #41
truebrit71 Oct 2012 #50
wtmusic Oct 2012 #54
truebrit71 Oct 2012 #59
wtmusic Oct 2012 #61
DanTex Oct 2012 #62
DotGone Oct 2012 #65
Missycim Oct 2012 #36
ManiacJoe Oct 2012 #37
wtmusic Oct 2012 #42
ManiacJoe Oct 2012 #69
Ash_F Oct 2012 #39
wtmusic Oct 2012 #43
Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #40
truebrit71 Oct 2012 #51
Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #55
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Oct 2012 #73
Javaman Oct 2012 #47
GeorgeGist Oct 2012 #52
truebrit71 Oct 2012 #60
elbloggoZY27 Oct 2012 #56
Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #72
wtmusic Oct 2012 #58
DanTex Oct 2012 #64
DotGone Oct 2012 #66
LineLineLineNew Reply .
ManiacJoe Oct 2012 #68
lovemydog Oct 2012 #75

Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:01 PM

1. Color me shocked

Shocked, I say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:01 PM

2. Well, that kind of puts a nail that whole "Livestrong" stuff.

I'll bet Sheryl Crow feels like she dodged an enormous bullet!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 09:53 PM

76. It validates what I've been saying all these years to friends

No way could Lance Armstrong win 7 times, no way. The first one maybe but the rest, hardly. I question all of his wins though and have since the first win. Just something about him wasn't right and generally where there is smoke there is fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:01 PM

3. Grant us mercy

 

'Cause all our heroes are bastards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:00 PM

44. Yep

"The highway's jammed with broken heros." Truly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:03 PM

4. Are there allegations of crimes?

I mean, doping is cheating, but is it illegal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:11 PM

8. Looks like the Feds closed their case against him last February

I don't know whether this would encourage them to re-open it, but my sense is it's highly doubtful.

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/7538482/federal-prosecutors-close-lance-armstrong-doping-case-press-charges

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:16 PM

12. Okay, thanks.

You're right - unless there is any new information that was discovered, it's probably unlikely they'll re-open it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #12)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:41 PM

17. Again another "rehashed scandal of doping in sports" occurring as diversion during political

Season.
I am not surprised. Only that people haven't noticed the pattern before.
Even if there is any truth in anything about any of this, I think it should be dropped at least during election times or at best not used to divert attention from issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:27 PM

30. Why they closed it is controversial.

"According to reports sources within the FBI, the FDA, and the U.S. Posal Service were 'shocked, surprised, and angered' at the unexplained closure. One source said 'there were no weaknesses in the case.' ESPN reported that prosecutors had prepared a written recommendation to indict Armstrong and others. A source close to the investigation said Sheryl Crow had been a 'star witness'. Crow did not respond to interview requests.

Four possible factors behind (U.S. Attorney André) Birotte's decision to close the case:

1. Birotte, who'd been appointed just 11 months before, wanted to protect President Obama from the potentially ugly spectacle of indicting an American hero during an election year.

...

3. Birotte was wary of the cancer lobby. A controversy had recently erupted when the Susan G. Komen Foundation withdrew $700,000 in funding for Planned Parenthood for what appeared to be pressure from the political right...On Friday, February 3, the same day the case was dropped, the Lance Armstrong Foundation donated $100,000 to Planned Parenthood to fill the funding gap, providing a clear signal of the LAF's support of the Obama administration's stance on reproductive rights, as well as a connection to the millions of women who objected to the Komen Foundation's decision."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021303889

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:05 PM

5. That entire sport is corrupt

beyond belief. I'd be surprised if there was anyone in the last 20 years or so that actually finished in the top 25% without some form of "enhancement"

The only difference between this sport and the former East German olympic teams is that the cycling world had to work harder to pretend they were clean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 01:07 PM

21. It's hard to imagine any sport that isn't corrupt when it comes to PEDs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:51 PM

38. I'd be surprised if any rider in the pro peleton was NOT doping

Especially between 1990-2005. In the nineties, there was no test for EPO... and phenomenal riders like Greg Lemond were getting blown out the back of the peleton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #38)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 10:25 AM

92. Could you say a little more about that...

last sentence, with regard to "Greg Lemond were getting blown out the back of the peleton." I thought that the back of the peleton was the sweet spot. If I get it right, you mean Lemond was unable to keep up with the peleton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to psychopomp (Reply #92)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 01:12 PM

93. The back of the peloton is seldom the best place to be, for several reasons

1) The peloton tends to flex like a huge rubber band, and riders at the back are continually forced to speed up/slow down at the mercy of riders in front
2) In quick accelerations you can get dropped off the back. The inability to get back "on" can sometimes be a race-ender.
3) You're much more likely to get taken down in a crash.

LeMond, Andy Hampsten, Scott Mercier...there were hundreds of riders that quit rather than dope and simply could no longer compete. Riders like Lance ended their careers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to psychopomp (Reply #92)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 01:28 PM

94. It's also known as getting dropped

When the rider falls out of the slipstream of the peloton (due to fatigue or bike malfunction) and cannot get back in. While the Peloton can maintain 50km/hr over long distances, a solo rider will struggle to maintain 40km/hr... and huge time is lost.

Look at Lemond's tour results in 1990:
1 Greg LeMond (USA) Z 90h 43' 20"
2 Claudio Chiappucci (ITA) Carrera Jeans-Vagabond +2' 16"
3 Erik Breukink (NED) PDM +2' 29"
4 Pedro Delgado (ESP) Banesto +5' 01"
5 Marino Lejarreta (ESP) ONCE +5' 05"
6 Eduardo Chozas (ESP) ONCE +9' 14"
7 Gianni Bugno (ITA) Chateau d'Ax +9' 39"
8 Raúl Alcalá (MEX) PDM +11' 14"
9 Claude Criquielion (BEL) Lotto-Superclub +12' 04"
10 Miguel Indurain (ESP) Banesto +12' 47"

1991, is when it's believed that EPO was introduced into cycling:
Rank Name Team Time
1 Miguel Indurain (ESP) Banesto 101h 01' 20"
2 Gianni Bugno (ITA) Gatorade-Chateau d'Ax +3' 36"
3 Claudio Chiappucci (ITA) Carrera +5' 56"
4 Charly Mottet (FRA) RMO +7' 37"
5 Luc Leblanc (FRA) Castorama +10' 10"
6 Laurent Fignon (FRA) Castorama +11' 27"
7 Greg LeMond (USA) Z +13' 13"

Lemond was in good form for the 1991 tour and expected to win. Yet, he was 10 minutes back of guys he beat by 10 minutes just the year before. By 1992, Lemond could not even keep up with the peloton and had to withdraw from the race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:06 PM

6. So much for "Armstrong is being persecuted"

I was really getting sick of that garbage. He's a cheater, a liar and a fraud and will always be remembered as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Andy Stanton (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 01:05 PM

20. Agree with you 100%. A sactimonious cheat getting rich by subverting the system.

 

It's good the truth has finally come out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:10 PM

7. He is very wealthy - the Govt should sue him for their funding back

Sue the whole damn team of cheaters!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:13 PM

9. really?

where can i get some? as a 55 y/o playing in a league where my fellow players are often younger than my kids, i could use a little performance enhancement . just ask my teammates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hockeynut57 (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 09:48 PM

74. Just ask your doctor, if you don't mind strokes, heart attack, seizures and risk of fatality

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:16 PM

10. Once Armstrong agreed to accept all sanctions I figured something like this would come out.

I'm guessing that once he was presented with the evidence that USADA had he realized that any further legal battles would be a waste of time.

Oh, and I believe NBC News made an error. Armstrong is no longer "the seven-time Tour de France champion", he's already been stripped of those victories hasn't he? In any case it's damned sad that myself and my kids cheered for a cheater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 01:50 PM

25. The TDF Has a Problem

If they take away Armstrong's championships, to whom do they award them?
Nearly all of the runners-up are admitted and/or convicted dopers too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyTiedye (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:40 PM

34. If all used dope then didn't he win the awards fair and sqare?

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #34)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:04 PM

46. No

What it did was to make it so the people with the best doctors, the best dope, and the best resources to hide it all had a massive advantage.

That was Lance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:41 PM

83. Yeah, I called it then, too

I had a feeling he was trying to stay one step ahead of the tidal wave...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:16 PM

11. That kind of outrageous dishonesty takes...

Well, a lot of nerve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 02:26 PM

27. Yep!

Where have we seen that kind of dishonesty before in politics? Huh, let's see . . . sounds kind of familiar. Wait, wait, it's coming to me . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:18 PM

13. Well, the problem is that the tests that were administered to Armstrong

at the time did not test positive. The teammates that have provided the most damaging testimony against Armstrong did test positive at the time.

There is a lot of controversy whether after the fact "sworn testimony" which was seen by many here in Europe (I live in Switzerland) and even some in the US to have been coerced should trump actual and contemporaneous test results that were performed under controlled conditions that were the same for all players.

Which should it be? I'm not advocating either way.

But it's not quite as black and white as the US doping agency would like to make it seem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:25 PM

14. More than 500 tests for doping...none of them came back positive. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:27 PM

16. Exactly. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #16)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:58 PM

19. Yup.

Never failed a drug test, testimony from two admitted liars, and who knows WHAT the USADA threatened the other guys with if they DIDN'T hear what they wanted to hear, and STILL no proof that he was doping...

But sure, HE'S the fraud here..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 01:27 PM

23. It's not only testimony

of 23 witnesses but documentary evidence as well.

"The evidence also includes direct documentary evidence including financial payments, emails, scientific data and laboratory test results that further prove the use, possession and distribution of performance enhancing drugs by Lance Armstrong and confirm the disappointing truth about the deceptive activities of the USPS Team, a team that received tens of millions of American taxpayer dollars in funding,"

It was a massive cover up.

That Armstrong passed drug tests means nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Andy Stanton (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 01:41 PM

24. Why does it "mean nothing" that Armstrong passed all those drug tests? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #24)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:38 PM

33. Armstrong, like all Tour riders, made a science out of beating the system

Even with the best resources and doctors, however, there's strong evidence he did get "popped" for EPO and bribed his way out of it.

Lance brought a HUGE amount of money into pro cycling. That created a similarly huge incentive to "keep him innocent" - even if he wasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #33)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:42 PM

35. I knew way before this happened that they'd get him on something

 

they French never forgave him for winning all those tour's

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #35)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:01 PM

45. This is an American prosecution

Lance is, and was, a helluva cyclist. But the main reason he won all those Tours is he was an even better cheater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #45)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:26 PM

48. Here let me fix that for you ..."This is an American presecution"...

...threats, blackmail, extortion...this isn't justice, this is a witch-hunt..always has been...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to wtmusic (Reply #45)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 07:46 PM

67. there is no american prosecution

what in god's name are you talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #67)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:16 PM

77. Prosecution by an American agency

which is important.

If any foreign organization had prosecuted him it would have been dismissed as a rival nation's jealousy. Tyler Hamilton says as much in his book, The Secret Race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #77)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:19 PM

78. there is no such thing

prosecution is the function of a prosecutor after one has been indicted by a grand jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #78)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:21 PM

79. Did you get a law degree from the back of a magazine?

Prosecutors only face grand juries, do they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #79)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:32 PM

81. no they only prosecute those indicted by them

like a said in the post you didn't understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #81)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:40 PM

82. There are liars and cheats from evey state

but Lance's lies are as big as his state is wide.

Does that touch a nerve?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #82)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:42 PM

84. no but

people who think a report by an agency is a prosecution tickle my funnybone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #84)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:44 PM

85. Then maybe your need to tickle your brainbone a little

"pros·e·cute

2. to follow up or carry forward something undertaken or begun, usually to its completion: to prosecute a war. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prosecute

This silly parsing business, that sounds like Lance when he claims to ride "clean". Maybe you understood what he meant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #85)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:47 PM

86. and not even that definition works

too funny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #86)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:47 PM

87. OK

sorry about your hero

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #87)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:52 PM

88. i am the fan of nobody's ability to ride a bicycle

i don't give two sh*ts about it. next to nascar, it is about the most boring thing i can think of. i'd rather watch flies f* or respond to your hillarity - the funniest part being that you think i do care about lance armstrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #88)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:55 PM

89. I guess you cared enough to click on this thread.

You know, denial plays a large part in Lance's life.

Although I don't believe that's necessarily a Texas trait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #89)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 11:01 PM

90. maybe you should read more slowly or something

it couldn't hurt.

i have not expressed one opinion about a dude in spandex riding a bicycle, only the ignorant misuse of the word prosecute.

and your texan baiting is cute, but completely ineffectual - like your reading comprehension.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #90)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 11:10 PM

91. From the person who first believed a prosecution required a grand jury

then an indictment.

Strike two. Wanna take another stab?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 06:03 PM

63. yep, everybody but lance is lying..

and lance beat everyone that was doping. that's the story you want to go with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 01:09 PM

22. I guess the hundreds of pages of evidence will explain how he beat the system..

Nobody ever said he was stupid!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:43 PM

18. Thank you for that. I appreciate another viewpoint and opinion on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:31 PM

31. There is strong evidence that Armstrong tested positive for EPO in 1999

and another time for corticosteroids - and hushed the results by contributing $125,000 to the UCI, cycling's international regulatory agency.

This will all come out in the wash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 08:44 PM

70. In that case, that's the REAL story that needs to come out

Right or wrong, many athletes have gotten away with doping despite being tested. I don't condone it but given how commonplace it is, I don't know how I feel about stripping athletes of medals/victories without a positive test. However, if money was paid to hide test results, that's a very different kettle of fish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 09:00 PM

71. You have the years backwards

He tested positive for corticosteroids in 1999 and got an inexplicable pass when a TUE was granted with a backdated doctor's note. There was no EPO test in 1999 which is why the researchers tested 1999 samples for EPO in 2005 and hence Lance's B samples came back positive. Allegedly, he tested positive for EPO in 2001 at the Tour de Suisse and he "donated" $125K to the UCI to make it go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DotGone (Reply #71)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:30 PM

80. yes, thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:36 PM

53. Thanks for the information!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 05:34 PM

57. It is pretty black and white at this point.

USADA has 26 eyewitnesses, including 11 former teammates of Armstrong. Two of them -- Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton -- had tested positive. The rest did not, including respected riders with clean records like George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde, etc. It's pretty much a who's who of US pro cycling for the last 10-15 years. And, contrary to what Armstrong's lawyers have been saying, there is zero evidence of ay kind of extortion or coercion.

The fact that Lance Armstrong didn't test positive proves absolutely nothing, primarily because the testing was full of holes and easy to beat for a sophisticated doping program like Armstrong and USPS had. A lot of dopers (e.g. Ullrich, Basso) never tested positive, and only got busted by other means, and even the guys who did test positive (e.g. Landis, Hamilton) only did after years of successfully beating the tests.

For example, at the start of Armstrong's career, there was no test for EPO. Which means that, obviously, testing negative proves nothing about EPO use. They also didn't used to test in the off season. That means Armstrong could have taken anything he wanted during training, without testing positive. Throughout Armstrong's career, there was never a test for blood doping, which again means that none of Armstrong's blood transfusions would ever have triggered any positive test. And so on.

It's also not true that Armstrong never tested positive. At the very least, he tested positive for cortisone in the '99 Tour, but was allowed to slide, and also his urine samples later tested positive for EPO. So that's two positive tests, at least. It's true that Armstrong never was sanctioned for doping (prior to this), but it's not true that he never tested positive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:26 PM

15. The Postal Service is doping?

Wait, whuu? If that were the case, my mail would get delivered a helluva lot faster ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 02:25 PM

26. Ever since he lent his "good name" to HeWhoShallNotBeNamed

I've been a little suspicious.

The company of cheaters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:32 PM

32. He also hired Karl Rove's legal team to defend him nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 02:35 PM

28. He must've been using masking agents

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 02:39 PM

29. It appears to me that the only totally objective proof here is that

 

500 banned substance tests came back negative. That fact in itself should lead those in charge to question the credibility of a system that can rely only on subjective evidence. The evidence against the USADA is more overwhelming than against Armstrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:56 PM

41. You might want to read the actual report and rethink this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:29 PM

50. Yup. Looks like a personal grudge more than anything else...

....So the Feds couldn't indict him, but the head douchebag at the USADA can...Remind me again which of those folks jobs relies SOLELY upon finding athletes guilty of doping?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #50)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:40 PM

54. Have you read the report?

Either you're a very fast reader, or it might be wise to withhold judgement.

You'll have a lot of answering to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #54)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 05:39 PM

59. Nope, and neither have you..

I answer to NO-ONE least of all some anonymous poster on the internet...get over yourself..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #59)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 05:40 PM

61. Defensive much?

Your hero is toast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 05:59 PM

62. Not sure where that 500 number came from. I think Lance just made it up.

Anyway, as I described here, the lack of positive tests means nothing. Lance actually did test positive (at least) twice, but the strongest evidence against him is the 25 eyewitnesses. The tests were pretty easy to beat.

For example, given that there was no test for blood doping at any time during Lance Armstrong's career, it is difficult to argue that passing tests proves he wasn't blood doping. Wouldn't you agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #62)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 07:13 PM

65. The 500 number is an outright lie by Lance, his lawyers, and PR team

Doping controls are public information. If you want to know how many times an athlete has been tested, just head to the doping agency's website and punch in the name. If we're generous, Lance has been tested a little over 200 times. Pretty much the same amount as Marion "I have been tested hundreds of times and never failed a drug test" Jones and the recently admitted doper and Lance's first officer, George Hincapie, who also never failed a drug test. Basically, his entire team who all passed their drug tests, with the exception of Floyd and Tyler, have come out and admitted the team was doped to the gills. So the whole "Never failing a drug test" excuse means nothing. Prior to 2006, there wasn't a reliable test for EPO. Hence the ridiculous power ratios Lance and his contemporaries had. 1990-2005 were dirty, dirty years in the peloton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:43 PM

36. I have read most if not all riders use some kind of juice

 

I say let them all use it so it'll be a fair playing field

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:47 PM

37. Enough of the blah, blah, blah press releases.

Lets see the actual evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to wtmusic (Reply #42)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 08:39 PM

69. Thank you for the link!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:54 PM

39. I don't want to believe.

Armstrong was a hometown hero; I really looked up to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #39)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:59 PM

43. You and millions of others.

A sad day, with the silver lining that justice may finally have been served.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:55 PM

40. Sworn testimony from 23 people = case closed.

Maybe one or two disgruntled former associates could conceivably lie. But there is no way in hell 23 people got together and agreed to frame Armstrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #40)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:31 PM

51. Maybe not, but at least two are known liars...

...and the others were extorted or threatened for their "testimony"....'Do as we say or we will implicate YOU as well...'

Yup, that sounds fair...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #51)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:54 PM

55. I don't think they were somehow able to persuade 23 people to commit perjury.

Anyway, read the report. It is devastating, and the evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #51)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 09:34 PM

73. Way more than two.

If one reads the report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:08 PM

47. Meh...

I would be more surprised if they ran a headline that read, "Athlete (fill in your fav) cleared of all charges of doping. Nothing found in system".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:36 PM

52. He's a Republican

SOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #52)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 05:40 PM

60. Nope.

Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 05:25 PM

56. What A Bunch of !!!!!!!!!!!

 

Maybe overwhelming, but the truth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My question to the USADA is: How come you are the only Agency with the so called overwhelming evidence.


When it comes to sex and drug scandals I believe very little of this so called overwhelming evidence.


My case in point is a parent of a young child was accused and charged with her heinous murder in Illinois and was completely exonerated when the real killer was charged and found guilty. The father received a huge award for a wrongful conviction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elbloggoZY27 (Reply #56)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 09:22 PM

72. Did 23 people perjure themselves and testify against the innocent guy? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 05:38 PM

58. Instant cure for Lance holdouts:

Read some of the accounts of Lance threatening family of other team members (for example, Levi Leipheimer affidavit)

http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/

Lance is a megalomaniacal prick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 06:08 PM

64. Update: Armstrong paid Dr Michele Ferrari over $1 Million over his career.

Based on bank records obtained by USADA:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-lance-armstrong-paid-ferrari-more-than-dollar-1-million

Ferrari, of course, is the notorious doctor known for involvement with doping, and who once famously asserted that EPO was no more dangerous than orange juice. I wonder what excuse the Armstrong PR team will come up with for this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #64)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 07:18 PM

66. Michele "Doping is not cheating unless you get caught" Ferrari

Wasn't that quote attributed to him? Then again, his clients rarely if ever cheated since he was the best in the business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DotGone (Reply #66)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 08:22 PM

68. .

wrong place...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #64)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 09:48 PM

75. They've come up with a lot of excuses already:

'blame the french!'
'government vendetta!'
'only one side of the story!'
'cancer research!'
'buy my bracelets!'
'it's not about the bike!'

It's about time they stfu.

He's guilty as hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread