Lance's Doping Scandal

DJ said:

So to the Froggies who made up this scandal.....now will you beleive that he
is a Champion?
DJ

Ha Ha! Thats funny, the French believe he is a Champion.... good one 🙂

In article <[email hidden]>,

DJ said:

Just came over the Late news tonight (Wed 31st May) that the Dutch Authority
that has been handling the claim from the French that Lance Armstrong was
involved with doping in the 1999 Tour de france, has cleared him from using
any substance to help him win the great race.

Actually, I think you'll find it found there was no way he could be
convicted of an offence, which we all knew already. And that secrecy was
breached, which we knew already. But there was no finding on the
validity of the tests, nor was there any finding that the positive
samples weren't Lance's. If it were a cager in court, we'd say he got
off on a technicality.

--
Shane Stanley

"Shane Stanley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

DJ said:

Just came over the Late news tonight (Wed 31st May) that the Dutch
Authority
that has been handling the claim from the French that Lance Armstrong was
involved with doping in the 1999 Tour de france, has cleared him from
using
any substance to help him win the great race.

Actually, I think you'll find it found there was no way he could be
convicted of an offence, which we all knew already. And that secrecy was
breached, which we knew already. But there was no finding on the
validity of the tests, nor was there any finding that the positive
samples weren't Lance's. If it were a cager in court, we'd say he got
off on a technicality.

--
Shane Stanley

To be honest, as I'm not really into racing, i do enjoy TDF for the racing
aspect and not the political aspect.
I'm not aware of all that has happened except that the French media had
accused Lance of doping, and it has taken this long to find otherwise.

I don't Understand the points system that comes with International cycling.
Is it like all the races that they've gained a place or won that they get
points that they can use for the big races such as TDF?

Sorry for my ignorance or if I have asked a stupid question.

If that is correct, then I guess I can understand the french getting upset
but all in all, Lance came from near death, to win 6 TDF's which proves he's
a phononenom and force to be dealt with but to accuse someone of and putting
them through unneccesary scrutiny without proof is unacceptable...but
then...have the french every followed the rules?

Cheers DJ

DJ said:

If that is correct, then I guess I can understand the french getting upset
but all in all, Lance came from near death, to win 6 TDF's which proves he's
a phononenom and force to be dealt with but to accuse someone of and putting
them through unneccesary scrutiny without proof is unacceptable...but
then...have the french every followed the rules?

7, actually.

He won 7 TdF's. In a row, retired on top, unbeatable. Of course the
French hate him.
He's not French.

Shane Stanley said:

Actually, I think you'll find it found there was no way he could be
convicted of an offence, which we all knew already. And that secrecy was
breached, which we knew already. But there was no finding on the
validity of the tests, nor was there any finding that the positive
samples weren't Lance's. If it were a cager in court, we'd say he got
off on a technicality.

.... except there is no evidence he committed any offence, only French
jealousy and suspicion that Armstrong was so much better than any other
riders. A quite different matter from a cager running someone down,
leaving the scene and then claiming to have been in a "dissociative
state". I'm not in your "we", Shane.

Donga

quote='Donga'Shane Stanley said:

Actually, I think you'll find it found there was no way he could be
convicted of an offence, which we all knew already. And that secrecy was
breached, which we knew already. But there was no finding on the
validity of the tests, nor was there any finding that the positive
samples weren't Lance's. If it were a cager in court, we'd say he got
off on a technicality.

.... except there is no evidence he committed any offence, only French
jealousy and suspicion that Armstrong was so much better than any other
riders. A quite different matter from a cager running someone down,
leaving the scene and then claiming to have been in a "dissociative
state". I'm not in your "we", Shane.
Donga[/QUOTE]

I havent read the report released by the Dutch guy so i cant really comment on it.

One thing im not convinced of is this issue that its purely France vs Armstrong. Its not France = Tour de France = Non French Armstrong wins = France Hates Armstrong. Armstrong likes to take this route in his very jingoistic "jean francois" way. (That comment cast him in a poorer light to me than any doping rumours) His personanility by nature means he's never going to be that well liked in general. Obviously not all of France is in love with him but he also got massive amounts of respect and support from them. The issue i think casts people like [censored] Pound, WADA and the UCI in a poorer light. They seem to have most problem with him, and were/are determined disregard and void their own drug testing policies to target him.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bleve said:

Of course the French hate him.
He's not French.

What nonsense. Do you hate him because he's not Australian?

The French conspiracy theory is just so much spin.

--
Shane Stanley

WADA, [censored] Pound, the UCI and Pat McQuaid, seem intent on saving their own butts and are happy to accuse anyone to the "media"off the cuff ...

That the UCI now are backing the report from their Dutch Investigator is positive.

Both the UCI and WADA still moaned foul when the report too was leaked to Dutch media, and WADA immediatley attacked the Investigator for a "lack of professional courtesy" in not letting them see the report first ( to run damage control no doubt)....so they seek something they are not prepared to give to others...what hypocrits!!!

I have little respect ( make that NO RESPECT) for sports administrators who happily destroy many an athletes career with a public hanging before investigation and ( in many cases thorough clearing) when the truth or real facts emerge.

We are not alone...in Australia, John Coates is a master if this and he heads our AOC, what a joke he had proven to the world...very happy to destroy the careers of our Olympic cyclists and destabilise the Athens team in the run up to the last Olympics, and what egg he had on his face when he had to present gold medals to our cyclists...and you know!!!!....he was never even an athlete, but a coxen who sat in the boat facing the wrong way and yell out to the [censored] of the boat ( so what's changed)...

for some reason ego?...personal agenda?...power?...or because some media fool is happy to go to print or air on their every word....these so called "leaders" keep on doing this [censored]...

Armstrong by no stretch of the imagination is and was a real super athlete, hard nosed and determined...attributes necessary to succeed in many endeavors, an attitude he displayed to himself more so to anyone else, as HE had to do the effort, no other bugger....so when anyone wants to criticise him...let that person be any lessor achiever and their criticism is pointless, mere whinging, jealousy...sore loser or just plain mean spirited chasing a headline...in my view gutless none the less...you dont have to like him...but you must respect what he has done for himself, his sport and cycling fans worldwide...

it doesnt hurt to praise an achievement...to demean it is unworthy of the demeanor.

hopefully now the UCI and WADA will observe common decency in their future public statements and actions....or am I expecting miracles again?

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bleve said:

Of course the French hate him.
He's not French.

What nonsense. Do you hate him because he's not Australian?

The French conspiracy theory is just so much spin.

Shane, put up or shut up. What evidence have you got? You sound like
the killer squid.

Donga

In article <[email hidden]>,

Donga said:

except there is no evidence he committed any offence

There *is* evidence; it's a question of whether it's evidence that can
be used (a subject not settled despite the latest finding). The tests
were done and findings were leaked -- if that wasn't the case, this
inquiry would have said so.

Did you suspect the rider whose wife was found with a car loaded with
stuff a couple of years back? Of course you did, yet in objective terms
the evidence was much, much slimmer, and nothing could be done there
either.

--
Shane Stanley

In article <[email hidden]>,

Donga said:

Shane, put up or shut up. What evidence have you got?

It's all been printed -- Armstong's test slips and the test results. It
won't stand up in a court or, probably, a Court of Sport hearing because
the tests were carried out on the basis of confidentiality, which was
clearly breached. But that only makes the evidence ineligible; it
doesn't make it disappear off the face of the earth.

Armstrong, if you look carefully, has never denied that they were his
slips. He's played to anti-French sentiments, claimed innocence, and
questioned the tests, if in vague terms. But he's never said there's no
evidence (as opposed to proof).

No-one believed Tyler Hamilton was guilty either; that was also supposed
to be a French conspiracy.

I don't really know whether Armstrong doped, despite the EPO test and
all the other circumstantial evidence. And doper or not, he was still a
stunning athlete. (So was Marco Pantani, for that matter.) But he's also
human, susceptible to the same temptations as anyone else.

There was a drug he'd seen work miracles with other riders, he then
moved to start "training" with the doctor behind them, Michele Ferrari,
he was on the comeback, and there was no test for it. How many people
would say no in such a situation?

Quoted message said:

You sound like the killer squid.

Thanks. Sorry you're taking this so personally.

--
Shane Stanley

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bleve said:

Of course the French hate him.
He's not French.

What nonsense. Do you hate him because he's not Australian?

They (gross generalisation) love certain French riders despite their
being done for EPO etc (remember '98, Festina? anyone come to mind?)
but all over the road (you watch your Tour DVDs one day, count them) is
Lance EPO, Lance cheat etc. Never convicted. Not French though ... If
he was, they'd shrug and say "it's part of the sport" like they did in
'98. No-one spits on Virenque, do they?

Now, you go to the cricket, and listen to the same idiot LCD's (lowest
common denominator) [censored] foreign crickers, and tell me that "we"
don't have the same problem here. Witness the pursuit of the Sri
Lankan spin bowler who kept getting done for chucking. If it was Warny
(Warney! Warney!) would that happen?

Xenophobia, chum. It's very real, and LCD's are everywhere.

DJ said:

I don't Understand the points system that comes with International cycling.
Is it like all the races that they've gained a place or won that they get
points that they can use for the big races such as TDF?

UCI (the governing body of road racing) set points for races, and
winning or placing in those races earns riders points. Teams (this may
have changed a bit since the pro-tour came into effect last year) get
invited to bigger races based on how many points they have amongst
their riders. IMO this is not an altogether bad way to do it, flawed,
but there's not much better that I can think of. so, yes, you're
pretty-much right, up to about 2 years ago anyway. I'm not sure how it
works now with the pro-tour. I don't think the organisers of the
pro-tour know how it works either 🙂

Quoted message said:

Sorry for my ignorance or if I have asked a stupid question.

If that is correct, then I guess I can understand the french getting upset
but all in all, Lance came from near death, to win 6 TDF's which proves he's
a phononenom and force to be dealt with but to accuse someone of and putting
them through unneccesary scrutiny without proof is unacceptable...but
then...have the french every followed the rules?

Professional cycle racing has a history of bending the rules a lot,
sometimes to make the spirit of the race shine through when a bylaw may
have been contrary to the spirit, and other times, just plain corrupt
or demented. Witness the boomgate incident in the Paris-Roubaix this
year as a classic case of arbitary, demented and inconsistant rule
applying!

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bleve said:

They (gross generalisation) love certain French riders despite their
being done for EPO etc (remember '98, Festina? anyone come to mind?)
but all over the road (you watch your Tour DVDs one day, count them) is
Lance EPO, Lance cheat etc. Never convicted. Not French though ... If
he was, they'd shrug and say "it's part of the sport" like they did in
'98. No-one spits on Virenque, do they?

Oh, there are plenty of one-eyed French, as there are Australian and
American. But I'm sure you'll find they're in the minority -- which is
not what your term "the French hate him" implies.

Quoted message said:

Now, you go to the cricket, and listen to the same idiot LCD's (lowest
common denominator) [censored] foreign crickers, and tell me that "we"
don't have the same problem here.

I'm not suggesting we don't, but it's still a minority. Please, please,
tell me I'm not deluding myself ;-)

Quoted message said:

Witness the pursuit of the Sri
Lankan spin bowler who kept getting done for chucking. If it was
Warny (Warney! Warney!) would that happen?

I suspect Armstrong is getting the Warne benefit of the doubt.

--
Shane Stanley

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bleve said:

Not necessarily. The inquiry's scope may not have been to determine if
the test results were flawed or not, but rather, if they were even
worth investigating.

AI believe they were very limited.

Quoted message said:

Rumsas was kicked out, wasn't he? I thought he was?

The Tour was over when she was found. He was eventually arrested and
convicted in court (suspended sentence, I think), but I don't think
there was any UCI sanction for it so he kept on riding.

Quoted message said:

He was done for EPO at the '03 Giro anyway

Right. Most of us believed there was _evidence_ he was doping at the
Tour the year before, but until he got caught at rhe Giro there was no
_proof_.

--
Shane Stanley

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bleve said:

Not necessarily. The inquiry's scope may not have been to determine if
the test results were flawed or not, but rather, if they were even
worth investigating.

AI believe they were very limited.

Can you explain this a bit further, I'm afraid I don't fully understand
what you're saying.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rumsas was kicked out, wasn't he? I thought he was?

The Tour was over when she was found. He was eventually arrested and
convicted in court (suspended sentence, I think), but I don't think
there was any UCI sanction for it so he kept on riding.

Quoted message said:

He was done for EPO at the '03 Giro anyway

Right. Most of us believed there was _evidence_ he was doping at the
Tour the year before, but until he got caught at rhe Giro there was no
_proof_.

The evidence was circumstantial, which is (or at least shouldn't be in
most cases) not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

It's -very- odd that even with all the stuff going on around him, he
was still using in '03, when he must have known he was being watched
closely - same thing goes for Hamilton, who had been warned about funny
test results for some time before he eventually got done at the Vuelta.

Shane Stanley said:

The French conspiracy theory is just so much spin.
Shane Stanley

I don't think its soo mcuh to do with cycling, its just they are "French"

lets face it, it really should be the Tour of Germany, anyways 🙂

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Donga said:

Shane, put up or shut up. What evidence have you got?

It's all been printed -- Armstong's test slips and the test results. It
won't stand up in a court or, probably, a Court of Sport hearing because
the tests were carried out on the basis of confidentiality, which was
clearly breached. But that only makes the evidence ineligible; it
doesn't make it disappear off the face of the earth.

Armstrong, if you look carefully, has never denied that they were his
slips. He's played to anti-French sentiments, claimed innocence, and
questioned the tests, if in vague terms. But he's never said there's no
evidence (as opposed to proof).

No-one believed Tyler Hamilton was guilty either; that was also supposed
to be a French conspiracy.

I don't think that's true. A lot of people suspected Hamilton, which,
with hindsight, is interesting if you watch Hollentour again. He'd
also been under investigation for some time as his results had been
questionable - see the 2004 olympics etc.

Quoted message said:

I don't really know whether Armstrong doped, despite the EPO test and
all the other circumstantial evidence. And doper or not, he was still a
stunning athlete. (So was Marco Pantani, for that matter.) But he's also
human, susceptible to the same temptations as anyone else.

There was a drug he'd seen work miracles with other riders, he then
moved to start "training" with the doctor behind them, Michele Ferrari,
he was on the comeback, and there was no test for it. How many people
would say no in such a situation?

A lot. EPO was neither new, or unknown at the time, and with Festina
and TVM in '98 *very* fresh in the minds of a lot of riders, and the US
Postal service's rigourous anti doping stance, it would have been very
foolish.

Maybe Ferrari was doping, maybe he wasn't, but Ferrari worked with a
-lot- of riders. who's to say he was systematically doping them all?

For anyone with the motivation and time heres the report. Its long, 130 odd pages.

velonews.comreport1999.pdfOpen ↗