Lance Armstrong - about time too! - Page 3

I called it a witch hunt because there's a specific target, Armstrong.  I have no issue with uncovering cheaters, but if EPO was not detectable what's to say that most that ran the races weren't using it, why is Armstrong the only one they constantly mention? 

The reason they are going after Armstrong and not the rest of the racers has more to do with the French and politics than it does with catching cheats. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 

Except the evidence that this is a witch hunt are minimal. The evidence that Lance cheated is strong enough for that. And some of that only goes back to 2010 during his latest comeback so it isn't exaclty old news.  If you feel that getting away with cheating for 10 years is fine and not worth digging up that is ok. Frank Shorter for one seemed pretty happy to learn that he was cheated out of  a gold medal in 76.

 

 

I am betting most of the peloton was using. There is a reason why the pace slowed down since 2005. A couple reasons Armstrong is mentioned.

 1) Armstrong was the winner. That gets you a lot more attention

 2) What other podiums finishers from 1995-2006 should they be investigating? According to  result list only Fernando Escartin, Andreas Kloden,  and Pereiro.  Kloden has been accused of blood doping (but not punished) and Pereiro has a questionable asthma medication history. Now a whole lot of people left to investigate from that time period

Every accused doper claims they are a victim of a witch hunt, that they have passed a zillion tests, people are out to get them, and so on.  Most of them turn out to be guilty. 

Maybe the french have a vendetta against Armstrong. Maybe they just want to set the record straight before the evidence cools totally. AFAIK they have gone after French cyclists just as hard as they have gone after american ones. See Virenque or Luc Leblanc.

Now none of this stuff means Lance is guilty but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence (doping team mates, doping doctor, questionable blood results in 2009/2010) that suggests so. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

I called it a witch hunt because there's a specific target, Armstrong.  I have no issue with uncovering cheaters, but if EPO was not detectable what's to say that most that ran the races weren't using it, why is Armstrong the only one they constantly mention? 

 

The reason they are going after Armstrong and not the rest of the racers has more to do with the French and politics than it does with catching cheats. 

I cant see how he passed thousands of tests if he was on the gear. Typical media just wanna poke holes in anything that seems to god to be true. Not all men are born equal guys we just have to accept that there are some special athletes and people out there!

Lance Armstrong

Michael Jordan

Peyton Manning

Muhammad Ali

The list goes on, the owners of the cycling mags just needed to sell a few more copies!

Are you a troll or a person that doesn't understand how drug testing works?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMarshall 

I cant see how he passed thousands of tests if he was on the gear. Typical media just wanna poke holes in anything that seems to god to be true. Not all men are born equal guys we just have to accept that there are some special athletes and people out there!

 

Lance Armstrong

Michael Jordan

Peyton Manning

Muhammad Ali

 

The list goes on, the owners of the cycling mags just needed to sell a few more copies!

Not a troll, a BASES accredited sports scientist!
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 
So your just clueless on how drug tests work. Drug tests don't come back positive for things they don't test for. Numerous drugs are banned despite the lack of a test for them. See EPO, old school blood doping, and Tetrahydrogestrinone were two very common ones available ones during the Lance years for which the testing was very limited. Who knows what is out there that never gets publicized.

A-ha, got it. They didn't have tests for everything. Therefore the winners must have been doping. Got it.

You are the only one saying that.  I have no clue how you came to that conclusion but it sure wasn't using logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeg 

 

A-ha, got it. They didn't have tests for everything. Therefore the winners must have been doping. Got it.

Cycling is a team event, there's one winner, but the team has to be capable of supporting (keeping up with) the leader up until the final few miles of each leg.  I'd think all of the team mates of Armstrong need to be tested as do the teams that finished in 2nd and 3rd place. 

You may not wish to see it as a witch hunt, but when they investigate only Armstrong, it's hard not to think it's anything else but a witch hunt given how many tests Armstrong has already passed. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 

I am betting most of the peloton was using. There is a reason why the pace slowed down since 2005. A couple reasons Armstrong is mentioned.

 1) Armstrong was the winner. That gets you a lot more attention

 2) What other podiums finishers from 1995-2006 should they be investigating? According to  result list only Fernando Escartin, Andreas Kloden,  and Pereiro.  Kloden has been accused of blood doping (but not punished) and Pereiro has a questionable asthma medication history. Now a whole lot of people left to investigate from that time period

 

Every accused doper claims they are a victim of a witch hunt, that they have passed a zillion tests, people are out to get them, and so on.  Most of them turn out to be guilty. 

 

Maybe the french have a vendetta against Armstrong. Maybe they just want to set the record straight before the evidence cools totally. AFAIK they have gone after French cyclists just as hard as they have gone after american ones. See Virenque or Luc Leblanc.

 

Now none of this stuff means Lance is guilty but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence (doping team mates, doping doctor, questionable blood results in 2009/2010) that suggests so. 

 

I guess I just don't understand the point of investigating things that happened *that* long ago.  I especially don't think it's something taxpayer dollars should be spent on unless there's some REALLY good reason for it.  And in this case, and the case of the long running case against Barry Bonds and more recently Roger Clemens, I just never saw the point.  Put the effort into cleaning up going forward, and give up the rest.  It's ridiculous, IMHO, to bother digging back this far, especially when it should be painfully obvious to just about everyone that it really was a rampant problem in the sport and not something isolated.  *shrug*

--Donnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 

You are the only one saying that.  I have no clue how you came to that conclusion but it sure wasn't using logic.

I was mocking you because your previous response was obnoxious. Is that clearer?

I understand how doping works and i agree with your point that tests have to be specific to the stimulant that they are testing for, however i find it hard to believe that Landis etc are opening their mouths on the subject now. If i was involved in a sport where i had seen a compeititor doping or leaving bathrooms with stimulant based material why would i not bring it up straght away so intense testing can take place and their will be more evidence available.

Just seems like sour grapes, if you know something wrong is going on you dont wait years to open your mouth and expect people to take you statements at face value!
 

Landis wouldn't talk back then because he was doping right along with the rest of the team. His choice was to lose his career or stay silent. You can go through a lot of examples where things get covered up for a long period of time. See Penn State for example.

If it was only Landis talking, then yeah you can ignore him. Just like we ignored Canseco for years (even though he was more or less right). But supposedly there are 10 cyclists and other support team members that have also given testimony. Plus the lab tests from 2009+2010 that suggested blood irregularity. What exactly they said hasn't been published yet but that seems a like a lot of people for them all to be lying. If a guy like George Hincapie (who as far as I know never test positive) is really willing to admit to doing EPO with Lance, I have to figure there something there for a guy to taint his whole career.  Maybe 1 or 2 guys fold under pressure and admit to something they didn't do but to get 10+ seems like a stretch to me. This case is actually more than just getting Lance. It is also to shut down the team (coaches and doctors) so they no longer participate in cycling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMarshall 

I understand how doping works and i agree with your point that tests have to be specific to the stimulant that they are testing for, however i find it hard to believe that Landis etc are opening their mouths on the subject now. If i was involved in a sport where i had seen a compeititor doping or leaving bathrooms with stimulant based material why would i not bring it up straght away so intense testing can take place and their will be more evidence available.

 

Just seems like sour grapes, if you know something wrong is going on you dont wait years to open your mouth and expect people to take you statements at face value!
 

Fair point mate, well if it does run that deep then then everyone involved need's naming and punishing accordingly. I believe out of season testing needs implementing into more sports so that more drugs cheats can be uncovered and make more sporting codes cleaner.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 

Landis wouldn't talk back then because he was doping right along with the rest of the team. His choice was to lose his career or stay silent. You can go through a lot of examples where things get covered up for a long period of time. See Penn State for example.

 

If it was only Landis talking, then yeah you can ignore him. Just like we ignored Canseco for years (even though he was more or less right). But supposedly there are 10 cyclists and other support team members that have also given testimony. Plus the lab tests from 2009+2010 that suggested blood irregularity. What exactly they said hasn't been published yet but that seems a like a lot of people for them all to be lying. If a guy like George Hincapie (who as far as I know never test positive) is really willing to admit to doing EPO with Lance, I have to figure there something there for a guy to taint his whole career.  Maybe 1 or 2 guys fold under pressure and admit to something they didn't do but to get 10+ seems like a stretch to me. This case is actually more than just getting Lance. It is also to shut down the team (coaches and doctors) so they no longer participate in cycling.

 

 

Assuming you are correct, and knowing that prosecutors have basically given up on anything *criminal* here, do you think this kind of thing is worth spending YOUR taxpayer dollars to police and enforce?  This is the part *I* don't get.  Especially since it can be kind of arbitrary what other countries do with respect to THEIR athletes and thus the playing field still isn't completely level.

--Donnie

I am not in favor of any tax payer  money for sports (that includes college sport subsidies. There should be no deductions for donating a stadium) but I can think of a lot worse uses of 10 million dollars though.  Assuming there is a USADA(funded either privately or publicly), I have no problems with the people doing there job. It isn't like Lance is retired either. He was trying to be a top level ironman guy.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by djbarnes 

 

Assuming you are correct, and knowing that prosecutors have basically given up on anything *criminal* here, do you think this kind of thing is worth spending YOUR taxpayer dollars to police and enforce?  This is the part *I* don't get.  Especially since it can be kind of arbitrary what other countries do with respect to THEIR athletes and thus the playing field still isn't completely level.

 

 

--Donnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 

I am not in favor of any tax payer  money for sports (that includes college sport subsidies. There should be no deductions for donating a stadium) but I can think of a lot worse uses of 10 million dollars though.  Assuming there is a USADA(funded either privately or publicly), I have no problems with the people doing there job. It isn't like Lance is retired either. He was trying to be a top level ironman guy.  

 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  You're not in favor of it, but you're still okay with it somehow?

And going from the top cyclist in the world to "trying to be a top level ironman guy", even if he made it to *the* top, is kind of like Jimmy Johnson quitting NASCAR and spending his time racing in Grand-Am GT.  Sure, you still make money, but it's nothing you're going to *get* rich on, it's just enough to get by for most people.  He just happens to not need to do it for the money.  Same with Lance.  There aren't even ten triathlon pros in the world who make enough money to support a family.  Lance doing Ironman is definitely better for Ironman than it is for Lance, in fact.

And trust me on this, the fact that the WTC has a rule in place that keeps him from competing due to the USADA investigation will not be in place next year.  They're not going to change it mid-year, so he may not be eligible to compete until this investigation is over -or- the end of the year arrives, but he'll be back in Ironman next year if he chooses to be.

--Donnie

I am saying the 10 million dollars is going to the usada if they investigate lance or not. Given they have the money, I have no problem with them doing their job.

Lance winning the ironman would be worth several million dollars. Ignore the prize money and think of how much getting back in the public eye would mean in terms of endorsement deals. Given that very few endorsement deals are made public, I have no way of telling how many triathletes are making a good living at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djbarnes 

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  You're not in favor of it, but you're still okay with it somehow?

 

And going from the top cyclist in the world to "trying to be a top level ironman guy", even if he made it to *the* top, is kind of like Jimmy Johnson quitting NASCAR and spending his time racing in Grand-Am GT.  Sure, you still make money, but it's nothing you're going to *get* rich on, it's just enough to get by for most people.  He just happens to not need to do it for the money.  Same with Lance.  There aren't even ten triathlon pros in the world who make enough money to support a family.  Lance doing Ironman is definitely better for Ironman than it is for Lance, in fact.

 

And trust me on this, the fact that the WTC has a rule in place that keeps him from competing due to the USADA investigation will not be in place next year.  They're not going to change it mid-year, so he may not be eligible to compete until this investigation is over -or- the end of the year arrives, but he'll be back in Ironman next year if he chooses to be.

 

 

--Donnie