Tour de France

[ictchris]

The only proof is still the word of former proven liars and cheats of team mates who coincidentally have written books recently. I definitely have my suspicions, but as I have said before he has never failed a drug test out of over 500 during his career. His chemists or physicists should be Nobel prize winners if they successfully masked him over his career.

Personally I doubt his chat with his friend Oprah will reveal anything.

The testimony was given under oath to a Federal Grand Jury, if they are lying then they will go to prison. They don't mess around when it comes to lying to a Grand Jury in the US - Marion Jones was given a prison sentence for lying about doping to one in a similar case. As far as I know, the only person who gave testimony against Armstrong who has written a book was Tyler Hamilton, and he wrote the book after giving his testimony.

Not all of thosre who gave testimony were 'proven liats and cheats' - his former masseuse gave testimony, she told the truth about Armstrong and he insinuated she had mental problems and was a 'whore'. Also, if you are prosecuting dopers, you are going to take testimony from dopers. If the testimony was suspect or they were making it up, then Armstrong had the opportunity to challenge them in arbitration and he chose not to do that.

Regarding the tests, I don't think Michele Ferrari is in line for a Nobel prize. Up until 2000/01 there wasn't a reliable test for EPO so it was essentially free reign - Armstrong's frozen samples from this time tested positive for EPO in 2005 but he managed to slap down this in court, by disputing the state they were held in. Upon the introduction of the test, Tyler Hamilton told how Dr Ferrari beat the test - previously EPO was taken subcutanously to be released into the body over a period of time, following the test it was used in 'micro' doses intravenously, thus clearing the body faster. Also, there were few tests that could pick up blood transfusions, if done professionally. Armstrong also used his influence over the sport and the UCI to get positive tests torn up (he failed tests for cortisone as well, and produced a back-dated doctors note).

Edited January 12, 2013 by ictchris

[Rival]

All I know is he is guilty

[ictchris]

All I know is he is guilty

If you've got a bit of spare time, here's a link to an article in which Michael Ashenden, a doping expert, discusses the 1999 Tour samples and why they indicate EPO use

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

[Yngwie]

The only proof is still the word of former proven liars and cheats of team mates who coincidentally have written books recently. I definitely have my suspicions, but as I have said before he has never failed a drug test out of over 500 during his career. His chemists or physicists should be Nobel prize winners if they successfully masked him over his career.

Personally I doubt his chat with his friend Oprah will reveal anything.

 

Reports are that Armstrong has confessed to Oprah. If that is confirmed when the interview is broadcast on Thursday, I'm just wondering how the "defence lawyers" on this thread will explain away this latest piece in a long line of damning evidence?

 

Will it be "The tape must have been doctored" or perhaps "If he's a liar then his confession can't be trusted either" ?

[Alex MacLeod]

Mentioned here http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/15/lance-armstrong-comes-clean-oprah?intcmp=239

[ictchris]

Apparently he's going to try and take down people in the UCI who knew about his doping. A few twitchy bottoms tonight!

[ictchris]

 

Reports are that Armstrong has confessed to Oprah. If that is confirmed when the interview is broadcast on Thursday, I'm just wondering how the "defence lawyers" on this thread will explain away this latest piece in a long line of damning evidence?

 

I think one reason why people continued to stick up for him is a lack of understanding of doping and the way doping is used in cycling. Drug tests are pretty meaningless when you are using substances that occur naturally in the body and thus are very difficult to test for and the complicity of the UCI in setting limits that could only be achieved by doping.

Apparently there are up to 100 versions of EPO that don't have drug tests out there and other substances that don't have tests are always being developed, obviously because these are drugs that are developed to treat blood diseases and kidney failure. The system of biological passport (where a rider has his blood values measured throughout the season and cyclists can be penalised for having unexplained variations. Also, the cyclists who display suspicious values can be targeted for testing.

A couple of years ago the suspicion list from the 2010 Tour De France was leaked - http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/lequipe-publishes-list-of-ucis-doping-suspicions-from-2010-tour-de-france_172784

The riders marked at a risk of 9 or 10 were convicted or effectively caught doping.

[MarkD]

1. Q. Did you ever take banned substances to enhance cycling performance?

   A. Yes

   Q. Was one of those substances EPO?

   A. Yes.

   Q. Did you use any other banned substances?

   A. Yes

[CaleyD]

The only proof is still the word of former proven liars and cheats of team mates who coincidentally have written books recently. I definitely have my suspicions, but as I have said before he has never failed a drug test out of over 500 during his career. His chemists or physicists should be Nobel prize winners if they successfully masked him over his career.

Personally I doubt his chat with his friend Oprah will reveal anything.

 

Reports are that Armstrong has confessed to Oprah. If that is confirmed when the interview is broadcast on Thursday, I'm just wondering how the "defence lawyers" on this thread will explain away this latest piece in a long line of damning evidence?

 

Will it be "The tape must have been doctored" or perhaps "If he's a liar then his confession can't be trusted either" ?

 

I stand by everything I said on this thread and still think the whole process in bringing this about is/was highly flawed.  The danger now is that you will get calls of "the ends justified the means"...which perhaps they did in this case, but it could so easily be a process used to wrongly vilify others in future.

[Heilandee]

Lance Armstrong should be applauded for being able to ride a bike so well on drugs. I tried it once, hit a dog and fell into the canal.

[+DoofersDad]

One despairs of the thought process of some people in authority. They will believe the unsubstantiated testimony of a handful of untrustworthy people but ignore the hard evidence of over 500 tests which failed to show he had ever taken a banned substance. I think Armstrong takes the view that no matter what the evidence says, he isn't going to win his case and it is simply not worth several more months or even years of legal wrangling, preparing cases, being constantly questioned and the subject of speculation. I think and hope that he is at peace with himself. He knows the truth and knows what he has achieved. The same strength of character which led him to his remarkable achievement is now allowing him move on and I, for one, admire him for that.

 

     In my hurry to post I must have missed the fact that the tongue in cheek emoticon hadn't loaded up! 

[MarkD]

Busted...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9810985/Lance-Armstrongs-interview-with-Oprah-Winfrey-analysed-by-body-language-expert.html

 

Professor from Glasgow University explains why Armstrong not actually showing remorse.

[ictchris]

Well done to Chris Froome for winning the Tour.  I feel a bit sorry for him for having to face the constant questions about doping but given the history of the sport it's inevitable.  Froome has responded well to the questioning, keeping his cool (unlike Wiggins last year) and has had his data assessed by professionals.  Sky have also offered it to Wada for investigation.

 

However, and it's sad to say, looking at someone dominate in the mountains and in time trials the way Froome did rings alarm bells.  The fact that he has emerged really from nowhere has also got to count against him - he just sprang out from the juniors to a top three finish in the Vuelta in 2011.  I do think that some hardcore cycling fans just don't like Sky, the fact they've come into road cycling from the outside and dominated and thus have it in for Froome.  It's perhaps a cliche but these things will be judged in the future - in ten years time we'll either shake our heads about being fooled again or we'll be offering sympathy for Froome.

 

Cavendish also looks like he won't be the king of the sprinters any more, beaten on the Elysses for the first time in a few years.  I liked Peter Sagan's green goatee as well

[Sneckboy]

Fair play to the guy winning it but the reaction by the UK media I've seen is a bit over-the-top. Claiming him as 'ours' is clutching at straws, to say the least.

No more than another 'passport Brit'.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

But what a great phottie of the Kenyan as he rode to the line in Paris.

 

[+DoofersDad]

The sad thing about cycling and athletics is that history tells us that you never really know who is clean and who isn't.  These are sports that men and women excel in because they have a particular physical attribute rather than any particular skill.  Obviously there is an element of technique and tactics but essentially it is the physical attributes which are the key thing.  These athletes have to train exceptionally hard and pay strict attention to diet etc but having done all that, the use of performance enhancing drugs can add that crucial extra edge to a performance that makes the difference from being just one of the pack to becoming number one.

 

Every time someone does something remarkable we question whether it is genuine or not.  It's a shame.  We should get excited about performances like Mo Farah this week when he ran a 1500 metres just to gain some speed practice for his 5,000 and he breaks Steve Cram's British record.  It's astonishing really and most of the guys are probably clean but I'm afraid the cynic in me prevents me being too excited about these things. 

 

For me, there's far more to admire in Phil Mickleson's magnificent final round in the open where supreme skill, good judgement and nerves of steel saw him through.  Performance enhancing drugs to make him stronger, faster or to keep going longer would have been of little help to him at Muirfield.