Lance Armstrong charges

semi-pro waster · 28 Aug 2012 at 17:07

wildman said:
I wouldn't be surprised if Miguel Indurain was loaded on EPO and roids to do what he did. Especially the way he blew the field away in the TT's and not by seconds but by minutes. He had a full 5 minutes on Lemond in a Time trial back in the days when Lemond was his closest rival. So either he was gifted with elephant lungs and a V8 supercharged Cardio system or maybe we was another dirty drugs cheat..........................

Big Mig had a lung capacity of getting on for 8L, a resting heart rate as low as 28bpm - that's a definite physiological advantage over a lot of athletes. That doesn't mean that he wasn't a dirty great drugs cheat too though, I'd hope not but you can't be sure, especially in an era when drugs testing was even less sophisticated.

oli collett · 28 Aug 2012 at 18:13

I don't think EPO would have been available until the tail end of Indurain's career

Weebull · 28 Aug 2012 at 18:16

Well the thing is, in Indurain's time, EPO was fairly new, and it could well have been "tested" by some riders. But it hadn't been banned yet, and only was after the health risks became more apparent. So whilst I doubt he did, it's possible.

wildman said:
I find it hard to believe that USADA would go all the way like this if they didn't have something irrefutable that they could produce in a court of law.

They do. They have sworn witness statements from 10 professional cyclists and an unnamed number of his backroom staff. Although, apparently that's "heresay" according to OcUK's resident legal experts.

pmbuzz · 28 Aug 2012 at 18:32

My god how far back are we gonna go ?

LeMond ? Fignon ? Hinault ? Dare i say it .... Merkx ?

I just hope we're not posting in a thread like this in 6/7 years time entitled... "Wiggins drug charges....."

Energizer Bunny · 29 Aug 2012 at 09:37

I just hope we're not posting in a thread like this in 6/7 years time entitled... "Wiggins drug charges....."

As the leader of the anti dopers I honestly do not believe that would ever happen. Hypothetically speaking however, my disappointment in Wiggins would far far outstrip my disappointment in Armstrong.

Weebull · 29 Aug 2012 at 18:36

If the dopers are always going to be one step ahead of the testers (and they will, it's an inevitability of the system), then surely it's the sport's duty to retrospectively test samples? It sends out the message that you can try to cheat now, but even if you get away with it at first, we will find you eventually.

Edinho · 30 Aug 2012 at 21:45

Nexus said:
He told Gary Imlach that he never saw a single sign of doping anywhere when he was a teammate to Armstrong, infact he was quite picky in choosing teams that had a good reputation for anti-doping policy.

You really believe that? I mean come on just watch some of the Pantani vs Armstrong clips on youtube. We know Pantani was doped to the eyeballs. Imagine Contador on EPO and you'd get somewhere near to how good Pantani was.

zophiel · 30 Aug 2012 at 21:58

il pirata legend

oli collett · 30 Aug 2012 at 22:44

Lengthy, but interesting summary here:
http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike

pmbuzz · 30 Aug 2012 at 23:39

I remember at the time thinking how the hell has this relatively tiny little guy (Pantani) managed to drop the whole field on the Galibier (stopping to put on a rain jacket too) and gain 6 mins on Ullrich.
He never tested positive though and actually died of cocaine poisoning.

Loved watching him and gave me great pleasure in my sport-watching-life.
A legend indeed.

Documentary about Pantani to be released next year.
http://road.cc/content/news/62421-d...ife-and-death-coming-british-cinemas-may-2013

King Damager · 30 Aug 2012 at 23:44

Steedie said:
Yes. He will. To anyone discussing cycling and the Tour de France in casual conversation, chances are they'll still refer to him as the guy that won all those TDF titles.

And to any serious cycling fan, well, they know what a joke this is and how the whole of the sport was a joke in terms of doping back then. He beat a field of dopers to win those titles, in my eyes and the eyes of many, the people he beat, for the majority, were on some sort of drug so his titles were just as much an achievement

I think is really what it comes down to...

Casually, he will be the guy who won 7 titles, and all those who know anything knows how bad the sport was for doping, I'm not that into cycling and know that it has an awful history of doping (well the Tour in particular)...

He won 7 titles when everyone was on drugs, if he wasn't well what an achievement. If he was, well, it was just a level playing field...

kd

Weebull · 31 Aug 2012 at 08:12

oli collett said:
Lengthy, but interesting summary here:
http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike

Cheers for that Oli.

Armstrong, fresh with a warning from Michele Ferrari not to use EPO, as a test had been formulated and ratified, tested positive for exactly that in Switzerland in 2001. This has been corroborated by multiple people, including ex-Armstrong team-mates, and the lab director (Martial Saugy) who, although initially stating through the media that this hadn’t occurred, later corrected his stance, and told the only anti-doping agency to ask him, that it was a positive. Saugy has also stated that he was told by a prominent person at the UCI that it wasn’t going any further. The directive to make it disappear was delivered by none other than the head of the UCI at the time, Hein Verbrugghen.

Wow.

George Hincapie · 31 Aug 2012 at 08:55

The_One said:
funny that considering you proper bum hincapie whos a doper

How is it funny? Of course George doped, it doesn't mean he's still not a really nice guy with an incredible history in the sport. I've met him - he's my favourite Pro rider and that isn't going to change just because I believe he doped.

I guess it's about acceptance and viewing in context. Unlike Lance who was doped to **** but expects everyone to believe his 7 TdF victories were just the result of him 'working his butt off'. Uh-huh :rolleyes:

George Hincapie · 31 Aug 2012 at 09:01

Steedie said:
Yes. He will. To anyone discussing cycling and the Tour de France in casual conversation, chances are they'll still refer to him as the guy that won all those TDF titles.

And to any serious cycling fan, well, they know what a joke this is and how the whole of the sport was a joke in terms of doping back then. He beat a field of dopers to win those titles, in my eyes and the eyes of many, the people he beat, for the majority, were on some sort of drug so his titles were just as much an achievement

I disagree. If you get involved in a doping Arms Race, then how can you have any idea at all who would have won naturally? Not all doping programs are equally effective, so all you can really say is Lance had the best Doctors behind him. Who knows how the guy riding naturally who finished in 15th place on GC might have done if the riders above him weren't doped?

oli collett · 31 Aug 2012 at 09:19

Just another note on the "conspiracy" angle.

Depending on how much of the Armstrong story you believe - on one side or the other - there is a conspiracy involved. It seems to come down to either the USADA and numerous former colleagues of Armstrong coming up with a mountain of lies in order to make Armstrong look bad (which seems to be Armstrong's defence) just to make the USADA look good, or Armstrong, the UCI and several dodgy doctors conspiring to make cycling look cleaner than it really is.

One thing that doesn't make any sense to me from Armstrong's version of events is this - if you REALLY despised someone, would you go as far as lying to a judge, which is what Armstrong appears to be claiming here? And not just one of you, several? It just doesn't make any sense to me, which is one of the (many) reasons I can't buy into the Armstrong defence.

George Hincapie · 31 Aug 2012 at 10:13

oli collett said:
Just another note on the "conspiracy" angle.

Depending on how much of the Armstrong story you believe - on one side or the other - there is a conspiracy involved. It seems to come down to either the USADA and numerous former colleagues of Armstrong coming up with a mountain of lies in order to make Armstrong look bad (which seems to be Armstrong's defence) just to make the USADA look good, or Armstrong, the UCI and several dodgy doctors conspiring to make cycling look cleaner than it really is.

One thing that doesn't make any sense to me from Armstrong's version of events is this - if you REALLY despised someone, would you go as far as lying to a judge, which is what Armstrong appears to be claiming here? And not just one of you, several? It just doesn't make any sense to me, which is one of the (many) reasons I can't buy into the Armstrong defence.

Of course the conspiracy involves Lance and the UCI. It makes complete sense for the UCI to portray Lance as their poster boy while turning a blind eye to his positive tests. The public interest in cycling rises, sales of bikes and gear increases, more races are commissioned, riders salaries increase as more advertisers seek to make use of the new popularity and the UCI gets more prestige and cash. Everyone's happy.

Except anyone that believes in clean and fair competition.

oli collett · 31 Aug 2012 at 10:30

George Hincapie said:
Of course the conspiracy involves Lance and the UCI. It makes complete sense for the UCI to portray Lance as their poster boy while turning a blind eye to his positive tests. The public interest in cycling rises, sales of bikes and gear increases, more races are commissioned, riders salaries increase as more advertisers seek to make use of the new popularity and the UCI gets more prestige and cash. Everyone's happy.

Except anyone that believes in clean and fair competition.

It's certainly more plausible than the alternative. I don't think many of the Lance supporters (most of whom don't seem to have looked far into the case) realise that this is the situation

oli collett · 31 Aug 2012 at 11:03

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/filthy-business-indeed

An open letter from Michael Ashenden to Phil Liggett over his comments

ETA: I love some of the comments. Second one "Who is this guy?"

Kind of shows the delusion of some of the suppoters, it's almost Assange-like. For those that don't know, Ashenden is one of the world experts on blood doping and helped develop some of the original testing for EPO.

touch · 31 Aug 2012 at 11:20

oli collett said:
An open letter from Michael Ashenden to Phil Liggett over his comments

Ranting about Liggett saying "World Anti Drugs Organisation" instead of "World Anti Doping Organisation" completely devalues his argument to me. I just want to read the facts, i dont care about his ranting and condescending rubbish desperately trying to show that he is smart.

For what it's worth, i believe the case against Lance. This letter, however, does nothing to help and just reads like the personal opinion of somebody having a rant.

oli collett · 31 Aug 2012 at 11:28

touch said:
Ranting about Liggett saying "World Anti Drugs Organisation" instead of "World Anti Doping Organisation" completely devalues his argument to me. I just want to read the facts, i dont care about his ranting and condescending rubbish desperately trying to show that he is smart.

For what it's worth, i believe the case against Lance. This letter, however, does nothing to help and just reads like the personal opinion of somebody having a rant.

haha, that's a fair point, I mean it's hardly the first time Phil has miss-spoken