![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
Even though there are no WADA approved tests for some doping? I refer you to Marion Jones. Again.
Lance Armstrong charges
- Thread starter fozzybear
- Start date
Even though there are no WADA approved tests for some doping? I refer you to Marion Jones. Again.
It's rubbish because you are telling us all that the witnesses have "Jealousy, grudges, bitterness, fall-outs & general dislike" towards Armstrong. You dont know any of the witnesses.
It's fine to have your own opinion, but you cant discredit the investigation based on what you think the witnesses might feel towards Armstrong.
[DOD]Asprilla;22636593 said:
Lance Armstong was successful for nearly ten years, over them ten years i'm sure he has done every type of test. Nothing was found and he was still winning. Surely if he cheated in his earlier days to keep winning or being successful he would have still been cheating later in life when more adavnced tests were available and he was still....winning. Nothing was found or has been found, has it...
Wouldn't the world anti doping tests be just the same as the US anti doping tests, its just another form of governing body. Unless your saying you cannot trust some doping agencies and that's why Armstrong got away with it?
Last edited:
No i just prefer to form my judgement on something that is 99% accurate rather than forming a judgement from individuals who would/could have many reasons as to why they would want to bring down Armstrong. Simples really, but because you do not agree with my view, i'm talking rubbish.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Actually they didn't find him guilty on the basis of the "words of ten individuals", the USADA presented charges and he has declined to fight them which may be viewed as an admission of guilt. Alternatively it may be that he's simply not willing to expend any more time/energy/money on fighting the case and doesn't care about the potential damage to his reputation.
//edit when you say not one test you obviously don't count the comments by Martin Saugy (Director of an anti-doping lab in Switzerland) who stated that a urine sample from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland indicated use of EPO.
Ok, I'll ask. What is the USADA's motive aside from that of trying to clean up the sport?
I'm not forgetting it at all, he is a remarkable man. Not one I think is pleasant or a nice person but that's a separate issue to whether he has achieved an awful lot. However if he has cheated then his work in raising money for charity shouldn't give him a free pass to escape the punishment.
If he's not guilty then absolutely he should be cleared and remain without a tarnish on his name but at present we've got the fact that he declined to fight the charges levelled against him. If you plead no contest then it's naturally going to be viewed by many as an inability to prove innocence.
It's possible that his team mates would want to frame him but equally it's possible that they have no such motivation and are simply telling the truth about what Lance Armstrong did or did not do. In terms of drugs test and accuracy - my understanding is that it's only useful if you're looking for the correct things, it would be rather like using a magnifying glass to try and pick up sound waves if you're testing for the wrong substance.
I don't know if he's innocent or not, perhaps they should just let them all dope and everyone would be on level ground however the whole thing reminds me of a film I watched recently called "The Flying Scotsman" about a cyclist who came from no where and did amazingly well, so well they found any reason the could to get rid of him, even changing rules.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
It's an arms race; a new form of doping is developed and it takes about 5 years for a reliable legally defensible test to be developed. It can be much longer in some cases. WADA (and the USADA) still don't have a test they think they can trust for autologous blood transfusions which is one of the things Floyd Landis accused Armstrong of.
Again; Marion Jones never failed a dope test but admitted to doping for a large part of her career including most of her major medal wins.
It would be excellent to allow them to just dope and really see what humans can accomplish (sub 9s 100m sprint for example). The only problem is the inevitable death involved with this, and at what age would you start the drugs? Lots of complications which make it an impossibility really.
Graeme Obree was basically going up against C.Boradman (the guy was doing commentary at the Olympics).
Boardman was a technician (with the aid of Peter Keen), was using all sorts of scientific research to cycle faster. The first indication of this when he used a radical bike in 1992 to win the Olympic Pursuit title. I think he caught up with his opponent in the final, which is very uncommon. The guy used technology and science to go fast.
Then there was Obree. He had little/no funding. He would use his acumen, experience and raw ability to go fast. The Obree vs Boardman battles were thoroughly enjoyable during the 90's.
Getting back to Armstrong:
I honestly do believe that they should let sleeping dogs lie. If they strip Armstrong in retrospect, then this rule should be applied to all sorts of athletes going back to the 70s and 80s. Some of the East German records in Athletics still exist and they should also be looked at (perhaps old urine/blood samples can be re-analysed).
It's unfair that only the most successful athletes should be "re-analysed" such as Marion Jones and Armstrong. I do believe that Armstrong was on something. However, I also believe that most of the top cyclists are also on something. You have to remember that pro cycling is a multi million dollar industry and if one team can gain an advantage over another by fair means or foul - they will. Teams spend millions of dollars on doctors/sports scientists to conjure up potions to make cyclists go quicker and I do not believe that every potion is legal.
I would also point the finger at Armstrong's fellow team-mates who want to give evidence against him. If Armstrong was taking illegal potions, then why weren't his team-mates? I would suggest that if Armstrong was taking illegal potions, then so were his team-mates who were being advised and assisted by the same doctors/sports scientists.
But hey ho....we will never know for sure. Its a shame that someone's successes can be taken away from them after a decade. It just seems strange to me.
Boardman was a technician (with the aid of Peter Keen), was using all sorts of scientific research to cycle faster. The first indication of this when he used a radical bike in 1992 to win the Olympic Pursuit title. I think he caught up with his opponent in the final, which is very uncommon. The guy used technology and science to go fast.
Then there was Obree. He had little/no funding. He would use his acumen, experience and raw ability to go fast. The Obree vs Boardman battles were thoroughly enjoyable during the 90's.
Getting back to Armstrong:
I honestly do believe that they should let sleeping dogs lie. If they strip Armstrong in retrospect, then this rule should be applied to all sorts of athletes going back to the 70s and 80s. Some of the East German records in Athletics still exist and they should also be looked at (perhaps old urine/blood samples can be re-analysed).
It's unfair that only the most successful athletes should be "re-analysed" such as Marion Jones and Armstrong. I do believe that Armstrong was on something. However, I also believe that most of the top cyclists are also on something. You have to remember that pro cycling is a multi million dollar industry and if one team can gain an advantage over another by fair means or foul - they will. Teams spend millions of dollars on doctors/sports scientists to conjure up potions to make cyclists go quicker and I do not believe that every potion is legal.
I would also point the finger at Armstrong's fellow team-mates who want to give evidence against him. If Armstrong was taking illegal potions, then why weren't his team-mates? I would suggest that if Armstrong was taking illegal potions, then so were his team-mates who were being advised and assisted by the same doctors/sports scientists.
But hey ho....we will never know for sure. Its a shame that someone's successes can be taken away from them after a decade. It just seems strange to me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
His teammates were doping; this is the evidence they are giving. They admitting they were all at it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,171
It will be interesting to see if USADA will release any documentary evidence of doping like the BALCO case.
If we assume Lance could only win on drugs then we must assume he was on them in 2009 when he came 3rd. Do we really think he could avoid testing positive at even this recent time?
If we assume Lance could only win on drugs then we must assume he was on them in 2009 when he came 3rd. Do we really think he could avoid testing positive at even this recent time?
The sports scientists/doctors are paid big money by teams, to come up with potions (illegal), which make the athletes peform better.
When a potion is first created/realeased, the anti doping agencies generally do not have a test for it. The anti doping agencies are always 1 step behind. It is most likely that Armstrong and pretty much all other leading cyclists were/are on something illegal, for which there is no known test.
I refuse to believe that Armstrong is the only person who was doping. If he was doping then the chances are that his entire team were (which appears to be the case). And if 1 team is doping, there is a fair chance that pretty much every other cyclist is also on something (to varying degrees).
Half of the game is to win. And the other part is not to get caught cheating. It may seem cynical, but its the nature of the game, for which millions of dollars are paid to the winners, through sponsorships and prize money.
When a potion is first created/realeased, the anti doping agencies generally do not have a test for it. The anti doping agencies are always 1 step behind. It is most likely that Armstrong and pretty much all other leading cyclists were/are on something illegal, for which there is no known test.
I refuse to believe that Armstrong is the only person who was doping. If he was doping then the chances are that his entire team were (which appears to be the case). And if 1 team is doping, there is a fair chance that pretty much every other cyclist is also on something (to varying degrees).
Half of the game is to win. And the other part is not to get caught cheating. It may seem cynical, but its the nature of the game, for which millions of dollars are paid to the winners, through sponsorships and prize money.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
I don't know why they are agreeing to testify now but it might be because they are all coming to the ends of their careers.
As for Lance in 2009, it's already thought that EPO has been replaced as the drug of choice by something that hasn't even been identified never mind a test developed.
The UCI has pointed out that even if there is no hearing USADA should publish the evidence so that suitable punishment can be agreed by all the parties involved.
As for Lance in 2009, it's already thought that EPO has been replaced as the drug of choice by something that hasn't even been identified never mind a test developed.
The UCI has pointed out that even if there is no hearing USADA should publish the evidence so that suitable punishment can be agreed by all the parties involved.
Pretty much spot on, how in gods name can these arses from USADA take away his titles and ban him completely is truly beyond me.
I refuse to believe that Lance was doping, he was never caught during his 7 TDF titles he won but yet the USADA deem it fit to ban him and strip him of his titles
Maybe i might have missed it but as far as im aware, he was always tested clean so why are they after him so badly??.
****ing ridiculous if you ask me, guilty without even a shred of hard evidence. Unless they have found something but from what i gather, they didnt so why make him guilty??.
Until i see some hard evidence or until LA himself decides to admit to doping then i will believe it.
What an awful way to treat one of the greatest cyclists of all time.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I refuse to believe that Lance was doping, he was never caught during his 7 TDF titles he won but yet the USADA deem it fit to ban him and strip him of his titles
Maybe i might have missed it but as far as im aware, he was always tested clean so why are they after him so badly??.
Same question to you as to azza21 - what is the USADA's motive aside from that of trying to clean up the sport? If you think they're going after him unfairly then maybe you've got an idea why?
I'd also have to ask why witness testimony is not sufficient in your eyes to even be advanced as evidence? It's evidence sufficient to be used in criminal trials with a much higher burden of proof than in almost any other investigation so why is it not applicable when there's witness testimony here?
There appears to be ten of Lance Armstrong's peers willing to testify according to the USADA, if it's one or two then you might have a better case for arguing it's unsupported but if there's a giant conspiracy against him it would be good to have a theory as to why. Some of these athletes are former team mates and not necessarily one that he'd previously had altercations with.
At present there's been charges offered and if it had proceeded the evidence (such as it may be) would have to be shown, he's declined to fight the charges, that's up to him but inferences will be drawn from that regardless. I hope we do get to see the evidence anyway because as the UCI has pointed out it would help determine the appropriate punishment if indeed it is needed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
Pretty much spot on, how in gods name can these arses from USADA take away his titles and ban him completely is truly beyond me.
I refuse to believe that Lance was doping, he was never caught during his 7 TDF titles he won but yet the USADA deem it fit to ban him and strip him of his titles
Maybe i might have missed it but as far as im aware, he was always tested clean so why are they after him so badly??.
****ing ridiculous if you ask me, guilty without even a shred of hard evidence. Unless they have found something but from what i gather, they didnt so why make him guilty??.
Until i see some hard evidence or until LA himself decides to admit to doping then i will believe it.
What an awful way to treat one of the greatest cyclists of all time.
Loads of athletes have never tested positive and later been found to dope. Look up the Festina Affair and the BALCO Affair and Operacion Puerto.
I'm agnostic about his guilt but the arguments for his absolute innocence given in this thread are baseless. I'm willing to wait until I've seen the evidence.
- Did they physically SEE him take or be administered substances?
- Even if they did, how do they know what it was, they are cyclists not doctors.
- They might have been mistaken in what they thought they say.
- There is no scientific evidence to back any of this up and when we are talking about drugs and doping it's the only way (imo) to sufficiently prove an athlete has taken a banned substance.
It's a complicated issue, especially considering some of the performance enhancements cannot even be identified yet by a test, then there are those which might not even be known about.
So they have no scientific evidence (it seems) and even if he was doping, others would have been doping as well and he beat them all, thus he is still the ultimate
He's accomplished wonders as a human and no one can deny that!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I've not had access to the testimony so I don't know what it contains which is partly why I'd like it to be released by the USADA. If for the sake of argument the other athletes saw him taking or being administered substances then it's possible they also saw the vials/bottles/whatever the substances came in and read the labelling - point being it's not beyond the bounds of possibility to think there might have been sufficient clues there even if they're not doctors.
They might have been told by Mr Armstrong himself if the allegations about him facilitating doping are true.
I'd also point out this is a different argument to it not being evidence which was the original point I was addressing.
They might have been mistaken in what they thought they saw, again without the evidence it is difficult to know what precisely that is but here also it's worth remembering that the more witnesses there the greater the chance of accuracy if they can corroborate the stories. As I said earlier if it's one or two then you've got a much better chance of arguing mistaken identification than if you've got five plus witnesses for instance.
As [DOD]Asprilla has pointed out more than once there have been other athletes such as Marion Jones who've taken banned substances and yet passed doping tests. The testing will almost always lag behind the dopers unless they get lucky and identify it very quickly, that's just one of the unfortunate facts that must be faced.
Essentially it appears the argument is as a general point "if your doping programme is so advanced that there's no currently test for it then you should never be found guilty" - is that it?
It's a complicated issue, especially considering some of the performance enhancements cannot even be identified yet by a test, then there are those which might not even be known about.
So they have no scientific evidence (it seems) and even if he was doping, others would have been doping as well and he beat them all, thus he is still the ultimate
He's accomplished wonders as a human and no one can deny that!
I'm not attempting to deny that he's a remarkable man but if he cheated to achieve it then that diminishes the outcome for me.
I'd argue with the ultimate point as well, if he took drugs and beat everyone then the most you could say is that he's the best of the dopers, there may be other athletes in the field who haven't taken drugs but if they had they'd have beaten him. It's pondering the unanswerable.