Is it true Lance Armstrong was cheating?

[jhuskey]

OJ was found to have liability in a civil trial for wrongful death. Not exactly the same as being found guilty of wrongful death in a criminal trial but I agree on everything else. Guilty of armed robbery, kidnapping etc.
Justice is blind and sometimes mentally impaired.

 

[burninglegs]

After everything that I read and that I don't completely understand, my opinion is the final verdict on Lance is still to be decided.
I'm glad that I drink beer.

 

[doctorSpoc]

If you're testing whether a newer test for EPO is valid you should be testing against samples that are known to have EPO and not suspected to have EPO. Maybe I just saw that as a ploy to have free reign at said samples without having to go through all the paperwork and legal issues that surrounds retesting old samples...

riders sign off on re-testing for research purposes (another reason these tests cannot be used for sanctioning) and this is how and why these tests were performed. i think that in addition to evaluating the test it was also important to have an idea of just what percentage of riders would cheat in an environment when they know they cannot be caught. how old samples could be and still test positive etc. kills many birds with one stone. if you think this is the sole source of validation for this test.. you are wrong.

But Pantani did get refused entry into several big races due to excessive hematocrit >50% and at one point measured over 60%. When you're pegging those values on more than one occaison and you're found with syringes, what "probable conclusions based on available evidence" would you form?

i repeat... Pantani has never fail a dope test... Cunego has a hematocrit that is naturally over 50 that has been medically verified by UCI and has been given special status because this has been proven natural for him.. is Pantani the same.. was he dehydrated.. etc, etc.. he hasn't fail a dope test.. using YOUR logic how can you say he's guilty of doping? look i agree that it looks bad for him, i'm just using YOUR reasoning here.

He was found not guilty to first degree murder but was found guilty of wrongful death. He's also since been sentenced to 9 years in jail... I see you're a little off the mark again.

..c'mon man.. you know what i mean.. guilty, innocent, positive, non-negative etc.. are just legal terms.. they often have nothing to do with reality..

just like you used your common sense to tell you that Pantani was using.. use your common sense to tell you that Armstrong was using... it's actually physiologically impossible that he wasn't, just given the fact that we now know that basically all of his rivals have now be shown to be drug cheats and yet he beat them all. there is nothing particularly extraordinary about him physically when compared to his fellow pro cyclist.. compared to us poor slobs yes, but compared to other pro cyclist his physiology is pretty run of the mill.. throw in 5 of his samples from 1999 containing EPO.. what else do you need??? your position is looking pretty ridiculous from where i'm standing. Pantani has some dicey circumstantial evidence about an insulin syring, some high hematocrit numbers that the UCI says could be used to sanction him and yet you feel that that is enough to consider him a drug cheat. Armstrong has 5 frick'n samples that are shown to contain EPO (again, for legalistic, technical reasons are not able to be use to sanction him.. and i agree it should not.. the rules should be followed) and yet that is not enough for you to brand him a drug cheat? do you actually fathom just how ridiculous your assertions sound?

 

[Jonny_D]

riders sign off on re-testing for research purposes (another reason these tests cannot be used for sanctioning) and this is how and why these tests were performed. i think that in addition to evaluating the test it was also important to have an idea of just what percentage of riders would cheat in an environment when they know they cannot be caught. how old samples could be and still test positive etc. kills many birds with one stone. if you think this is the sole source of validation for this test.. you are wrong.



i repeat... Pantani has never fail a dope test... Cunego has a hematocrit that is naturally over 50 that has been medically verified by UCI and has been given special status because this has been proven natural for him.. is Pantani the same.. was he dehydrated.. etc, etc.. he hasn't fail a dope test.. using YOUR logic how can you say he's guilty of doping? look i agree that it looks bad for him, i'm just using YOUR reasoning here.



..c'mon man.. you know what i mean.. guilty, innocent, positive, non-negative etc.. are just legal terms.. they often have nothing to do with reality..

just like you used your common sense to tell you that Pantani was using.. use your common sense to tell you that Armstrong was using... it's actually physiologically impossible that he wasn't, just given the fact that we now know that basically all of his rivals have now be shown to be drug cheats and yet he beat them all. there is nothing particularly extraordinary about him physically when compared to his fellow pro cyclist.. compared to us poor slobs yes, but compared to other pro cyclist his physiology is pretty run of the mill.. throw in 5 of his samples from 1999 containing EPO.. what else do you need??? your position is looking pretty ridiculous from where i'm standing. Pantani has some dicey circumstantial evidence about an insulin syring, some high hematocrit numbers that the UCI says could be used to sanction him and yet you feel that that is enough to consider him a drug cheat. Armstrong has 5 frick'n samples that are shown to contain EPO (again, for legalistic, technical reasons are not able to be use to sanction him.. and i agree it should not.. the rules should be followed) and yet that is not enough for you to brand him a drug cheat? do you actually fathom just how ridiculous your assertions sound?

I thought I recalled that Lance had an abnormal heart that gave him an advantage.

 

[jhuskey]

I thought I recalled that Lance had an abnormal heart that gave him an advantage.

All athletes at that level have hearts that are "abnormal" in comparison to Joe Nobody.

 

[doctorSpoc]

I thought I recalled that Lance had an abnormal heart that gave him an advantage.

NO.. this is all mythology..

Lance has a large heart compared to regular couch potatoes, but not compared to other pro cyclists. whenever you read about how exceptional LA is they are always comparing him to regular joe on the street, not his competition.

Lance's VO2max is not even particularly high for a pro cyclist.. he's pretty much average for a pro cyclist @ 83. e.g. Greg LeMond (92.5 - highest ever recorded for a cyclist) and Ullrich (85), Miguel Indurain (88) had higher VO2maxs than Armstrong.. 80-83 is pretty run of the mill for a pro cyclist... it's just that it's exceptional when you compare to the general population.. but he's not competing against the general population..

 

[Jonny_D]

I'll be honest I know very little about Lance's physicality but I do know that it takes more than doping to achieve what he did.

 

[doctorSpoc]

I'll be honest I know very little about Lance's physicality but I do know that it takes more than doping to achieve what he did.

absolutely.. no one is saying any different.. it took a tonne of hard work, dedication, great tactical sense.. all of that..

if you have all the best cyclists in the world, with all kinds of physical gifts, all working there ass off and then taking dope on top of that to gain an aditional 5-10% or whatever it is. you're still going to need to work your ass off in order to keep up.. it's just that if just work your ass off and don't take dope as well that they are going to have that 5-10% advantage.. not working like a dog means your are out it completely.. 90-95% or what you are doing still comes from you physical gifts, hard work and dedication.. dope amounts to icing on the cake... but if everyone else if doing it, it's necessary icing to keep up.

some people seem to mistakingly think that someone can take dope, sit on your sofa and drink beer and eat potato chips and you're going to be a super star and that it is going to totally make up for not being physically gifted.. NO, you're going to suck.. really, really bad because the other guys who are physically gifted and working hard and take dope are still going to clean your clock for you..

 

[jhuskey]

I agree with all the above but as I have stated before such drug as EPO not only raise your performanc level by the 10% so so ,they also give you a very enhanced recovery rate.
It make it a lot easier to get out of bed any do another 220 kms.

 

[limerickman]

Recovery is the secret : enhance recovery or tire more slowly than your competitors and you will win.

Guys like Lemond, Ullrich, Indurain had obvious physical atttibutes.

 

[burninglegs]

I really like that answer and I can live with it.

 

[limerickman]

Just watching a fascinating documentary about doping and the former East Germany, called the Great Olympic Drug Scandal.

Heidi Krieger.
Ute Krauser.
Rica Reinisch.
Katherina Bullin.

Heidi Krieger was forced to have a sex change and is now a man, due to the volume of doping put in to her system.
Heidi is now Andreas Krieger.
Werner Franke, the German doctor, reading Heidi's file, said that in one treatment, Heidi received more steroids in one dose, than Ben Johnson.


Very very sad to see all these women now living with severe medical problems.

Doctor Giselher Spitzer and Professor Werner Franke discussing the after effects of doping is scary stuff.

 

[swampy1970]

Recovery is the secret : enhance recovery or tire more slowly than your competitors and you will win.

Yes and no... Back in 2003 Armstrong was finishing some of the mountain stages of the Dauphine with an average close to 500watts for the last 30 to 40 minute climbs of the day. Yes, you have to recover to be able to do well day after day after day... but then there's the matter of actually putting out 500watts for >30minutes regardless of where abouts in the stage you're at - let alone after a week of hard racing.

That's just under the same amount of power that Indurain put out during his hour record... and not far off from what Boardman put out for the pursuit record that he's held for over a decade.

 

[swampy1970]

riders sign off on re-testing for research purposes (another reason these tests cannot be used for sanctioning) and this is how and why these tests were performed. i think that in addition to evaluating the test it was also important to have an idea of just what percentage of riders would cheat in an environment when they know they cannot be caught. how old samples could be and still test positive etc. kills many birds with one stone. if you think this is the sole source of validation for this test.. you are wrong.



i repeat... Pantani has never fail a dope test... Cunego has a hematocrit that is naturally over 50 that has been medically verified by UCI and has been given special status because this has been proven natural for him.. is Pantani the same.. was he dehydrated.. etc, etc.. he hasn't fail a dope test.. using YOUR logic how can you say he's guilty of doping? look i agree that it looks bad for him, i'm just using YOUR reasoning here.



..c'mon man.. you know what i mean.. guilty, innocent, positive, non-negative etc.. are just legal terms.. they often have nothing to do with reality..

just like you used your common sense to tell you that Pantani was using.. use your common sense to tell you that Armstrong was using... it's actually physiologically impossible that he wasn't, just given the fact that we now know that basically all of his rivals have now be shown to be drug cheats and yet he beat them all. there is nothing particularly extraordinary about him physically when compared to his fellow pro cyclist.. compared to us poor slobs yes, but compared to other pro cyclist his physiology is pretty run of the mill.. throw in 5 of his samples from 1999 containing EPO.. what else do you need??? your position is looking pretty ridiculous from where i'm standing. Pantani has some dicey circumstantial evidence about an insulin syring, some high hematocrit numbers that the UCI says could be used to sanction him and yet you feel that that is enough to consider him a drug cheat. Armstrong has 5 frick'n samples that are shown to contain EPO (again, for legalistic, technical reasons are not able to be use to sanction him.. and i agree it should not.. the rules should be followed) and yet that is not enough for you to brand him a drug cheat? do you actually fathom just how ridiculous your assertions sound?

From what I recall, the re-testing for research purposes was after 2002.

Pantani had hematocrit values all over the charts from low 40's to above 60. That ain't 'natural'. A deviation of upto 10 points if you go from being healthy and rested to being anemic... maybe. 20... no effing way.

Pantani failed a few of the >50% hematocrit tests and served his dues - in the form of 2 week suspensions. Note - it was just a few... an exception rather than the norm. If it was the norm then there'd be a case for him being naturally above 50%. One of those races was the Giro - the same race a couple of years later where they'd find said needles in his hotel room...

 

[doctorSpoc]

From what I recall, the re-testing for research purposes was after 2002.

Pantani had hematocrit values all over the charts from low 40's to above 60. That ain't 'natural'. A deviation of upto 10 points if you go from being healthy and rested to being anemic... maybe. 20... no effing way.

Pantani failed a few of the >50% hematocrit tests and served his dues - in the form of 2 week suspensions. Note - it was just a few... an exception rather than the norm. If it was the norm then there'd be a case for him being naturally above 50%. One of those races was the Giro - the same race a couple of years later where they'd find said needles in his hotel room...

No you are wrong.. the testing of the 1999 samples was strictly for research purposes.. and the results were anonymous.. it was a reporter at Le Mond that tricked the UCI and Armstrong into signing off and giving them the papers they used to link the anonymous results to the names (that's the most ironic thing Armstrong himself allowed his own name to be linked with the results).. the UCI had this info not the labs, not WADA..

i'll say it again in case you happened to miss it... 5 OF ARMSTRONG'S FRICK'N URINE SAMPLES HAD FRICK'N EPO IN THEM... WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FRICK'N COFFEE MAN!!!

 

[limerickman]

No you are wrong.. the testing of the 1999 samples was strictly for research purposes.. and the results were anonymous.. it was a reporter at Le Mond that tricked the UCI and Armstrong into signing off and giving them the papers they used to link the anonymous results to the names (that's the most ironic thing Armstrong himself allowed his own name to be linked with the results).. the UCI had this info not the labs, not WADA..

i'll say it again in case you happened to miss it... 5 OF ARMSTRONG'S FRICK'N URINE SAMPLES HAD FRICK'N EPO IN THEM... WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FRICK'N COFFEE MAN!!!

Wasn't there 6 separate LA samples shown to have rEPO?

 

[doctorSpoc]

Wasn't there 6 separate LA samples shown to have rEPO?

yes, 6 times... thanks!

 

[ullrichrules]

Yes and no... Back in 2003 Armstrong was finishing some of the mountain stages of the Dauphine with an average close to 500watts for the last 30 to 40 minute climbs of the day. Yes, you have to recover to be able to do well day after day after day... but then there's the matter of actually putting out 500watts for >30minutes regardless of where abouts in the stage you're at - let alone after a week of hard racing.

Yes, its called EPO, autologous blood doping, HGH ... do you really think that amidst all the other dopers, who trained just as hard, with higher VO2Max levels, but without the better teammates, would lose to LA year after year...com'on use some elemental logic. It's ok, he cheated and you'll get over it. Did you think Tiger woods and Marion Jones...(insert squeaky clean idol) were innocent and pure...I did. And, look at them now. There is even suspicion that Tiger hired a Canadian MD to 'assist' him with training and recovery and now people are asking themselves how Tiger went from being a thin young man with sinewy muscles to the bulked up man crushing golf balls farther than most. Oh, he must work out more than the rest and its 'leg/knee snap' that gives him the advantage (but I digress)

That's just under the same amount of power that Indurain put out during his hour record... and not far off from what Boardman put out for the pursuit record that he's held for over a decade.

Ya, he generated the same Watts during a multiday tour other that men did for a specific 1 hr event that they dedicated themselves to training for...you're supporting the argument that LAs power outputs are 'too good to be true'; and they are. It's unbelievable the some cycling fan(-atics) don't recognize how unbelievable his numbers, and innumerable sound accusations, are. He will get caught (again) and it will be the darkest day for cycling yet

UR

 

[poulidor]

yes, 6 times... thanks!

6 to trigger the level of positive
+ 2 which were undoubtfull synthetic EPO according Ashenden

 

[Jamba]

Of course he cheated. It's in his blood. The man from the moon Neil Armstrong got all the popularity for being the first to land on the moon. The sad reality is that it should have been Buzz Aldrin because he was the main "pilot". That was the rule. But Neil is a much nicer, down to earth, & did not take millions for what he did. it was an achievement for everyone that he was after.
Lance is a greedy kind of cheater. . I followed him from the start of his career. He entered 3 olympics & never won a medal. The testing is more accurate in olympics. HE NEVER FINISHED HIS FIRST TOUR DE FRANCE. He said “for these guys to even finish the race, they must be superman” He returned to the tour from cancer & voila out of no where from last to first. The Americans reason: Lance trained harder, oxygen/tent/high altutude training blah blah blah – guess what - all the tour riders do that. Are you telling me the rest just drink bear & watch tv to train, give me a break. He visits Dr. dope Ferari just to chat. Right.
It maybe true that Lance did not use drugs but now i certainly believe he was doing at least blood injection – not drugs – but still cheating. The man is greedy. I bet he took a lot of money way more than the fair share of his team mates. It was all about Lance. Floyd said more than he should have to defend himself when he got caught that he was about to pave a road that will lead to Lance dirty tactics. Lance noticed & told Floyd "don't to say too much". A very smart move to cover his own butt - that would be Lance's. Lance went on & tried to put Floyd off the picture. Of course Floyd noticed that & now he wants everybody to know the truth. Good job Floyd. Zero tour victory is better than a stolen 7 tour victories. Get him Floyd so that Lance too will be down to zero tour victory like you. Lance is worse though because not only will he be down to zero but also will lose all his fans. On the other hand Floyd will have more fans including the Greatest rider ever, and our idol, Greg LeMond who once said "if not for the 50 or so pellets in my body, i could have beat all these guys with just one leg." that's my hero hahaha
And here's Lance quote early in his career when asked are you going to the moon? " I'm going to Mars". That's not my hero & I'm not laughing.

Here’s a very good read that says it all, almost:
http://www.slate.com/id/2260464/pagenum/2