Lance - Done my research & confused



mergino

New Member
Jul 12, 2005
5
0
0
Innocent



  • Lance Armstrong has always denied ever taking performance-enhancing drugs and has neither tested positive for banned substances nor faced any bans over doping. He may well be the most frequently examined athlete in sporting history (tested 30 times a year) and is in a sport where top riders including Marco Pantani (Tour de France winner) and French hero Richard Virenque have been caught and banned.
  • Armstrong was tested at his home, out of competition and dozens of times during all his Tours. He has always been under exceptional scrutiny, including right before his final race in June.“Just a day before the start we had a knock on the door, and the minister of sport had sent a crew down there to collect two samples of urine and two samples of blood,” Armstrong said. “And we checked around and found out that nobody else in the peloton was tested that day.” Former teammate Victor Hugo Pena said, "Not only did the sports laboratories constantly test him, but video cameras were set up in his room and police agents constantly monitored Lance's movements and who was visiting him and even his phone conversations".
  • Lance Armstrong concentrated exclusively each year on the Tour de France and trained to peak for the month of July. During his preparation for the 2004 Tour, he rode virtually every stage at least once. He selected and always had one of the strongest teams on the Tour. Planning was meticulous and he even developed a quantitative set of measures of his state of fitness and strength on the bike with a consultant physician.
  • Armstrong is an exceptional athlete and has most of the physiological traits that a person must have to excel in an endurance sport. His heart is almost a third larger than that of an average man. When he is at rest, it beats about thirty-two times a minute and when he is exerting himself his heart rate can edge up above two hundred beats a minute. At the age of 16 he was invited to the Cooper Institute, in Dallas, and given a test called the VO2 Max, which is commonly used to assess an athlete's aerobic ability (measures the maximum amount of oxygen the lungs can consume during exercise.) His levels were the highest ever recorded at the clinic. He also produces unbelievably low levels of lactic acid.
  • None of his accusers have ever produced direct evidence to substantiate drug rumours. David Walsh and Pierre Ballester, the authors of “L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong" a book alleging he used performance-enhancing drugs readily admitted that "There's no smoking gun. It's all circumstantial evidence." Year after year the French media has asserted unsuccessfully and despite official judicial inquiries into the sport generally and Armstrong in particular, he has always received a clean bill of health.
  • Armstrong regularly takes legal action against his accusers. Armstrong has faced up to, and defeated, every reasonable drug allegation to date.
  • His sponsorships include lucrative deals with Nike, Subaru and Coke, and a recent Sports Illustrated survey ranked his $16.5 million in endorsements fourth among active U.S. athletes, behind only Tiger Woods ($70 million), LeBron James ($35 million) and Andre Agassi ($24.5 million). Use of performance-enhancing drugs and the risk of a positive test would jeopardise these sponsorships and significant revenue.
  • In 2004, Armstrong sent a letter to the Amaury Sport Organisation, the UCI, and the WADA to warn of a possible doping method being used by other pro cyclists. He also donated money years ago to the UCI to aid research to detect drug use in sports.
  • Armstrong has unbelievable mental strength having been to the edge of death & right to the limit of suffering




Allegations (which are strongly denied by Armstrong and many are the subject of court action)



· In the book “L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong", Armstrong's former masseuse, Emma O'Reilly, alleges that Armstrong asked her to dispose of bags with syringes after the 1998 Tour of Holland and that in May 1999, as Armstrong trained in the Pyrenees, O'Reilly said she was asked to drive to Spain to pick up drugs which she handed to Armstrong in a parking lot. Steven Swart, a former teammate (1994 & 1995) of Armstrong's also says in the book that there was doping going on in the Motorola team and he felt pressured to take illegal drugs such as EPO.

· Although Armstrong has filed suits in both the United Kingdom and France against the authors of "LA Confidential: The Secrets of Lance Armstrong" asking courts there to pay him damages for libel and to order that a statement from Armstrong denying the charges be included in the book. However, a French court ruled that, because the rider refused to respond to the authors' queries, he had no right to have his side presented in their book. Armstrong was then ordered to pay the journalists one euro in compensation.

· Armstrong was associated with doctor/trainer Michele Ferrari, who in 2004 was found guilty in an Italian court for unlawful distribution of medicines and sporting fraud. Michele Ferrari was long known in the cycling world as one of the best doping doctors. Armstrong has explained that his connection to Ferrari did not go beyond occasional consultations on altitude training and diet. "EPO is no more dangerous than orange juice," Ferrari once told French sports daily L'Equipe.

· In his book denouncing doping in cycling (Positif), Christophe Bassons points out that Armstrong's performances are impressively (perhaps unnaturally) high given that many of his body parameters are on the same magnitude as Bassons'.

· In his testimony before a Bologna court in February 2002, Filippo Simeoni described how Dr. Ferrari showed him how to use the banned red blood cell booster EPO more effectively. Then in the 2004 Tour De France Simeoni attacked Armstrong's lead. 3 hours down on Armstrong. "I chased down Simeoni to protect the interests of the peloton."- Armstrong said. On the face of it, it seems a bit disingenuous to suggest that attacking a rider who sat almost three hours down on overall time and didn't figure in any of the superlative jersey classifications was for the best. Once back in the field, Armstrong spoke and laughed with numerous riders and at one point made the sign of zipping lips.

· In August 2005, French sports daily L'Equipe printed copies of documents suggesting six urine samples he provided during his first Tour win in 1999 tested positive for the red blood cell-booster erythropoietin, or EPO. (The lab said it could not confirm that the positive results were Armstrong's.)

"In any case," said his perennial runner-up, the German Jan Ullrich, "Armstrong remains the greatest racer of all time."
 
No! No! No!

You're supposed to decide if you like Lance or hate him, and then go looking for evidence to support that view.

If you're trying to find the facts first, and then decide, you will never get a clear answer, and you probably won't like the answer that you do find.

Just trying to save you some agony...
 
The 1999 urine sample will be his downfall.....:cool: It will be good to have him dragged through the coals, not for the drug use but for his lies. Now his final statements that e made on the podium make my stomach turn.:mad:
 
Quadsweep said:
The 1999 urine sample will be his downfall.....:cool: It will be good to have him dragged through the coals, not for the drug use but for his lies. Now his final statements that e made on the podium make my stomach turn.:mad:
How can you possibly know that? What information do you have that seems to be lacking from that available publically?

There seems to be two camps - those that love Lance and can not accept any adverse comment about him, and those that despise him and seek out "proof" of claims made against him. I have no time for either. I do not know what the truth is, but I will give Lance the benefit of the doubt until there is real proof from an objective source. The latest allegations have, to me, a bit of a whiff about them - and how can Lance defend himself against them?

One of the LAST sources I would trust is a journalist - not much of a story if it is to report Lance was not doping, is it, or to report on others who also allegedly returned positive B sample results? Does the journalist have anything to benefit from the report?
 
quite interesting is the following (which you can find out, if you study the equipe regarding this matter):

The values of EPO were remarkably high during the prolog (that armstrong won), during the stage in the alpes to Sestriere (that he won too) and before the stages in the pyrenees - this points on three EPO-applications.

that means that he prepared well for the deciding events in the tour. really professional!!
 
Balderick said:
How can you possibly know that? What information do you have that seems to be lacking from that available publically?

There seems to be two camps - those that love Lance and can not accept any adverse comment about him, and those that despise him and seek out "proof" of claims made against him. I have no time for either. I do not know what the truth is, but I will give Lance the benefit of the doubt until there is real proof from an objective source. The latest allegations have, to me, a bit of a whiff about them - and how can Lance defend himself against them?

One of the LAST sources I would trust is a journalist - not much of a story if it is to report Lance was not doping, is it, or to report on others who also allegedly returned positive B sample results? Does the journalist have anything to benefit from the report?



Lets wait for the DNA evidence.........it doesn't look good for LA in my opinion. I think this is going to go all the way.
Why do you think LA isn't suing.....as he should certainly be if he is innocent because then it would be a hands down slander case. ......the reason is that they can have the blood DNA tested and he knows it.
 
TiMan said:
Lets wait for the DNA evidence.........it doesn't look good for LA in my opinion. I think this is going to go all the way.
Why do you think LA isn't suing.....as he should certainly be if he is innocent because then it would be a hands down slander case. ......the reason is that they can have the blood DNA tested and he knows it.
Except that the urine could be his but the EPO result not his, thus the DNA would match up. The actual result could be a lie, but since there is not any other samples it can't be proven. It would be nearly impossible for Lance to win a lawsuit because there is almost nothing for him to use as evidence because it is gone. Perhaps he can get an investigater to dig something up, like an email or a memo discussing a scam (if that's what happened) but otherwise he has no way of truly proving innocence. Not that it would matter since proof still wouldn't disuade some people.
 
House said:
Except that the urine could be his but the EPO result not his, thus the DNA would match up. The actual result could be a lie, but since there is not any other samples it can't be proven. It would be nearly impossible for Lance to win a lawsuit because there is almost nothing for him to use as evidence because it is gone. Perhaps he can get an investigater to dig something up, like an email or a memo discussing a scam (if that's what happened) but otherwise he has no way of truly proving innocence. Not that it would matter since proof still wouldn't disuade some people.
If someone wants to manipulate samples they would need to put urine with signs of EPO use in samples and that would show in DNA analysis. It is very hard to believe or show that someone has manipulated samples.

It works both ways because there are only B samples left. Armstrong can't prove himself innocent and it's difficult to prove Armstrong 100% guilty of using EPO. I don't want any wins or anything to be taken away from Armstrong because even if someone can prove Armstrong guilty of taking EPO he has still just done the same as many others.
 
holli said:
If someone wants to manipulate samples they would need to put urine with signs of EPO use in samples and that would show in DNA analysis. It is very hard to believe or show that someone has manipulated samples.

It works both ways because there are only B samples left. Armstrong can't prove himself innocent and it's difficult to prove Armstrong 100% guilty of using EPO. I don't want any wins or anything to be taken away from Armstrong because even if someone can prove Armstrong guilty of taking EPO he has still just done the same as many others.
if you speak about 1998 you are rigt - but 1999 was different.

the lab found out the following:

1998 40 of 70 samples were positive.

1999 only 12 of 80 samples (50% = 6 belong to armstrong) were positive, because the riders were frightened to use epo (in 1998 there was the festina-scandal).

so it turns out that in 1998 armstrong could win the tour by using epo, since there were not much other riders using it.

epo brings about 15% higher performance! most possibly he took also other drugs for additional performance (testosteron, etc.)
 
holli said:
If someone wants to manipulate samples they would need to put urine with signs of EPO use in samples and that would show in DNA analysis. It is very hard to believe or show that someone has manipulated samples.

It works both ways because there are only B samples left. Armstrong can't prove himself innocent and it's difficult to prove Armstrong 100% guilty of using EPO. I don't want any wins or anything to be taken away from Armstrong because even if someone can prove Armstrong guilty of taking EPO he has still just done the same as many others.
the samples of tour 2000 are not tested yet. i am sure that the samples of armstrong are positive, too. since the epo tests started in 2001 with the olympic games in sidney.
 
here an interesting playboy-interview:

PLAYBOY: After you lose a testicle, does the other one stay where it was or does it move to the middle?

ARMSTRONG: It stays. Mine stayed left. You also produce less testosterone. The one that remains picks up a bit of the slack for his buddy who's gone, but not all of it. Since 1996 I've had chronically low testosterone, and I can't do anything about it.

PLAYBOY: It's a banned substance. You couldn't race if you replaced the testosterone you lost.
ARMSTRONG: I have to wait until I retire.


what does it mean? armstrong dominated the tour with chronically low testosteron-level :D .

what is testosteron responsible for: confidence, "i will do it", toughness, sexdrive, good mood, etc.

all characteristics that we missed, when we saw armstrong in the tour :D .
 
m.indurain said:
the samples of tour 2000 are not tested yet. i am sure that the samples of armstrong are positive, too. since the epo tests started in 2001 with the olympic games in sidney.

Just a point of clarification : the test procedure that was ratified in July 2004
is more sophisticated than the EPO tests used from 2001 to 2004.
In other words, someone cheating could have passed the 2001-2004 tests using the old EPO test.

But the July 2004 test - is more thorough and can detect elements which were
undetectable under the old test system.
 
m.indurain said:
here an interesting playboy-interview:

PLAYBOY: After you lose a testicle, does the other one stay where it was or does it move to the middle?

ARMSTRONG: It stays. Mine stayed left. You also produce less testosterone. The one that remains picks up a bit of the slack for his buddy who's gone, but not all of it. Since 1996 I've had chronically low testosterone, and I can't do anything about it.

PLAYBOY: It's a banned substance. You couldn't race if you replaced the testosterone you lost.
ARMSTRONG: I have to wait until I retire.


what does it mean? armstrong dominated the tour with chronically low testosteron-level :D .

what is testosteron responsible for: confidence, "i will do it", toughness, sexdrive, good mood, etc.

all characteristics that we missed, when we saw armstrong in the tour :D .
At the risk of sounding like Vicki Pollard - yeah but no but. It is not that simple. His testosterone levels might have been lower relative to what they were before the cancer, but that does not mean they were lower than the next guy with a full compliment of testicles - he could have had unnaturally high levels pre-cancer. I do not know - how can you know? Are you his physician? If he had two testicles post cancer would he have been more aggressive/confident/happy/sex hungry? Would that have improved his performance? Pure biased speculation IMHO.

Nice to see you are reading the articles in Playboy.
 
m.indurain said:
the samples of tour 2000 are not tested yet. i am sure that the samples of armstrong are positive, too. since the epo tests started in 2001 with the olympic games in sidney.
Again - how can you be sure? Do you really know? If you have knowledge (i.e. facts or objective expert opinion) that are able to be verified, share it! If it is merely your opinion, how does what you say assist in any way?

Put it another way - if I said a well known cyclist, lets call him Miquel I, was a drug cheat and I know he is a cheat, and when samples from particular years are tested I will have my proof, you would expect Miquel would be pretty P*SSED at the sense of injustice.

It is easy to sledge and defame someone on a web forum. If you are the real Miquel Indurain you are stupid, because Lance will (and should) come after you as you have defamed him. If you are not the real Miquel Indurain (and I suspect that is the case) then you are a coward hiding behind a similar name to give your comments legitimacy.

For a moment forget we are talking of Lance and focus on the facts. If it was any one else would the L'Equipe story have geenrated as much interest or debate? Is there reliable proof that there was EPO use - it seems not AT THIS STAGE. If there is reliable proof then fine, roast Lance for his sins. But until then it is manifestly unfair to judge.
 
Does it really matter whether Lance did or didn't ever use EPO? I don't think this would ever be an issue if Armstrong wasn't who he is. This same topic is getting top billing on every cycling website and is already a VERY VERY tired subject. Let it go already and talk about something else!
 
Balderick said:
At the risk of sounding like Vicki Pollard - yeah but no but. It is not that simple. His testosterone levels might have been lower relative to what they were before the cancer, but that does not mean they were lower than the next guy with a full compliment of testicles - he could have had unnaturally high levels pre-cancer. I do not know - how can you know? Are you his physician? If he had two testicles post cancer would he have been more aggressive/confident/happy/sex hungry? Would that have improved his performance? Pure biased speculation IMHO.

Nice to see you are reading the articles in Playboy.
sorry, but he said "Since 1996 I've had chronically low testosterone".

he did not say "Since 1996 I've had lower level of testorone" ;) . i guess he is so intelligent to point out the difference.

additonal he said " I have to wait until I retire". why, if he has normal level of testosterone?


i do not read the articles in the playboy - i found this article in the internet, when i searched for words "testosterone and armstrong". nice that armstrong is keen to give interviews to playboy :D .
 
Balderick said:
Again - how can you be sure? Do you really know? If you have knowledge (i.e. facts or objective expert opinion) that are able to be verified, share it! If it is merely your opinion, how does what you say assist in any way?

Put it another way - if I said a well known cyclist, lets call him Miquel I, was a drug cheat and I know he is a cheat, and when samples from particular years are tested I will have my proof, you would expect Miquel would be pretty P*SSED at the sense of injustice.

It is easy to sledge and defame someone on a web forum. If you are the real Miquel Indurain you are stupid, because Lance will (and should) come after you as you have defamed him. If you are not the real Miquel Indurain (and I suspect that is the case) then you are a coward hiding behind a similar name to give your comments legitimacy.

For a moment forget we are talking of Lance and focus on the facts. If it was any one else would the L'Equipe story have geenrated as much interest or debate? Is there reliable proof that there was EPO use - it seems not AT THIS STAGE. If there is reliable proof then fine, roast Lance for his sins. But until then it is manifestly unfair to judge.
I am sure, that Miguel Indurain took EPO like all top riders that time (Rominger, Riis, Zülle, Bugno, Ciapucci, Pantani, etc.). Since all took EPO that time all had the same chance to win the tour and:

- Indurain never said "I never took performance-enhancing drugs"

- Indurain did not ride the tour like a "cannibal"

The difference from former years to 1999 and i am sure also to the following years (see my posting above):

the lab found out the following: 1998 40 of 70 b-samples were positive. 1999 only 12 of 80 b-samples (50% = 6 belong to armstrong) were positive, because most possibly the riders were frightened to use epo (in 1998 there was the festina-scandal). so in 1998 armstrong could win the tour by using epo, since there were not much other riders using it. epo brings about 15% higher performance! most possibly he took also other drugs for additional performance (testosteron, etc.)

the red you can find if you search in the net. it is the statement of the leader of the authorized laboratory combined with the research of equipe. within 10 days we will have a statement of the uci and i am sure, they will confirm it.

what is a reliable proof for you? did hamilton dope or not? i am sure he did - he says, that he did not ... (like armstrong). armstrong says that the results most possibly were manipulated, but the lab did not know, to whom the samples belong.

you are kidding: i am not m.indurain :D .
 
another interesting interview with Alessandro Donati, a specialist in the fight against doping in sport (he confirmes that armstrong most possibly did not use only EPO):

http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/050831/3/db6c.html

Alessandro Donati, a specialist in the fight against doping in sport, suggested the performances of the 33-year-old American appear to show he has used a range of banned substances, including anabolic steroids.

He added: "No one could achieve what Armstrong has achieved taking EPO on its own. EPO improves your breathing capacity. But you also need other substances, such as anabolics, testosterone and a lot of others."
 
I really don't get some of the statements people are making. Everybody keeps saying "you can't do what lance did without taking drugs or doping". So are we saying nobody will ever finish first in a tour again? Nobody will ever be the best rider again? Will the Olympics only offer silver and bronze medals from here on out? Since it is apparently obvious that winning anything more than once means you are doping, then why not just automatically disqualify whoever wins any race more than once from now on since they clearly couldn't do it without doping. We will just declare the runner-up the winner in every contest and never have to worry about doping again....right?


Or am I taking this the wrong way? You mean there is a such thing as being the best in the world at a sport? You mean there are actually sports where one person is so clearly better than anybody else in the sport that they receive unanimous praise as the "mvp" or "the greatest ever"? You mean one man (or woman) really can dominate a sport for years at a time? You mean hard work, dedication to detail, and year-round preparation really can produce champions without the use of drugs? Hmmm...what a concept...all along I was thinking y'all meant that anybody who was the best had to be cheating...