Armstrong: too good to be true?

[rah]

I'll agree with Sava that I have my suspicions but since these were second samples with none others remaining to retest, there is no way for him to defend himself properly, so even if it's true, I refuse to take this seriously. It's just not fair.

[Pekka]

Ok we have the Lance-o-philes gathered here to defend their toyboy, I guess no one is guilty of EPO usage then.

We can't, in fact, test anyone anymore.



BLOW THE BANKS AND CREDIT INFO, NO ONE HAS LOANS ANYMORE FREE THE WORLD WOTAA WOTAA!

[rah]

Screw you, there's a test for it now, and he's always passed. Now I am cynical enough to suspect that everyone was doing it prior to a test being available but that's not the point.

There's a reason why there are two sets of samples taken. TO VALIDATE. Since there have been many many mistaken tests in the past. I woundn't sully anybody's reputation without validation.

But feel free to spout off your unvalidated opinion. I guess everyone cheats in your own mind.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Sava
I didnt' say I would 100% believe he would always be guilty.
I said I would have suspicions.

I also have suspicions. I don't blindly believe what Armstrong says.

Originally posted by Sava


Cycling isn't an an activity where "skill" is involved. It's about physical endurance. Plain and simple. And when one athlete simply dominates the way Lance has, I have to wonder sometimes. Is Lance the only guy in the world capable of training hard enough to last in a tough endurance competition? Somehow I don't believe this.

See here's a mistake people make. Armstrong wins the TdF but MANY people who follow cycling closely would argue that there were "better cyclists" over the season in many if not all of those years. Armstrong focuses on one event in a way that no one else does. His ass gets kicked in many many other races which frankly Armstrong views as training rides. If it doesn't fit his training regimen to exceed a certain effort, he drops from the leaders. If you gave Ullrich or Basso the same schedule and approach year after year maybe they would beat Armstrong. But Ullrich is famous for getting way out of shape and Basso competed hard at other races prior to the Tour IIRC. Yet those guys can consistently outperform everyone else but each other and Armstrong. Isn't it even MORE AMAZING that they can be there so consistently and exceed others by suchh a regular margin considering that they DO NOT put the same focus on the TdF as Armstrong.


Secondly there are a number of different types of skills involved. Three obvious ones are hill climbing, time-trialling and sprinting. Different riders excell at or work hard at different parts of these. Armstrong has spent countless hours refining his time trialling approach and is a noted hillclimber but I doubt he wants to take on the sprinters anymore.

Originally posted by Sava

Sure, it's possible that Lance trains harder than everyone else and has done all this legitimately. But it's just hard to believe that nobody else in the cycling world can come close to competing with him.

Originally posted by Sava

Sure, it's possible Look at the Olympics. Every once in a while, an athlete comes around and dominates in an event. But VERY VERY rarely does one athlete completely dominate in an endurance event for such a long time... and by such a large margin.

The Olympics are an acknowledged ultimate event where ARMSTRONG did not win btw even though he very much wanted to win. I don't think most cyclists place the TdF as much above other tours and races as the American public does. I liken it to tennis where there are a few Grand Slam events of differing prestige.

While Armstrong has "completely dominated "a single endurance event the TdF, its fair to say he has NOT completely dominated cycling over the last 7 years. He has not even come close.

Originally posted by Sava


And my gut tells me, when something very improbable happens, there's probably something fishy going on.

Assuming that Armstrong is a top 10 cyclist in the world, I don't find his results fishy at all. Over the same period if you would have put Basso, Ullrich ,on similar training with a similar focus on the Tour with NO ONE else focused the same way, I'm betting you would have seen someone else dominate. Heck if Armstrong did not exist, its arguable that Ullrich as it stood would have won 5 in a row


Contrary to your argument, it seems common for the same folks to excell at the Tour year after year. Look at the last 5 years and you will see many many repeating high finishers

[DanS]

Did Armstrong Trap His Detractors?

So did Armstrong act like he was going to retire in order to trap his detractors into outing themselves?

Armstrong to Train With Team This Winter
Sep 07 8:35 AM US/Eastern


By JEROME PUGMIRE
AP Sports Writer

PARIS

Lance Armstrong plans to train with his team this winter, increasing speculation he will end his retirement and attempt an eighth straight Tour de France win.

"It's definitely an open possibility, I know he is on the bike," Discovery Channel team director Johan Bruyneel told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Wednesday.

"He absolutely wants to be part of the training camp in December and wants to get fit to compete with the guys there," Bruyneel said, adding that Armstrong can decide to return as late as February.

When Armstrong retired in July after his seventh straight Tour win, Bruyneel had to decide whether to recruit a new team leader. He opted not to do so, suggesting the door may have been kept open for the Texan.

"We didn't really look for somebody to replace him," Bruyneel said. "For one there is nobody, not a strong leader like he was. Without him we have a very good team ... but not the favorites."

The Amaury Sport Organization, which organizes the Tour, would not comment on the speculation.

"We will express ourselves only if and when he decides to come out of retirement," spokesman Christophe Marchadier said. "There is nothing to stop him coming back on the Tour as a professional cyclist."

Armstrong, who turns 34 later this month, won this year's Tour by a comfortable margin _ 4 minutes, 40 seconds ahead of Italian Ivan Basso and 6:21 ahead of Jan Ullrich of Germany.

"I'm sure he could win (another Tour)," Bruyneel said. "The way he won this year ... everything pretty much under control and he never showed any weakness. He has another Tour in his legs yet."

Armstrong, who announced his engagement Monday to rock singer Sheryl Crow, issued a statement Tuesday confirming that he's considering a comeback in part to rankle French media.

On Aug. 23, sports daily L'Equipe, which is owned by the Tour organizer, reported it had evidence that six of Armstrong's urine samples from the 1999 Tour tested positive last year for the blood booster EPO. The substance was banned in 1999, but there was no reliable test at the time.

"I think he's been very offended," Bruyneel said. "If you know him he doesn't need a lot to find some motivation. I think it woke up the competitive side of him."

Should Armstrong return, the media scrutiny surrounding him would be intense and he would likely receive a hostile reception from the French public.

"He proved in the past that he can deal with that. He is at his maximum under pressure," Bruyneel said. "Physically and mentally he can deal with a lot."

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by rah
I'll agree with Sava that I have my suspicions but since these were second samples with none others remaining to retest, there is no way for him to defend himself properly

Indeed, and this is why no punishment is considered. However, he could sue L'Equipe for libel if he wants to hurt them, because they have largely sullied his reputation. The loss of international image could well be worth a bundle.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Spiffor

AFAIK, these were different samples. The lab didn't just take one sample of Lance's urine, and then divided it in 12, in order to see the repeatability of the method.

IIRC, the lab took 12 different urine samples from various 1999 runners, and according to L'Equipe, 3 of them were Lance's. On the 12 tested samples, 6 of them were positive, including the 3 from Lance.
Edit: made a mistake on the numbers, but it doesn't go against the spirit of what I wrote. On the samples the lab analysed (from various runners), 12 were positive, including 6 from Armstrong.

Now, I'm not a biologist and I cannot comment on the test's subjectivity. But the sampling seems to be a wrong angle of attack.

I didnt expect that they were subsample repeats of the original.

In order to have scientific confidence in a relatively subjective assay such as this, one needs to work 'blind' (which they appear to have done) AND since you have samples taken over a period of time one needs to be able to show a pattern of detection. Recombinant EPO is not likely to be something that will have a short half-life (i.e. wont quickly disappear from circulation) and will be detectable in urine for some period of time after its use. If all 12 samples (or even 10 or 11) from one individual were positive while assayed blind and randomly mixed with other samples(i.e. not clumped together on the assay apparatus), then one could reasonably conclude that person was using EPO. If the first 6 were positive and the remainder negative (or some other reasonable pattern) then its also possible to come to some conclusion of use.

If, on the other hand, the testing alternates between pos to neg in chronological order (or random variations of that ) then one has to be very very skeptical of the validity of the assay.

[Pekka]

lol @ rah being the leader of lance-o-rama fan club

oh and before people start to have their gear in twist, I'm only trolling.

Lance still sucks though. and is a drug boy.

[rah]

It's not because it's Lance totally. It's the without verification that bothers me. Of course I supported Palmero until the last results came in

[Pekka]

I'm trolling, since when do I need verification of anything when I'm doing it?

[rah]

Yes, the tabloid of apolyton.

[Zopperoni]

Originally posted by Sava
Cycling isn't an an activity where "skill" is involved. It's about physical endurance. Plain and simple. And when one athlete simply dominates the way Lance has, I have to wonder sometimes. Is Lance the only guy in the world capable of training hard enough to last in a tough endurance competition? Somehow I don't believe this.

The Olympics are a poor example because it's not an annual event. However, there are two names that I can name that have been very successful in Olympic (endurance) events:

- Haile Gebreselassie (10 km run): two gold medals (1996 and 2000), four world championships (biennial event), and 15 world records; and
- Steve Redgrave (rowing): six medals (five gold in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000, and one bronze in 1988 along with nine world championships)

[Winston]

Well, well, well. Armstrong has announced he is dropping his plans for a lawsuit against L'Equipe, the French lab and possibly the anti-doping agency WADA. Earlier this year, Armstrong had said he would likely sue L'Equipe for its allegations of his massive use of the banned performance enhancing substance EPO during the Tour de France in 1999, and also the lab and WADA.

Now, however, he's changed his mind. To a Dutch newspaper, he's quoted as giving this rather unorthodox reason for the about-turn:

"It'd be the fulfilment of the biggest dreams of the lab and L'Equipe if I were to sue them. But I won't be fulfilling their dreams. The paper has no proof, and it's a witch hunt."

Cheats
Pathetic, all too transparent cheats who are reduced to hoping it will all somehow blow over

[Ming]

First... I don't know for "sure" that he cheated or not.

But to discuss his decision not to sue... probably a smart idea even if he is innocent. He would need to win, and can't take the chance he would lose. Legal experts probably told him that he couldn't win the case because of the lack of evidence. While he might be able to make them squirm, there isn't enough evidence to prove either way... and he would probably not win.

[SpencerH]

Lets not forget that Lance Armstrong had the support of the most technically innovative bicycle designers. There's no doubt about their contribution to his success and no other cyclist had that level of support. By way of an analogy, he was using an F1 bicycle and the others were using NASCAR bicycles.