Lance - Done my research & confused

[Balderick]

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."

Ahh - so I assume the all the other banned substances Donati believes Lance must have taken in addition to EPO have also shown up in the many many tests Lance has been subjected to? It is not clear the basis on which Doanti qualifies as a "specialist in the fight against doping in sport" nor the information he has to support his opinion on Lance (if he is truly sufficently qualified and experienced to express those opinions).

I just want to make it clear that I am not pro-Lance or anti-Lance. I just find the witch hunt unfair - there is apprently no presumption of innocence in the Court of public opinion, and there should be - and I would adopt the same approach for anyone else.

 

[kaian]

The only person who knows the real truth is Lance. None of us will ever really know exactly what went down. Many of us have so many expectations of people who are famous or exceptional at what they do. I can't imagine what it must feel like to be in that kind of position. I'm sure some people crack under the pressure and use performance enhancing drugs. I mean, if winning means that people all over the world will respect you, you'll get all kinds of media attention, commercials, money. Many people in that situation would do whatever it takes to keep their image and stay on top.

I'm not saying Lance did that. I'm also not condoning doping in sports, but it's hard to point the finger when you're not in that situation yourself. Many people do things they wouldn't normally do for fame, money, etc...On the other side, there is always someone waiting to dethrone someone in that position. People can't just sit back and say "wow, what a remarkable athlete!" Instead they have to try to find something wrong and ruin someone's life.

Either way, Lance has brought attention back to cycling in this country. More and more people are getting into the sport because of him and because they feel inspired by his story. So, overall, whether he is genuine or not, he still has inspired millions of people. With or without drugs, I still think he's a superior athlete.

 

[JohnO]

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:

So natural talent and training had nothing to do with it? It's all EPO? Does this mean that if I had jazzed up on EPO in the mid 1990's, I'd have had an equal chance to win the tour? It appears that the benefits of EPO are being 'remembered with advantage'. A month ago, it gave maybe a 5% boost to endurance. That has grown to 20% in the last couple of weeks, and now a weekend cyclist like myself can win the Tour with enough EPO. If only I had known...

Along the same lines of evidence (or lack of)... I know that Donati has tested positive for BS on numerous occasions. We just can't find the sheet that links the stool sample with the name...

It is sad to see all these great names being dragged in the mud without so much as a shred of proof. Professional cycling gives way to professional nihilism. Personally, I find a good spring Classic far more exciting than an unsubstantiated allegation.

 

[Balderick]

The only person who knows the real truth is Lance. None of us will ever really know exactly what went down. Many of us have so many expectations of people who are famous or exceptional at what they do. I can't imagine what it must feel like to be in that kind of position. I'm sure some people crack under the pressure and use performance enhancing drugs. I mean, if winning means that people all over the world will respect you, you'll get all kinds of media attention, commercials, money. Many people in that situation would do whatever it takes to keep their image and stay on top.

I'm not saying Lance did that. I'm also not condoning doping in sports, but it's hard to point the finger when you're not in that situation yourself. Many people do things they wouldn't normally do for fame, money, etc...On the other side, there is always someone waiting to dethrone someone in that position. People can't just sit back and say "wow, what a remarkable athlete!" Instead they have to try to find something wrong and ruin someone's life.

I agree 100%.

 

[Balderick]

So natural talent and training had nothing to do with it? It's all EPO? Does this mean that if I had jazzed up on EPO in the mid 1990's, I'd have had an equal chance to win the tour? It appears that the benefits of EPO are being 'remembered with advantage'. A month ago, it gave maybe a 5% boost to endurance. That has grown to 20% in the last couple of weeks, and now a weekend cyclist like myself can win the Tour with enough EPO. If only I had known...

Along the same lines of evidence (or lack of)... I know that Donati has tested positive for BS on numerous occasions. We just can't find the sheet that links the stool sample with the name...

It is sad to see all these great names being dragged in the mud without so much as a shred of proof. Professional cycling gives way to professional nihilism. Personally, I find a good spring Classic far more exciting than an unsubstantiated allegation.

Seems I am in an agreeable mood today - I agree with what you have typed JohnO.

Not that I am promoting this, but if "all the top riders" were taking EPO, and getting a similar benefit, isn't that a level playing field, just an artifically enhanced one?

 

[MJtje]

Ofcourse it's a combination of factors........freak genetics, best doctor and a body who adopts good to the stuff it gets.......

But youre right you still need to work very, very hard.....riding in the weekends and taking epo would boost youre performance....still gotta have the genetics and a body that can deal with the boost........!

So natural talent and training had nothing to do with it? It's all EPO? Does this mean that if I had jazzed up on EPO in the mid 1990's, I'd have had an equal chance to win the tour? It appears that the benefits of EPO are being 'remembered with advantage'. A month ago, it gave maybe a 5% boost to endurance. That has grown to 20% in the last couple of weeks, and now a weekend cyclist like myself can win the Tour with enough EPO. If only I had known...


Along the same lines of evidence (or lack of)... I know that Donati has tested positive for BS on numerous occasions. We just can't find the sheet that links the stool sample with the name...

It is sad to see all these great names being dragged in the mud without so much as a shred of proof. Professional cycling gives way to professional nihilism. Personally, I find a good spring Classic far more exciting than an unsubstantiated allegation.

 

[sfbrown]

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 .

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 .

Uhm, there's something missing here. I know because it is happening to me right now. I am 50 and a former triathlete. I quit due to injuries and the fact that I went back to college. I mention this because for 4 years, I did little or no excersizing and have the weight gain to prove it.

I recently started back on the training and endurance thing. Bicycling is a big part of this as my knees can't take the 35 miles a week I used to run. When I started back training 4-5 times a week, I noticed that my moods changed. I became short-tempered and grouchy. I went to the doctor on another matter and asked him if the body changed its hormone production with training. He said, "Absolutely, your testosterone production goes way up!"

Zoom ahead to LA and you see the point. His training raises his testosterone level. Given the other peculiarities of his body that have been studied and documented, I don't think that attributing his levels to years of training as well as the high level of training is too much of a stretch.

Just a thought, Steve

 

[wineandkeyz]

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."

Right...
- So excellent coaching, training, preparation, and superior tactics had nothing to do with it?
- The fact that all the other members of Armstrong's teams were ALWAYS working for him, instead of for themselves (see T-Mobile) had nothing to do with it?
- The fact that Armstrong focused ONLY on the Tour and trained specifically to peak in July had nothing to do with it?
- The fact that Armstrong benefitted from some lucky breaks -- Ullrich's fall in 2003, etc. -- had nothing to do with it?

By the way, Alessandro, if Armstrong was taking all the stuff you accuse him of taking, he must have been a freakin' magician to keep from getting caught.

 

[mergino]

Would coming out of retirement and winning Tour de France no. 8 prove anything??

 

[Balderick]

Would coming out of retirement and winning Tour de France no. 8 prove anything??

As LA is reported to have said, it might p*ss the French (press) off, and that would seem to be a motivating factor for him. Given this recent allegation, would they exclude him from the TdF is he wanted to ride? That would really be interesting. Would the farce that is the French legal system intervene?

 

[JohnO]

As LA is reported to have said, it might p*ss the French (press) off, and that would seem to be a motivating factor for him. Given this recent allegation, would they exclude him from the TdF is he wanted to ride? That would really be interesting. Would the farce that is the French legal system intervene?

Tour officials have already stated that there is no reason that he couldn't ride in next year's TDF. His retirement is purely a personal matter, not a legal or official one.

The French legal system will not intervene because there is no evidence. What has been published by L'Equipe wouldn't be admissable in any court of law that operates under democratic principles.

 

[Balderick]

Tour officials have already stated that there is no reason that he couldn't ride in next year's TDF. His retirement is purely a personal matter, not a legal or official one.

The French legal system will not intervene because there is no evidence. What has been published by L'Equipe wouldn't be admissable in any court of law that operates under democratic principles.

The French legal system HAS intervened (and by that I mean investigated - my recollection from undergrad law studies was the French system is inquisitorial rather than adversarial) based on less. Not sure how democracy plays a role in the operation of the judicial system except for those jurisdictions where the judicial officers are elected.