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 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: 10859
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: 10859
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: 1090
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: 16320
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: 3848
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: 10859
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: 10859
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: 21088
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: 15042
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: 10859
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: 16320
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: 4532
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: 21088
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: 10859
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: 21088
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: 10859
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: 1090
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: 21088
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: 10859
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: 10859
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: 1090
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: 10859
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: 16320
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: 16320
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: 10859
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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:50 am

26mi235 wrote:
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.


Problem is she worked for UCI, which was under the direction of some guys whose credibility is suspect at best right now in the opinion of many.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:04 am

Almost all of the issues that arose were during the regime of the prior head of the UCI. There is not anything remotely on the same level under the new head, even if the whole of the UCI is under a cloud.

As for the USADA 'going fishing', it is an absolutely terrible 'strategy' and may be, at least implicitly illegal. More importantly, it calls into question everything from their motives to their objectivity to their reliability. It they do not have the degree of certainty that they are claiming (less than one chance in a million), they have not squared that with the very different characterization of the person possibly most likely to know and care about the method.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:54 am

odelltrclan wrote: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?

It turns out I was mistaken on the Andreus but right on Emma O'Reilly. Here's the portion on the transcript dealing those matters:

    OW: What about the story [masseuse] Emma O'Reilly tells about cortisone and you having cortisone backdated - is that true?

    LA: "That was true."

    OW: What do you want to say about Emma O'Reilly? You sued her?

    LA: "Emma O'Reilly is one of these people I have to apologise to. We ran over her, we bullied her."

    OW: You sued her?

    LA: "To be honest, Oprah, we sued so many people I don't even [know]. I'm sure we did."

    OW: When people were saying things - Walsh, O'Reilly, Betsy Andreu [wife of former team-mate Frankie Andreu] and many others - you would then go on the attack for them, suing and know they were telling the truth. What is that?

    LA: "When I hear that there are people who will never believe me I understand that. One of the steps of this process is to say sorry. I was wrong, you were right."

    OW: Have you called Betsy Andreu? Did she take your call? Was she telling the truth about the Indiana hospital, overhearing you in 1996? Was Betsy lying?

    LA: "I'm not going to take that on. I'm laying down on that one. I'm going to put that one down. She asked me, and I asked her not to talk about it."

    OW: Is it well with two of you? Have you made peace?

    LA: "No, because they've been hurt too badly, and a 40-minute [phone] conversation isn't enough."

    OW: [With] Emma you implied the 'whore' word. How do you feel about that today? Were you trying to put her down? Shut her up?

    LA: "I don't feel good. I was just on the attack. The territory was being threatened. The team was being threatened. I was on the attack."
Day 1 transcript

Day 2 transcript

Here is the link to the video from Oprah's website:

http://www.oprah.com/own_tv/onc/lance-a ... g-one.html
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:01 am

Wow! Thanks for the link. I had read he sidestepped a number of landmines like this (Andreus) etc to help mitigate the damage for them. Guys like the doctors and Bill Stapleton, his agent. Otherwise, they could face perjury and disbarment (which Stapleton, as an attorney would face if proven to have lied under oath).
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:02 am

odelltrclan wrote:Wow! Thanks for the link. I had read he sidestepped a number of landmines like this (Andreus) etc to help mitigate the damage for them. Guys like the doctors and Bill Stapleton, his agent. Otherwise, they could face perjury and disbarment (which Stapleton, as an attorney would face if proven to have lied under oath).

All throughout the interview, he refused to name names and avoided answering any question that might implicate others, especially when Oprah asked him about Michele Ferrari. That's why I think he refuted the story of the 2001 Tour de Suisse coverup. However, as I said earlier, if he wants any leniency from the powers-that-be, he's going to have to tell them where ALL the bodies are buried.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:40 am

The Operation Puerto trial starts today, and it's expected to produce a lot of fallout for the sport of cycling, since many cyclists, including Alberto Contador, will be called to testify.
MADRID — Just days after Lance Armstrong's doping admission, cycling is set for more damaging revelations when the long-delayed Operation Puerto case finally goes to court in Spain.

Seven years after Spanish investigators uncovered one of cycling's most sophisticated and widespread doping networks, some of its central figures will stand trial on Monday in Madrid's Criminal Court. The case, in which 35 witnesses are called to testify, is scheduled to last until March 22.

Judge Julia Santamaria will preside as six defendants are tried. They include doctors Eufemiano and Yolanda Fuentes, brother-and-sister suspects at the heart of a complex blood-doping ring that stained cycling's reputation in Europe.

Also on trial will be Jose Luis Merino, another medical doctor; and Manolo Saiz, former ONCE and Liberty Seguros team sports director. Vicente Belda and Ignacio Labarta, both associated with the former Kelme team, will also be on trial.

Many riders will be called to testify as witnesses, including two-time Tour de France champion Alberto Contador.

Cyclists will not be on trial because Santamaria can only rule on matters covered by Spanish law as it applied in May 2006, when police raids uncovered a mass of evidence in labs, offices and apartments in Madrid, Zaragoza and El Escorial.

This limitation means the scope of the trial can only focus on charges relating to actions that could "endanger public health." But that doesn't mean the trial won't lead to new revelations about athletes who cheated to get an unfair advantage.

"If one of the defendants says that, for example, he injected a certain athlete, then Spain's anti-doping agency or a sports federation could open an investigation to see if they could be subject to a ban," Eduardo Esteban, spokesman for the state prosecutor's office, told The Associated Press. . . . . .

According to documents reportedly seen by sports newspaper AS, defense lawyers will argue that Fuentes and his co-defendants did not endanger cyclists' health because they relied on the best technology available.

The proceedings will be followed closely by the World Anti-Doping Agency, which pushed for the case to go to court and will be a party to the trial along with the International Cycling Union, the Italian Olympic Committee, the International Association of Professional Cycling Teams, and former cyclist Jesus Manzano.

WADA is disappointed the trial is limited to cycling, as athletes from other sports were also implicated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wire ... r=homepage

So why is cycling the only sport being looked at if Operation Puerto involved athletes from other sports too?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:07 am

jazzcyclist wrote:So why is cycling the only sport being looked at if Operation Puerto involved athletes from other sports too?


My question is "Why is a PEDs use criminal offense?"
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:21 am

Pego wrote:My question is "Why is a PEDs use criminal offense?"

Because the ONLY reason ANYthing is a criminal offense (as opposed to immoral) is because someone regulated against it. Has nothing to do with ethics or even logic. The only reason I agree that PEDs should be outlawed is because to legalize them would, in fact, encourage even MORE abuse (over-usage) than we have now. PEDs, in reality, are just 'medicine' that can (and should) be prescribed by a doctor and used to 'benefit' one's quality of life. The problem we face is that some people, trying to get a competitive edge, overdo it and put themselves at real health risk, so yes, we are protecting them from themselves, not unlike seat-belt and helmet laws. If you deplore the 'nanny state' aspects of that, so be it.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby indigo » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:53 am

Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:So why is cycling the only sport being looked at if Operation Puerto involved athletes from other sports too?


My question is "Why is a PEDs use criminal offense?"


There have been a lot of death's in various Cycling Events. Hamilton's book details blood kept poorly and folks having their blood boil while racing or having blood too thick to pump correctly.

I believe Hamilton indicated he was caught with someone else's blood as the "matching" was not done well.
indigo
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:24 am

jazzcyclist wrote:The Operation Puerto trial starts today, and it's expected to produce a lot of fallout for the sport of cycling, since many cyclists, including Alberto Contador, will be called to testify.

So why is cycling the only sport being looked at if Operation Puerto involved athletes from other sports too?


I think that there was some Spanish distance runners in the listing and they got investigated but I think things were dropped.

Most of those implicated have not been nabbed for PEDs violations. The judge in charge seem to run an odd court; he determined that certain things were not illegal so he sealed the records etc., I think. I think it was to create not too much pain for Spain.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests