A Very Bad Morning For Lance


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:53 pm

Editing grammar, fixing typos, correcting spelling . . . these are all good things. We all make mistakes of that sort, and none of us should hesitate to edit our posts when we see that what we've written is not up to the standards that we set for ourselves.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:08 pm

tandfman wrote:Editing grammar, fixing typos, correcting spelling . . . these are all good things. We all make mistakes of that sort, and none of us should hesitate to edit our posts when we see that what we've written is not up to the standards that we set for ourselves.

Waht deos it mtater wehn the eye olny lokos at the frist and lsat lteter?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21078
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:27 pm

Steroids have not been the mainstay of the peloton, it has been more blood doping and EPO. I as sure that steroids helped for recovery, but it was my general impression that steroids were more easily detected unless the dosage was pretty modest.

Given that the cancer had been in place for a while (again, impression, not certain) but the condition had been ignored for a while) and that the main doping with Armstrong is in the 1997 to 2005 time frame, there does not seem to be the type of extended and continual usage that would lead to it 'causing' the cancer. If it was that likely for the amount of use that Armstrong had, then there would be an epidemic. Maybe it made the likelihood jump from 1% to 1.25%, but not 1% to 50%. And, given that it is more likely to get cancer a second time than the first, the very substantial and continual usage later would then been more likely to kick in a second variant.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:26 am

Eddie Merckx continues to bury his head in the sand.
Merckx reserved particular anger for Armstrong’s comment that it would have been impossible to win the Tour de France without doping, opining that it cast a pall over Armstrong’s contemporaries and Tour winners over the past 110 years.

“It’s a scandal for the other riders, the other winners, to affirm that. It’s so easy and hypocritical,” Merckx said. “The Armstrong era was hard for cycling, it came after the Festina Affair, there was EPO etc. but that’s no reason to say that you can’t win the Tour without doping.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/merckx- ... confession

Meanwhile, Johan Bruyneel is in the crosshairs of the Belgian cycling authorities.

Former team manager for Lance Armstrong, Johan Bruyneel, is reportedly ready to cooperate with investigators from the Royal Belgian Cycling Federation (RLVB), according to Het Laatste Nieuws.

The RLVB has been looking into allegations that Bruyneel helped to facilitate an organized doping scheme in the US Postal Service team since Floyd Landis first went public with his accusations to that effect in 2010. The charges were forwarded on to the federal prosecutor last October.

Following the confession of Armstrong to doping during all seven of his Tour de France victories, the RLVB is seeking to move forward its investigation to determine if Bruyneel violated its anti-doping regulations.

"We invited Bruyneel to come in," said federal prsecutor Jaak Fransen on Friday. "He said he is formally prepared to cooperate in the investigation, but because he is often abroad the interrogation has not taken place. . . . . .

Other reports in De Telegraaf state that Bruyneel is working on a book that will tell his side of the US Postal story, and that he is still planning to go forward with his arbitration with the US Anti-Doping Agency, which has proposed a lifetime ban from the sport for the Belgian.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruynee ... estigators

Does USADA have the authority to ban foreign athletes and coaches too?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:45 am

Thomas Dekker says that doping was a way of life at Rabobank.
Thomas Dekker has shed further light on the doping culture that existed at Rabobank during his spell at the team from 2004 to 2008. The Dutchman, who previously served a two-year ban for testing positive for EPO, has now confessed to also undergoing blood transfusions during his time at Rabobank.

“It was easy to be influenced, doping was widespread,” Dekker told NRC Handelsblad, saying that he began using EPO in 2006.

In May of last year, former Rabobank manager Theo De Rooy already admitted that doping was tolerated on the team until 2007 and the Dutch bank withdrew from sponsorship at the end of the 2012 season. The team continues under the guise of Blanco Pro Cycling in 2013, albeit without a title sponsor and with alterations to its management structure.

Dekker, who now rides for Garmin-Sharp after returning from suspension in late 2011, said that doping was simply an endemic part of the culture in the Rabobank set-up of the time.

“They should have told me to be patient and to stay clear of doping, but that wasn’t the case,” he said. “There was no dissenting voice. Doping was a way of life and a way of riding for many teammates, colleagues and me, too. Doping was part of the job – it’s hard, you train hard and you do everything for the bike.”

As well as using EPO, Dekker explained that a member of the team’s management had put him in contact with “a man who carried out blood transfusions,” and he said he received transfusions on three occasions.

“I thought it was the way to success, all the big riders were doing it,” Dekker said. “I received a blood bag three times. With doping, you can have everything, but in fact you’re left with nothing afterwards.”

As well as Dekker’s confession, the NRC Handelsblad report includes information from an unnamed former Rabobank rider, who says that EPO was first used by a majority of the team’s riders at the 1996 Tour de France.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/doping- ... mas-dekker

The stories of all the riders who have talked mesh together pretty well, and that is that EPO first appeared on the scene around 1993 or 1994, and that by 1996, practically the entire peleton was using it via team doctors. It's also likely that LeMond never used it since he retired at the beginning of the EPO era.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:02 am

casting no aspersions at all on LeMond, but from where I sit, to use the name of any Tour rider (at least a successful one) at this point in conjunction with "likely never used" is close to an oxymoron.
gh
 
Posts: 46299
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:23 am

gh wrote:casting no aspersions at all on LeMond, but from where I sit, to use the name of any Tour rider (at least a successful one) at this point in conjunction with "likely never used" is close to an oxymoron.


No, I think jazzy is right here, since he was referring to LeMond and EPO only. EPO was not really available until the late 1980s and its effects weren't really known until the early 1990s. As stated in a post yesterday, I would be surprised if LeMond didn't do some stimulants and/or amphetamines in his era, however, but that was about that was available to the cyclists prior to the 1990s.
bambam
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:31 am

Pego wrote:This is my view of the Lance Armstrong situation.

1. LA is an overbearing bufoon with little regard for civilized behavior.

2. He won fair and square since he did not do anything that all of his competitors did not. That applies to Le Tour as well as the OG's.

3. Singling out LA as an "example" is a crying shame. IOC in particular. Stripping him of a bronze medal 13 years after the fact while leaving gold and silver medalists, also known dopers intact is a joke.


Been gone on vacation and missed these interviews and discussion. Bad week to be gone I guess.

I disagree with the premise that because "everyone was doing it" that Lance would have won if they were all clean. I have read plenty in which this topic has been discussed by the science and medical folks who say this is likely not true. When looking at natural blood values like Hematocrit levels occurring naturally and the rate these values decline over the course of 3 weeks from what I have heard and read Armstrong was average at best. Therefore, he benefited more from the cocktail of drugs he was taking than someone else might. Someone who is more "gifted" with the naturally occurring blood levels and an ability to recover more quickly from the stresses of the race quite possibly would have been ahead. We will never know who those people were because of this so-called "level playing field" theory.

Lance's performances in his first few TDF's were miserable. His performed horribly as a GC rider. Contrast that with someone like Greg Lemond, who finished 3rd in his first tour, 2nd in his second in a race he likely wins with teammate help, and then wins it in his third try. Other young cyclists in recent years have shown propensity for doing well over a 3 week race.

My belief is that EPO and testosterone and other steroids made guys who traditionally never would be able to compete as GC contenders be able to do so. I am more likely to believe that Lance wins zero tours than anywhere near 7 with a CLEAN "level playing field".
Last edited by odelltrclan on Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:35 am

gh wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Does Track & Field News have a facebook page that I'm unaware of?


apparently you've never noticed the link front and center on the home page.

Twitter too.


I had "liked" a T&FN link several years ago. It is a page that seems to be an excerpt from Wikipedia describing the magazine. Don't know if you put that page on or not. So all this time I never had a clue you guys had an active Facebook page until now!, and I have been a regular Facebook user.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:39 am

bambam wrote:
gh wrote:casting no aspersions at all on LeMond, but from where I sit, to use the name of any Tour rider (at least a successful one) at this point in conjunction with "likely never used" is close to an oxymoron.


No, I think jazzy is right here, since he was referring to LeMond and EPO only. EPO was not really available until the late 1980s and its effects weren't really known until the early 1990s. As stated in a post yesterday, I would be surprised if LeMond didn't do some stimulants and/or amphetamines in his era, however, but that was about that was available to the cyclists prior to the 1990s.


I remember reading somewhere regarding him and/or Andy Hampsten being at the tail end of their haydays. They described their dismays at being GC contender's to not being able to hang on to the peloton any longer in only a matter of a couple of years in the early 90's. They knew what changed and decided to bow out.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:03 am

odelltrclan wrote:I disagree with the premise that because "everyone was doing it" that Lance would have won if they were all clean. I have read plenty in which this topic has been discussed by the science and medical folks who say this is likely not true. When looking at natural blood values like Hematocrit levels occurring naturally and the rate these values decline over the course of 3 weeks from what I have heard and read Armstrong was average at best. Therefore, he benefited more from the cocktail of drugs he was taking than someone else might. Someone who is more "gifted" with the naturally occurring blood levels and an ability to recover more quickly from the stresses of the race quite possibly would have been ahead. We will never know who those people were because of this so-called "level playing field" theory.

It may be true that PED's don't benefit everyone equally but neither you, me or any of the cyclists in the peleton has any idea who benefited more and who benefited less during the EPO era. All anyone can do is offer idle and unscientific spucalation and conjecture on this topic. The only thing that we do know is that they were all breaking the same UCI rules with tha same drugs, and that's the only thing that matters when talking about a level playing field. IMO it's not surprising that someone who became the youngest world champion in history before the EPO era would win multiple Tours during it. And it's also not surprising that an athlete who weighed 80 kgs before cancer would be able to climb significantly better when he returned to the peleton weighing 70kgs.
odelltrclan wrote:Lance's performances in his first few TDF's were miserable. His performed horribly as a GC rider. Contrast that with someone like Greg Lemond, who finished 3rd in his first tour, 2nd in his second in a race he likely wins with teammate help, and then wins it in his third try. Other young cyclists in recent years have shown propensity for doing well over a 3 week race.

You've conviently overlooked the fact that Lance was only 21 when he rode his first Tour. The reason that Grand Tours have a special under-25 category is that younger riders are considered to be at a physiological and psychological disadvatage when they're younger. FYI, Miguel Indurain dropped out of his first two Tours too.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:08 am

odelltrclan wrote:I remember reading somewhere regarding him and/or Andy Hampsten being at the tail end of their haydays. They described their dismays at being GC contender's to not being able to hang on to the peloton any longer in only a matter of a couple of years in the early 90's. They knew what changed and decided to bow out.

I also remember LeMond talking about a sudden change in the peleton between 1993 and 1994, which is consistent with the timeframe that Tyler Hamilton, Jonathan Vaughters, Frankie Andreu and Armstrong have alluded to regarding EPO use in the peleton.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Blues » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:18 am

bambam wrote:
gh wrote:casting no aspersions at all on LeMond, but from where I sit, to use the name of any Tour rider (at least a successful one) at this point in conjunction with "likely never used" is close to an oxymoron.


No, I think jazzy is right here, since he was referring to LeMond and EPO only. EPO was not really available until the late 1980s and its effects weren't really known until the early 1990s. As stated in a post yesterday, I would be surprised if LeMond didn't do some stimulants and/or amphetamines in his era, however, but that was about that was available to the cyclists prior to the 1990s.


I have no idea what cyclists did in the 80's or early 90's, but although it didn't involve an extrinsic drug, blood doping transfusions were used in certain sports even in the 70's, and could've accomplished an end result and advantage for earlier cyclists similar to EPO, although in a much less convenient way.
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:51 am

Peloton speeds give some indication of the differences in the degree and extent of doping in the peloton. It increased significantly from the late-1980s into 90s and beyond.

As for Armstrong, it rode mainly as a one-day rider and hence in the Tour, he did not even intend the first time or two to even finish. If you are not riding for the overall, you take it easy at various occasions (time trials, doing climbs in the grupetto). His body was much more muscular in his early years (he came from triathlon and had shoulders consistent with that); he was much lighter after cancer. He also probably did not have the type of team that could have made him a serious contender.

Another thing that would have helped Armstrong win the Tour was the near-complete focus on the Tour. This extended to the racing itself (not going for wins on non-mountain stages) and construction of the team -- time trial objectives, some climbers to help and some horses to control the peloton -- and no sprinters really.

I think that, if not for the hunting accident LeMond would have won five Tours, and possibly six or seven, especially if he had gotten his first a year earlier. However, he would have had a hard time winning by 1992 because of changes in the competition and the emergence of Indurain.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:24 pm

26mi235 wrote:I think that, if not for the hunting accident LeMond would have won five Tours, and possibly six or seven, especially if he had gotten his first a year earlier.


Agree completely - except you should have said, "if he had gotten his first a year earlier (1985), like he deserved."
bambam
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:33 pm

bambam wrote:
26mi235 wrote:I think that, if not for the hunting accident LeMond would have won five Tours, and possibly six or seven, especially if he had gotten his first a year earlier.


Agree completely - except you should have said, "if he had gotten his first a year earlier (1985), like he deserved."

Jan Ullrich was in a similar situation with Bjarne Riis in 1996 and some folks think Chris Froome might have won last year if he hadn't been playing domestique for Bradley Wiggins.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:10 pm

For those who've never seen it, here's the Bjarne Riis confession.

Bjarne Riis admitted that he took EPO, human growth hormone, and cortisone when he won the Tour de France title in 1996. In those days, however, he said it was part of the game, and that he didn't have a choice. "I was a professional cyclist under the conditions that were given at the time," he said putting in context his claim that he is still proud of his achievements. "I feel good about that victory, even though I didn't earn it in an honest way."

. . . With no other way to sanction Riis, the UCI issued a press release Friday in response to Riis' admissions asking for the Tour winner's jersey to be returned .

"The time has come to put the cards on the table," said Riis. "I have done things which I now regret and which I wouldn't do again. I have doped. I have taken EPO. For awhile, it was part if my everyday life," Riis told a huge press crowd that was almost too big for the location. Apparently, CSC had not expected that so many journalists would accept their invitation. . . .

He apologised to those he had deceived. "I have lied to myself and others as well. In that respect, of course I want to apologise. I can console myself with the thought that those who know me have faith in me." He never kept his actions secret from his family. They knew he used banned substances, and he added that it is important for him to take personal responsibility for his actions. "Like everyone else, I have made mistakes in my life. Those were my decisions and my mistakes, and I have to take the responsibility."

Riis' statement came as the latest admission in a series of confessions from former members of the Telekom team of the 1990s.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php ... nference07

Also noatble is Miguel Indurain's reaction to Riis' cofession, which was strange to say the least.

After Bjarne Riis' confession that he used EPO during the Tour de France 1996, Miguel Indurain stated that he did not like the declarations of Riis, who was the one to conclude the Spaniards five-year reign. "I don't understand why he made these confessions eleven years after. But he is old enough and he will know better than anybody else why he did it," he said to Marca.

He believes that the confessions of Riis "did not do any favours for cycling. Actually, there are many people who hope that this sport comes out of this bottomless pit, and things like this take from everyone's courage."

Indurain does not want to take away from Riis' 1996 win. "I don't want to detract from what Riis did, but my impression is that he did not overwhelm me, that it was me who lost the Tour. I did all I could to be in front and at the end I did not reach this goal. Riis and many others were stronger, and if there was anything irregular or not then it is not my affair."
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:10 pm

Did someone already cite this quote?

Lance didn't care about anything but himself.


Speaker: his mom.
Date: 1994

from the Selena Roberts article
Marlow
 
Posts: 21078
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:45 pm

tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Brian » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:34 am

bambam wrote:
26mi235 wrote:I think that, if not for the hunting accident LeMond would have won five Tours, and possibly six or seven, especially if he had gotten his first a year earlier.


Agree completely - except you should have said, "if he had gotten his first a year earlier (1985), like he deserved."



Lighten, yes.

Lemond reportedly carried some buckshot pellets around inside after the accident.

Though we here in Minnesota all loved him, a local joke was going around (in this big hunting state) that Greg won after the accident because he then had better ballast.
.
Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: a thread for biochemistry geeks [split from Lance]

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:56 am

Phil Liggett blames Armstrong's downfall on jealous teammates.

Liggett said he believed Armstrong was undone because of envy among teammates at the celebrity lifestyle he was living.

"There was a jealousy in the team," he said.


"Why did his best mates all of a sudden go against him? I think Lance was keeping the biggest slice of the cake and living the lifestyle of an 'A' class celebrity."

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/tou ... 6558531290

:?
I wonder what Liggett's advice would have been for the folks who were subpeonaed. Even in his Oprah interview, Lance said he doesn't blame George Hincapie cooperating with the grand jury.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby indigo » Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:15 pm

I love Track and Field !
I've been riding for 20 years but finally took it seriously this last year averaged 20mph for 50m and my wife loves the tour.
I also just finished Hamilton's "Secret Race"

There are a number parallels between what Hamilton details and what I've seen in Track & Field. What little I know is the following :


-Lance Shooting PEDs during the tour
*I am old enough to have dated a '76 Olympian who indicated she shot Peds to an Olympic Gold medalist during the games

- Floyd Landis fails a test because it is technically possible to determine that the testosterone is synthetic
* A number of athletes have failed a testosterone test. At least one Bronze medalist failed a testosterone test twice.

-Hamilton talks about chemicals under the nails prior to a urine test
*An Olympian told me use soap under the nails if I ever got a "DUI"

-Blindness of officials
*There is at least one 6th place finishers @ aTrials who should have made the Olympic team. An official didn't want to make a call.

I think what is different. Track & Field everyone had an individual source.
On the tour everyone used the same source. Which makes it harder to be a secret.
indigo
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:48 pm

Anne Gripper, who helped develop the biological passport and who calls Lance a "Pathological liar" worse than (just) doping. She said that she saw nothing in Lances profile to indicated doping and she was there through 2010.

This contradicts one of USADA's not-so-well documented claims, that Lance's biological passport indicated doping with that conclusion being given a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of being wrong. Not sure that the USADA is going to make too much headway when the test's main person says 'no'.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby polevaultpower » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:15 pm

polevaultpower
 
Posts: 4513
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: A Temperate Island

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:42 am

polevaultpower wrote:Don Bragg

Funny guy. Always has been.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21078
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:36 am

Here's a moral question. If you had been a young up and coming cyclist in the early 90's who had finally realized his lifetime dream of signing a big league contract to race in Europe, what would you have done if you flown across the pond for the first time only to find that the entire peleton was doped to the gills and that you were just struggling not to get dropped from day to day? And to be clear, I'm asking what do you think you would have done when you were 20 years old, not what you would do today.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:13 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Here's a moral question. If you had been a young up and coming cyclist in the early 90's who had finally realized his lifetime dream of signing a big league contract to race in Europe, what would you have done if you flown across the pond for the first time only to find that the entire peleton was doped to the gills and that you were just struggling not to get dropped from day to day? And to be clear, I'm asking what do you think you would have done when you were 20 years old, not what you would do today.

Good question. If I were 20 in 1990 and had real cycling talent and it was my life dream to be on a team in the Tour de France and found out the entire team I was asked to join was doping (and obviously getting away with it), it'd be very hard to give up my dreams and NOT dope. Doesn't make it right, but . . .
Marlow
 
Posts: 21078
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:14 am

Marlow wrote:Good question. If I were 20 in 1990 and had real cycling talent and it was my life dream to be on a team in the Tour de France and found out the entire team I was asked to join was doping (and obviously getting away with it), it'd be very hard to give up my dreams and NOT dope. Doesn't make it right, but . . .

To me it seems that the reason the fallout for Lance has been as bad as it's been is because he was such a jerk and a bully, and because he taunted the powers-that-be. I've heard a couple of ESPN talking heads say that they can somewhat understand the doping, given the nature of the sport, but his off-the-bike behavior is unacceptable. If he hadn't made so many enemies along the way, he would likely be getting more leniency both within cycling and outside of it. This is the reason why Pete Rose and Barry Bonds are treated differently than Andy Pettitte and Mark McGuire, and it's why Bjarne Riis was never punished by the UCI and got to keep his Tour win after he admitted that he was a doper.

However, there is one major distinction between cycling and baseball, and that is that MLB has maintained an impartial consistency in the application of its rules, and left it to the jackals in the media to go after the ne'er-do-wells. To the chagrin of the baseball writers, no one who doped prior to the implementation of MLB's 2003 PED enforcement policy has ever been sanctioned by MLB and their records still stand without any asteriks. Conversely, all the alphabet organizations (USADA, IOC, UCI) dealing with Lance Armstrong have completely ignored their own rules and protocols (8-year statute of limitations, 2-year ban for first offense) in order to give him extra-judicial punishment, and furthermore, other organizations (ITU, IAAF) whose rules he's never broken have piled on for good measure.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Blues » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:05 am

jazzcyclist wrote:To me it seems that the reason the fallout for Lance has been as bad as it's been is because he was such a jerk and a bully, and because he taunted the powers-that-be. I've heard a couple of ESPN talking heads say that they can somewhat understand the doping, given the nature of the sport, but his off-the-bike behavior is unacceptable. If he hadn't made so many enemies along the way, he would likely be getting more leniency both within cycling and outside of it. This is the reason why Pete Rose and Barry Bonds are treated differently than Andy Pettitte and Mark McGuire, and it's why Bjarne Riis was never punished by the UCI and got to keep his Tour win after he admitted that he was a doper.

.......Conversely, all the alphabet organizations (USADA, IOC, UCI) dealing with Lance Armstrong have completely ignored their own rules and protocols (8-year statute of limitations, 2-year ban for first offense) in order to give him extra-judicial punishment, and furthermore, other organizations (ITU, IAAF) whose rules he's never broken have piled on for good measure.


I agree that Armstrong's attitude, lack of consideration for others, and overall behavior may have had an influence on his fate in certain areas. As far as whether USADA ignored it's own rules regarding sanctions, I guess it depends on what the alphabet groups felt was credible evidence. There was evidence indicating that Armstrong covered up PED usage and was also guilty of trafficking in PEDs by providing them to others, in addition to using PEDs over an extended period of time, including during multiple competitions. According to USADA policy, violations that involve trafficking or covering up PED usage warrant more severe penalties than usage alone does, up to a lifetime ban. I'm sure this has been posted earlier, but in case people haven't already read it, below is the USADA Reasoned Decision report regarding the sanctions and the evidence against Armstrong:

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Re ... cision.pdf

And from the USADA's policies on sanctions:

10.3.2 For violations of Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) or 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method), the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of four (4) years up to lifetime Ineligibility unless the conditions provided in Article 10.5 are met.

[Comment to Article 10.3.2: Those who are involved in doping Athletes or covering up doping should be subject to sanctions which are more severe than the Athletes who test positive. Since the authority of sport organiza- tions is generally limited to Ineligibility for credentials, membership and other sport benefits, reporting Athlete Support Personnel to competent authorities is an important step in the deterrence of doping.]


Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:09 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:Good question. If I were 20 in 1990 and had real cycling talent and it was my life dream to be on a team in the Tour de France and found out the entire team I was asked to join was doping (and obviously getting away with it), it'd be very hard to give up my dreams and NOT dope. Doesn't make it right, but . . .

To me it seems that the reason the fallout for Lance has been as bad as it's been is because he was such a jerk and a bully, and because he taunted the powers-that-be.

His 'righteous indignation' about being accused throughout the years and smear campaigns against his 'enemies' has made him the pariah he is today. His protestations that he stopped doping at such and such a date (in hopes of being reinstated now) should be met with very loud and raucous laughter. He has become a cartoon character, like Bluto or Snidely Whiplash.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21078
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:40 am

I guess "trafficking" is somewhat subjective in this context, but I wouldn't accuse Armstrong of trafficking based on my defintion of the word, since Amrstrong's teammates have all corroborated his claim that U.S. Postal already had a PED program up and running before he ever joined the team after his return from cancer. Trafficker is a word I would use to describe folks like Eufemiano Fuentes and Michelle Ferrari. Keep in mind that USADA has already shown its willingness to engage in hyperbole and exageration when it called the U.S. Postal doping program "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen". Leaving aside East Germany and the USSR, how can USADA compare the U.S. Postal's doping program to that of Telekom, Banesto, Once, CSC and other cycling teams that it never investigated?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:15 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I guess "trafficking" is somewhat subjective in this context, but I wouldn't accuse Armstrong of trafficking based on my defintion of the word, since Amrstrong's teammates have all corroborated his claim that U.S. Postal already had a PED program up and running before he ever joined the team after his return from cancer. Trafficker is a word I would use to describe folks like Eufemiano Fuentes and Michelle Ferrari. Keep in mind that USADA has already shown its willingness to engage in hyperbole and exageration when it called the U.S. Postal doping program "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen". Leaving aside East Germany and the USSR, how can USADA compare the U.S. Postal's doping program to that of Telekom, Banesto, Once, CSC and other cycling teams that it never investigated?


While I agree with your premise that the doping system on U.S. Postal was established when he arrived there that does not change the fact that he eventually became the ringleader (allegedly) of it. So I don't feel the analogy is totally correct. If you joined a crime organization such as the mafia and eventually became the boss, are you entitled to leniency merely because you didn't start the whole operation?

Lance was clearly in complete control of U.S. Postal not long after he started winning tours and had a say of who was on the team and who was not. Plenty of guys were shown the door. He became the instigator.

Ferrari/ Fuentes enabled athletes access to the best medicine money could buy, but the athletes had to be brought to them. Kind of like a pimp and prostitute. Lance was pimping for Ferrari. Who is more to blame? We understand so much better now the actions of Lance toward Filipo Simeoni.

I am sure there are/were others like Lance on virtually every other competitive team. But most of them remain unknown. Is he getting a raw deal? When compared with other cyclists who escaped similar treatment, yes. When compared with his actions, no.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:23 am

Marlow wrote:His protestations that he stopped doping at such and such a date (in hopes of being reinstated now) should be met with very loud and raucous laughter.

On his claims that he didn't dope in 2009 and 2010, I don't know what to believe. On the one hand, he's a pathological liar but on the other hand, USADA's credibility is less than pristine and their claims about his biological passport are questionable (see 26mi235's post above).

But here's what we do know. Armstrong said that he rode in 2009 and 2010 under the impression that the peleton was clean. Armstrong went through a full training camp with teammates in 2009 and 2010. Armstrong would have known if his teammates were doping and his teammates would have known if he was doping. Once Armstrong showed up at races, he would have been able to figure out if the peleton was still doped the same way Greg LeMond and Andy Hampsten figured it out at the end of their careers. Furthermore, if the peleton was still doped, they would have known that he was doped, since it would have been impossible for a clean rider to finish third in the Tour if the rest of the peleton was doped. Also, presumably the testimony given to the Feds and USADA by Armstrong's former teammates included information about his activities in 2009 and 2010. If Armstrong is lying about 2009 and 2010, it should contradict this testimony and someone would be calling him out on the claims he made in his Oprah interview.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Blues » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:26 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I guess "trafficking" is somewhat subjective in this context, but I wouldn't accuse Armstrong of trafficking based on my defintion of the word, since Amrstrong's teammates have all corroborated his claim that U.S. Postal already had a PED program up and running before he ever joined the team after his return from cancer. Trafficker is a word I would use to describe folks like Eufemiano Fuentes and Michelle Ferrari. Keep in mind that USADA has already shown its willingness to engage in hyperbole and exageration when it called the U.S. Postal doping program "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen". Leaving aside East Germany and the USSR, how can USADA compare the U.S. Postal's doping program to that of Telekom, Banesto, Once, CSC and other cycling teams that it never investigated?


Understood, but here's the official USADA definition of trafficking, for their violations and sanctions purposes:

"Trafficking: Selling, giving, transporting, sending, delivering or distributing a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method (either physically or by any electronic or other means) by an Athlete, Athlete Support Personnel or any other Person subject to the jurisdiction of an Anti-Doping Organization to any third party; provided, however, this definition shall not include the actions of “bona fide” medical personnel involving a Prohibited Sub- stance used for genuine and legal therapeutic purposes or other acceptable justification, and shall not include actions involving Prohibited Substances which are not prohibited in Out-of-Competition Testing unless the circumstances as a whole demonstrate such Prohibited Substances are not intended for genuine and legal therapeutic purposes.


And here are the PED offenses that can result in sanctions of up to a lifetime ban. Based on the above USADA definition of trafficking, and at least the last portion of violation 2.8, I think Armstrong was guilty of at least something that could warrant the ban he received, at least as per USADA policies:

2.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method

2.8 Administration or Attempted administration to any Athlete In- Competition of any Prohibited Method or Prohibited Substance, or administration or Attempted administration to any Athlete Out-of- Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance that is prohibited Out-of-Competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or any Attempted anti-doping rule violation
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:20 am

odelltrclan wrote:While I agree with your premise that the doping system on U.S. Postal was established when he arrived there that does not change the fact that he eventually became the ringleader (allegedly) of it. So I don't feel the analogy is totally correct. If you joined a crime organization such as the mafia and eventually became the boss, are you entitled to leniency merely because you didn't start the whole operation?

Lance was clearly in complete control of U.S. Postal not long after he started winning tours and had a say of who was on the team and who was not. Plenty of guys were shown the door. He became the instigator.

Ferrari/ Fuentes enabled athletes access to the best medicine money could buy, but the athletes had to be brought to them. Kind of like a pimp and prostitute. Lance was pimping for Ferrari. Who is more to blame? We understand so much better now the actions of Lance toward Filipo Simeoni.

I am sure there are/were others like Lance on virtually every other competitive team. But most of them remain unknown. Is he getting a raw deal? When compared with other cyclists who escaped similar treatment, yes. When compared with his actions, no.

I see where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. Yes, Armstrong became the most powerful person in the U.S. Postal organization soon after he starting winning Tours, but he was not a trafficker IMO. To me the traffickers were the people who oversaw the day-to-day administering of dope to the athletes, such as the team doctors and managers, and also the couriers. I would compare him to a football coach at a big-time football university like Alabama's Nick Saban, for example. Does Nick Saban likely have a lot of players on his team who were bought or given illegal benefits in order to entice them to sign with Alabama? Certainly. Would I accuse Nick Saban of buying players? No, the Alabama boosters and alumni are the ones who buy players, but certainly guys like Saban, Les Miles, Urban Meyers and Mack Brown know what's going on behind the scenes.

The bottom line is that during the EPO era, Grand Tour GC contenders like Armstrong didn't care if their teammates doped or not, they just wanted riders who were capable of protecting them for miles on end on the flat roads and stay with them on all the big climbs in the mountains. A few days before the stage to Sestriere in the 1999 Tour de France, Armstrong pleaded with Frankie Andreu that he would need him to stay with him on the final climb and Andreu know that the only way he would be able to do that is with EPO, and the infrastructure was already in place at U.S. Postal for him to do what needed to be done. Doping wasn't the end, it was just the means to an end.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:22 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:Good question. If I were 20 in 1990 and had real cycling talent and it was my life dream to be on a team in the Tour de France and found out the entire team I was asked to join was doping (and obviously getting away with it), it'd be very hard to give up my dreams and NOT dope. Doesn't make it right, but . . .

To me it seems that the reason the fallout for Lance has been as bad as it's been is because he was such a jerk and a bully, and because he taunted the powers-that-be.

His 'righteous indignation' about being accused throughout the years and smear campaigns against his 'enemies' has made him the pariah he is today. His protestations that he stopped doping at such and such a date (in hopes of being reinstated now) should be met with very loud and raucous laughter. He has become a cartoon character, like Bluto or Snidely Whiplash.


Except (see above) that Anne Gripper's opinion differs from what you are implying. She is one of the top three or four in terms of the Bio-Passport. She helped develop and then pushed through the biological passport and managed it until she eventually then departed the sport in 2010 for personal reasons (go live in Australia with someone [I think], eventually going in to a related area [Tri]. She appears to disagree with the USADA. Specifically, she said that she had seen Lance's data through 2010 and she did not see anything in it that indicated doping.

Note also, that the 2001 Swiss Tour test is also considered not to be a positive test result by the person most involved and most informed -- the highly regarded specialist who did the test (I think). Thus, the two places where he disagreed with USADA have very credible counters from people not expected to be very favorable to him, especially Gripper, who called him a "psychopath".
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:01 pm

26mi235 wrote:Except (see above) that Anne Gripper's opinion differs from what you are implying. She is one of the top three or four in terms of the Bio-Passport. She helped develop and then pushed through the biological passport and managed it until she eventually then departed the sport in 2010 for personal reasons (go live in Australia with someone [I think], eventually going in to a related area [Tri]. She appears to disagree with the USADA. Specifically, she said that she had seen Lance's data through 2010 and she did not see anything in it that indicated doping.

Note also, that the 2001 Swiss Tour test is also considered not to be a positive test result by the person most involved and most informed -- the highly regarded specialist who did the test (I think). Thus, the two places where he disagreed with USADA have very credible counters from people not expected to be very favorable to him, especially Gripper, who called him a "psychopath".


It would take me way too long to go back and find the data that I have seen regarding some of this. But, in a nutshell, Lance promised transparency in 2009/2010 so that all people could see his blood values. He was posting data through training and some races. This information was being regularly posted for all to see. Then, there were some who pointed out that some of the data being posted by Lance looked irregular. This was a hot topic for a while on Cyclingnews message boards. The people discussing this were not some dumb schmucks but people in the know, who presented compelling reasons as to why the data indicated irregularities. Then, suddenly, when all of this started happening, all the data was immediately removed from the websites where it was being published. Lance stopped revealing all this information when he had promised to provide it.

As per Anne Gripper, a question I have was whether she was looking at all of that data, or just a small portion of it, like only the race data from the the 2009 TDF? Furthermore, USADA has their experts as well. Not that she is NOT credible (because obviously she is) but professionals disagree all the time.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:12 pm

odelltrclan wrote:As per Anne Gripper, a question I have was whether she was looking at all of that data, or just a small portion of it, like only the race data from the the 2009 TDF? Furthermore, USADA has their experts as well. Not that she is NOT credible (because obviously she is) but professionals disagree all the time.


She is the institutional developer of the biological passport and worked to make it enforceable. From both what she said and the entire nature of the passport I would be STUNNED if she did not have all of the data through 2010. If she did not she would not have made that statement in the press, as she is not a fan of LA.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:36 am

Perhaps USADA was just fishing when they made the claims about 2009 and 2010 to see if Armstrong would admit to doping in those years. Maybe the peleton really was clean in those years as Armstrong presumed it was and USADA didn't really have anything on Armstrong in those years. The one thing that I think Armstrong is lying about is telling Landis and Hamilton that he got a positive test swept under the rug by the UCI at the 2001 Tour de Suisee. Hamilton and Landis don't know what actually transpired between Armstrong and the UCI, but I don't doubt for one minute that he told Hamilton and Landis what they claim he did. Another interesting thing about the Oprah interview is that by corroborating the story of the Andreus about his hospital bed confession and the story of Emma O'Reilly about the back-dated prescription, Armstrong implicated two doctors - one for perjury and another for writing a false prescription.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:46 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Perhaps USADA was just fishing when they made the claims about 2009 and 2010 to see if Armstrong would admit to doping in those years. Maybe the peleton really was clean in those years as Armstrong presumed it was and USADA didn't really have anything on Armstrong in those years. The one thing that I think Armstrong is lying about is telling Landis and Hamilton that he got a positive test swept under the rug by the UCI at the 2001 Tour de Suisee. Hamilton and Landis don't know what actually transpired between Armstrong and the UCI, but I don't doubt for one minute that he told Hamilton and Landis what they claim he did. Another interesting thing about the Oprah interview is that by corroborating the story of the Andreus about his hospital bed confession and the story of Emma O'Reilly about the back-dated prescription, Armstrong implicated two doctors - one for perjury and another for writing a false prescription.


I missed the interviews as I was out of the country. I read comments that he did not address the Andreu's issue and several other items specifically so that some of his friends (i.e. doctors, agent, etc.) would not be subject to perjury. So when did this happen? Was it on day 2? Are the interviews available anywhere on the net?
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], user4 and 6 guests