Lance positive? - Page 4

The evidence and the case made, was overhwelmingly.

The UCI chose not to do the right thing.
That is the nub of the entire problem.

What saved Armstrong was the fact that A and B samples from 1999, were not present for retrospective testing.
(A sample because it was tested in 1999, using an inferior test
for eEPO and found "clean", was destroyed : B sample tested in 2005 was found to have rEPO : in six separate 1999 samples).
If both samples had remained intact, Armstrong and his record from 1999-2005 was gone.
No question about that.

But hey we have been over this gound - literally adnauseum - for years on this site.

But as you're a noob, you wouldn't have been aware of this.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it" - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

Trying to convince a fanboy that his/her fan is doped is as hard as trying to change his/her religion. It is just a pointless waste of time.

Ok so I accept what you're saying what I can't accept is why all the powers that be in the sport continue to associate with the guy.

I can't understand why the governing bodies for the sport don't do something about it.
Why do you and all the other who are convinced Armstrong is a doper continue to support a sport where seemingly the authorities are colluding with the criminal elements.

As to whether I'm an LA Chamois Sniffer (I've never been called that before it made me laugh - hey its promotion) at least I don't attribute the guy with superhuman qualities including the ability to buy off all the cycling authorities and surround himself with total protection at the highest levels. Kohl claimed genius at being able to get away with doping but he's been caught presumably LA will be caught too at some point.

As far as I'm concerned If he's doping or has doped I hope he gets caught - he deserves it (and that whether or not I know he has). If he's caught doping and it sticks then he should be stripped of his titles. Stripped of his winnings pursued for defrauding his sponsors and banned for life from the sport as should all the others. Why is Vinokourov being let back in? Why is Dave Millar Riding? Why are all the other cheats being allowed to take part. Its a joke.

The one thing I know is that Lance is a damned good rider. He might be doping and he might not. He might have doped and he might not. Insufficient evidence is available to bring him down. Until he's officially brought down he hasn't been proved to have done it.

Until such time as the risks of being caught doping are made really punitive cyclists will not consider them to be severe enough to really think about - especially when the rewards are so high for those who are successful.

ho hum. Thanks Limerickman for being so nice in your answers. Other people on these forums could learn from you

To be more accurate : A 1999 samples was never tested for EPO because at that time there were no EPO.
Ashenden explained that was 6 samples which were positive within UCI limits which are very big to avoid false positive but 2 others had EPO too.
Michael Ashenden | Velocity Nation - Bike racing culture, news and events

If UCI with his president, who said that spectators won't accept a clean cyclist with riders riding slowly, had wanted to act with those 6 samples, they could have done better but their "interest" were elsewhere.

As pointed the evidences of Lance doping are overhelming, much bigger than a uniq positive case as often.
6 +2 samples,
1 corticoïd
Witnesses and official testimonies,
Garbage with actovegin, syringes and other materials accepted implicitly by US Postal which said actovegin were used by one of their technicians. Probably he used EPO too to be able to push harder the riders who had punctures of course!

All that is coherent with :

• science : EPO gives a big boost, around 20-30%, allows to train harder than any clean athletes could never done
• lance's transformation of a "bad" rider as GC contender in his prime career to an unbeatable riders just a year after a cancer
• to beat EPO or blood doped riders

__________________
6 +2 (according Ashenden) samples with EPO should have banned Lance Armstrong to start next TDF !

A little off topic, but "reportedly" he's being sampled daily during this tour....sometimes multiple times daily. I have to wonder if they're both trying to catch him and stocking up samples for when testing methods are perhaps "better". I have a feeling they'll be making sure they have plenty for testing and are paying very close documented attention as to how they're stored, identified, etc. I suspect if we hear of positive results on one of Lances samples again, there will be plenty of B sample to back it up.

There's certainly a lot of evidence that he did. Some of it is circumstantial yes, but some of it is evidence of a purely scientific nature. The current protocol for what is accepted as "official" fell short without the B samples. A technicality that provided a slim loophole to slip through, but the test is the test..and the results say what they do regardless if he could have been officially sanctioned.

Some of the arguments against LA don't hold much water with me. His improvement after cancer being one of them. One side says dope, the other side points to pretty dramatic changes in his body structure. Taken alone, it could be for either reason. Just the other day there was discussion of a rider that has "transformed" himself from track to climbing. Much of that attributed to a 8kg weight loss, although I'm sure a heavier focus on road endurance racing certainly had a lot to do with it (Wiggins isn't it?) Lance was a least a good classics one day type guy before cancer, which I would judge to be a closer relative to grand tour riding than I would track riding. If a physical/training focus change did that for Wiggins, how could it not possible for the physical change in LA to have had those results? I just don't think this "argument" is close enough from either side to be convincing.

The Andreu story. In my opinion there is a lot of he said/she said with this one, but in my opinion favors her version of it. Another loophole "for the official side" here as well as doping was deemed to be irrelevant to the contract.

One more thing that I see in his "favor" if you will. There's never been enough "accepted" evidence to officially sanction him..or they would have. I didn't use to think that meant much, but he retired and you saw the carnage that almost immediately happened. You've either got to believe that he got out for a while because he knew that was about to happen, or that the cycle gods where looking out for him as he seems to have been relatively absent from cycling while the majority was going on. Vino, Rass, Landis, Basso...etc, etc. where all caught with apparently enough evidence to do something about it. As much as they have tested him, you think they would have caught Armstrong as well, but they haven't.

Overall, I don't know. I have no idea if he did or not, but I also believe where this is smoke there either is, has been, or about to be... a fire.

I think the bigger question is.. does it matter? There is plenty of evidence, and certainly opinion.. that they all do. Assuming indeed that is the case

a) from a professional cycling standpoint and being purely objective, it was a level playing field. His accomplishments in that area are what they are and should be respected as such.

b) from a ethical standpoint I find it deplorable. That is somewhat mitigated by the fact that everyone is/was doing it. That being the case, I think your anger has to be directed at the sport in general, and specifically the governing bodies of that sport. The problem has been proven to be much larger than Armstrong.


While I find the topic interesting, I also take notice of the millions of people following the race and enjoying it without much thought of doping in their minds. Perhaps ingnorance is bliss, or perhaps they choose to enjoy cycling for what it is. I guess I fall into the latter part. Of course I'd like to see the sport cleaned up, but it's not as of yet..so I can either choose to watch it, or not watch it. That's a simple answer for me.

Yes, the question always remains in the back of my mind "is that guy doping?". That is usually after the thought... "wow, I wish I could ride like that". I don't wish it that bad however. If doping is truly what it takes, I can at least sympathize with the riders that have made professional racing their way of living. That would be one hell of a decision to have to make.

Right so I'm not alone then in sitting on the fence. I dunno about the past. The present says he's clean. I hope he is. I hope he's caught if he's not. Until he's caught clearly and openly and dealt with properly I'll take the ignorance route and enjoy the sport for what it is. A supreme spectacle.

I still have little respect for authorities who failed to make the most of an opportunity. I think their confused and ambivalent attitude towards this whole issue doesn't help matters.

Thats said its all been done to death this time round. Thanks for answering my questions and thanks to those who contributed pleasantly (regardless of the side they took).

I hope you all enjoy the race.

Both the weight loss and body transformation arguments are pure myth. Armstrong found a sychophantic comrade in Coyle, and that study has been since found to be complete bull****.

You are not the only one paying close attention to Vaughters.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that either. The evidence against him is pretty damning in my mind and as I said I believe in fire where there is smoke. If I had to make a decision right this minute (and it mattered) it would be that Lance has doped. Do I see enough to be entirely convinced of it..no, but I'm much closer to be convinced he did vs. he didn't.

The intention of my post was to say that in regards to watching and enjoying the competitiveness of cycle racing, I don't think it's even relevant.

As to (A), unless you're taking into effect how different individuals respond to drug treatment and can account for the disparity in different levels of programs (Ferrari-fueled vs. the guy who buys EPO online) and can weight the results accordingly, then that's just lame rationalization.

So the fact that another guy currently racing, and losing 8kg in weight enabling him to become more efficient in climbing.. is pure bull**** as well? I wasn't referencing the study specifically.. I was pointing out that physical changes in two different riders seem to have provided better performance, specifically in the mountains.

...but there's no way to weight that accurately is there? He hasn't been the only cyclist to be Ferrari fueled, just the only one to win 7 Tour de France's with it.

I agree with you in the sense that certainly different bodies would respond to it differently.. .just like different bodies respond to normal training differently...and to different ultimate levels of fitness. That exists regardless of Lance.

Well as a Brit I'd be inclined to say the same thing about Wiggo. Perhaps he's doping too.

I do hope not.

Actually how much has he lost. I've seen figures of between 5kg's and 8kg's. The man himself has said 6kg's. Thats pretty awesome for one so skinny and how did he achieve it without losing significant muscle.

LA transformed but was noticeably bulky (well relatively) previous to the transformation. Wiggo was a stick insect and is now an anorexic stick insect.

He still appears much larger than "the chicken" though..at least to my memory. I used to wonder how Rass could even hold a bicycle up.. much less rotate the pedals up a mountain..without breaking a bone.

Ramsussen used to remind me of that sketch in the Ripping Yarns Show of the curse of the claw. Don't touch the claw its cursed. SNAP my legs broken...etc etc.

Twiggy was bigger and stronger than the chicken - more attractive too.