Armstrong: too good to be true?

[KrazyHorse]

I've always believed that Lance was clean.

But these tests have changed my mind.

Boo.

[KrazyHorse]

I remember discussing this with TCO at the DC meet a couple of years ago. He thought that Lance was juicing. I said he wasn't....

[Winston]

Every top level cyclist these days is juicing. I've seldom been more certain of anything in my life. And I'm baffled that other people continue to pretend those aren't the realities.

[DanS]

I guess we're now substituting hunches for evidence, nowadays...

[Pyrodrew]

Those we're just the IOC testers constantly out to get him.

L'Équipe ~= IOC ?

if Lance Armstrong himself admitted to being doped, they probably wouldn't believe it.

And if L'Équipe admitted they falsely accused Armstrong all these years, some still would believe Armstrong was an excessive drug user.

Every top level cyclist these days is juicing.

Why just cyclists and not all top level athletes?

[KrazyHorse]

No, I was basing my earlier opinions on the tests done.

I'm basing my new opinion on this new test.

It's a credible claim, Dan. Pro athletes do take substances which are difficult to test for in order to avoid getting caught. I don't see why you're reacting so strongly to a claim backed by a positive test result when the claim is not that farfetched. EPO has only recently become detectable. For a long time it was known that the indirect EPO testing was pretty easy to fool. Lance got caught having doped in the past

[Winston]

The evidence is all around and has been for years. In my view, it's like a variant of the anhtropic principle; if most athletes didn't avoid detection, there'd be no sport of cycling at all. And everybody - riders, aides, teams, sponsors, organizers, officials - have a common interest in keeping up the charade. It's their livelihoods, careers, reputations at stake here.

And everytime a rider is busted, it's quickly hushed up, and everyone continues as if nothing had happened. Well, over time, at least to me, the evidence mounted, and a larger picture started showing. That's when I abandoned all interest in the sport for good. And I was a pretty avid fan at one time, but no more.

[rah]

While it could be true, this is far from conclusive evidence.
And since there are no back up sample to test (which is why they keep 2 samples in the first place) I don't think it's fair to paint a person's whole career black based on one unsubstantiated test when he sampled most of his career an came up clean.

He deserves the benefit of doubt, but as with any successful athlete, he won't get it.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, I was basing my earlier opinions on the tests done.

I'm basing my new opinion on this new test.

It's a credible claim, Dan. Pro athletes do take substances which are difficult to test for in order to avoid getting caught. I don't see why you're reacting so strongly to a claim backed by a positive test result when the claim is not that farfetched. EPO has only recently become detectable. For a long time it was known that the indirect EPO testing was pretty easy to fool. Lance got caught having doped in the past

KH

did you rerad the Velosports article that Boris cited? It raises real questions as to how this test was done.

To Winston et al-- I will never state that "Armstrong is/was clean"-- I don't know that . . . But I want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt so until there is convincing proof, I will continue to give that benefit. The jury on this allegation is still out . But the methodology of gathering the information raises a lot of questions and the Velo article raises serious doubts. If the test was recent, how do they account for the degradation of the sample??

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by rah
when he sampled most of his career an came up clean.

Not on tests for EPO because they didn't have them

[Flubber]

Originally posted by rah
While it could be true, this is far from conclusive evidence.
And since there are no back up sample to test (which is why they keep 2 samples in the first place) I don't think it's fair to paint a person's whole career black based on one unsubstantiated test when he sampled most of his career an came up clean.

He deserves the benefit of doubt, but as with any successful athlete, he won't get it.

I concur

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Not on tests for EPO because they didn't have them

Well yes they did from 2001 onward

[Kontiki]

Winston:

While I understand your suspicion, I'm not sure I understand your giving up on a sport you apparently once liked quite alot. If you think all the top riders are juiced, wouldn't that just mean a level playing field where no one is really cheating vis-a-vis one another? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but cycling isn't like baseball where individual records keep going throughout the ages. They change the route of the Tour de France every year, so it's not like someone's total time is ever comparable to that of another year.

[Flubber]

Its such a moving target in sports as well. Five years ago a player could admit they were juiced in baseball and there was nothing. Now there are senate hearing s and suspensions.

Cyclists used to do "blood doping"-- they would transfuse themselves with Blood taken from their own bodies at a prior time-- (apparently there is an endurance benefit)- there is no foreign substance but I think they count various types of blood cells-- This probably still goes on since there is no way to test for it -- all they can spot are the results. There are vitamins and steroid creams and nutritional supplements. Some things are legal and some are not and I expect the bar will keep moving. Take caffene-- ist in lots of things but can be abused

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Flubber


Well yes they did from 2001 onward

And by then the top cheaters had probably moved on to EPO mk 2