Is it true Lance Armstrong was cheating?



Crankykentucky

New Member
Oct 6, 2012
6
0
0
Originally Posted by limerickman .

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/460432-10lede-usada-armstrong.html

/img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif

[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]200+ page summary.[/COLOR]

USADA have more than 1,000 pages of evidence
Wow, say it ain't so! The most complete investigation of its kind in history, so says the talking head on tonight's news.

How did the network get away with it for so long? Amazing.

I'm still not ready to take off my Livestrong wristband!
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Media coverage of the USADA doping report is at saturation point here in Europe.

Interviewed on national radio this morning asked if the USADA report made him feel vindicated, David Walsh replied
"No, I don't feel vindicated because from the outset I knew that Armstrong was doping" /img/vbsmilies/smilies/icon14.gif
 

ambal

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2010
931
72
28
Originally Posted by tonyzackery .

Is it true Lance Armstrong was cheating?
Show me a failed test, I don't understand why they're targeting him.
 

ambal

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2010
931
72
28
Originally Posted by limerickman .

Media coverage of the USADA doping report is at saturation point here in Europe.

Interviewed on national radio this morning asked if the USADA report made him feel vindicated, David Walsh replied
"No, I don't feel vindicated because from the outset I knew that Armstrong was doping" /img/vbsmilies/smilies/icon14.gif
as they say, interesting times.
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
Originally Posted by ambal .


Show me a failed test, I don't understand why they're targeting him.
Target him? This always gets me that no one has defended the others that have already been fried and buried. He is not the first to be outed but one of the last or his era. Several of them never tested positive were banned and were beaten by Armstrong. And the shite is now hitting the fan for others associated with Armstrong.
Don't take this wrong since I wish they had all raced clean. I do think they were all racing on a fairly level playing field.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Originally Posted by ambal .


Show me a failed test, I don't understand why they're targeting him.
He should be exempted? Why?

He was exempted from 1996-2010. The charade is over.

Followers of sport should welcome the uncovering of cheating.
 

tonyzackery

Well-Known Member
Dec 23, 2006
3,517
80
0
56
Originally Posted by ambal .


Show me a failed test, I don't understand why they're targeting him.
In case you might've missed it the first time. The fog will clear - perhaps...

Kubler Ross Model aka The Five Stages of Grief:
  1. Denial (I'll just close my eyes and make it go away) - "He's never failed a drug test." "How do you know he doped - did you actually see him dope?" "Why should he continue fighting these trumped up charges?"
  2. Anger (a good offense is the best defense) - "They've got it in for him." "They're just jealous of his success." "Oh, it's those French. They always hate on Americans." "The Feds are just out to get him." "This investigation is a waste of taxpayer money." "He's a hero - we need heroes like him."
  3. Bargaining (trying to soften the blow) - "Well, what about all the others that were doping?" "Why don't they go after football/track and field/basketball/hockey/cricket/soccer players? They're always picking on cyclists." "It's in the past, why don't they just leave him alone?" "He conquered cancer. Just leave him alone!" "Look at all the good he's done concerning raising awareness for cancer victims."
  4. Depression (putting things into perspective) - "There's cheating in all aspects of life. Why should we think cycling is to be any different?" "Everyone cheats, so you might as well accept it as a part of life." "Lance is not perfect - he's just another human being."
  5. Acceptance - "Okay, he did it. Pro cycling is still and will always remain a wonderful sport."
 

bauerfan

New Member
Mar 10, 2006
86
0
0
I know this is what Jan says; however, while I believe that doping was widespread from the period from 2002 to 2006 in the peloton (Michael Barry indicated on Canadian radio today that he only knew of only 12 cyclists in the pro peloton who did not end up doping during this period) different individuals have different reactions and tolerances to drugs. For example, an individual who has a natural hematocrit level of 38 would get a much better improvement from using EPO then an athlete with a natural hematocrit of 48 when the testing at the time would use a level above 50 as suspicious. Also, if one team was being favoured over another re hiding test results etc. this would of course also perpetuate an uneven playing field. The point is that doping is another variable that when introduced does not necessarily impact specific individuals or teams in the same manner.
 

bauerfan

New Member
Mar 10, 2006
86
0
0
Originally Posted by jhuskey .

Target him? This always gets me that no one has defended the others that have already been fried and buried. He is not the first to be outed but one of the last or his era. Several of them never tested positive were banned and were beaten by Armstrong. And the shite is now hitting the fan for others associated with Armstrong.
Don't take this wrong since I wish they had all raced clean. I do think they were all racing on a fairly level playing field.
I know this is what Jan says; however, while I believe that doping was widespread from the period from 2002 to 2006 in the peloton (Michael Barry indicated on Canadian radio today that he only knew of only 12 cyclists in the pro peloton who did not end up doping during this period) different individuals have different reactions and tolerances to drugs. For example, an individual who has a natural hematocrit level of 38 would get a much better improvement from using EPO then an athlete with a natural hematocrit of 48 when the testing at the time would use a level above 50 as suspicious. Also, if one team was being favoured over another re hiding test results etc. this would of course also perpetuate an uneven playing field. The point is that doping is another variable that when introduced does not necessarily impact specific individuals or teams in the same manner.
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
Originally Posted by bauerfan .


I know this is what Jan says; however, while I believe that doping was widespread from the period from 2002 to 2006 in the peloton (Michael Barry indicated on Canadian radio today that he only knew of only 12 cyclists in the pro peloton who did not end up doping during this period) different individuals have different reactions and tolerances to drugs. For example, an individual who has a natural hematocrit level of 38 would get a much better improvement from using EPO then an athlete with a natural hematocrit of 48 when the testing at the time would use a level above 50 as suspicious. Also, if one team was being favoured over another re hiding test results etc. this would of course also perpetuate an uneven playing field. The point is that doping is another variable that when introduced does not necessarily impact specific individuals or teams in the same manner.
If you look at the variable there is always reason for debate of course. Individuals also react to training in different ways but overall they all had essentially the same components to succeed or fail. Most do not understand that EPO is not some type of foreign subtance as it is natural and blends with body chemistry. It is also not a supercharger but more over an enhancement for recovery. I am not sure if we will ever know the entire story of the last 15 years of cycling.
Sometimes it is difficult to know who is lying.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)] (Michael Barry indicated on Canadian radio today that he only knew of only 12 cyclists in the pro peloton who did not end up doping during this period) [/COLOR]

[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]Wow.[/COLOR]
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Originally Posted by jhuskey .

If you look at the variable there is always reason for debate of course. Individuals also react to training in different ways but overall they all had essentially the same components to succeed or fail. Most do not understand that EPO is not some type of foreign subtance as it is natural and blends with body chemistry. It is also not a supercharger but more over an enhancement for recovery. I am not sure if we will ever know the entire story of the last 15 years of cycling.
Sometimes it is difficult to know who is lying.
JH : Ullrich is presumably keeping his own counsel on this entire matter?

It would be interesting to read the entire story about what the effect of doping and it's improvement in performance. I think the improvement in Armstrong's performance 1998-2005 compared to his relatively poor form 1992-1996 is a subject in itself. That improvement as a result of Armstrong's doping is a matter of record now.

I said it years ago here on CF that the improvement in his performance in longer stage races was nothing short of miraculous.
And now we definitively know why this is so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steve

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
Jan is keeping pretty quiet and only speaking when he is forced to. He just wants to be left alone to live his life. Not sure if he will ever finish that book and probably best right to keep out of the spot light. So much shite flying you are bound to get hit with some if you get into the fight.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Originally Posted by jhuskey .

Jan is keeping pretty quiet and only speaking when he is forced to. He just wants to be left alone to live his life. Not sure if he will ever finish that book and probably best right to keep out of the spot light. So much shite flying you are bound to get hit with some if you get into the fight.

I can understand.

The USADA story is literally headline news in the newspapers, television and radio reports here in Ireland and the UK.
The news media TV channels were carrying the story as a headline all day yesterday.
Our own TV station has been interviewing Sean Kelly and Nicholas Roche on TV/radio. Our main current affairs/politics programme carried the story last night.
And this is in a country where cycling gets little or no coverage compared to soccer, Gaelic games, rugby.
I haven't seen or heard either Paul Kimmage or David Walsh being interviewed since the report was released except for one radio interview that Walsh did on Irish radio.

If this saturation coverage is the case in a country like mine - then it must be getting huge coverage in countries in mainland Europe where cycling is a huge sport.
In that context JU is right to keep schtum.
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
Are you seeing much about the Leipheimer, Hincapie etc banning over there? It has been low profile here as far as what I have seen.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Originally Posted by jhuskey .

Are you seeing much about the Leipheimer, Hincapie etc banning over there? It has been low profile here as far as what I have seen.
Hincapie is being featured in the news reports as "Armstrong's faithful lieutenant through all his T'sDF victories" and news of his being banned is broadcast.
No mention of Leipheimer.

All the news reports contain "systematic doping within the USPS team" "a culture of doping with Armstrong as it's instigator" "Armstrong grooming riders to dope or run the risk of being fired" "Armstrong paying $1m+ dollars to Ferrari"

What they're retransmitting on each bulletin is pictures of the TDF podium of Armstrong, Basso and JU (2004?).