Do you think lance is doping? yes or no

antoineg

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articl...us-ergogens.htm

As far as Lance Armstrong goes, the first-hand account is that he was written a prescription by a doctor AFTER he was found to have corticosteroids in his system during a test. The explicit purpose, according to the person giving the account, was to prevent a technical doping positive.

As Beastt will tell you, the amount found was under the legal limit. What he (she?) won't tell you, however, is that corticosteroids are a controlled substance in cycling, and any use requires a therapeutic use exemption, with extensive paperwork, if the athlete is to use them at all.. An exception is made for emergency administration, but even the experts at VeloNews can't think of a situation, other than a severe allergic reaction (such as a bee sting) that would require that. In 2001 about a third of TdF cyclists had doctors prepare TUEs for corticosteroids.

Beastt

Again you make unsubstantiated accusations toward me then follow up by commiting those acts yourself. Who said Armstrong receives 25% of the drug tests? I didn't. Hellonwheels didn't. The only comment even remotely linked to such a statement is the one you made, quoted above. My statement was that the total number of EPO tests given to cyclists isn't relevant to the topic of this thread. The relevant figure is the number given to Lance. That's still a valid statement and I continue to stand by it.

As for the number of tests he does or doesn't receive, if you have some actual data, please post it. If you don't, then what you refer to as an analysis is nothing more than your opinion and based on nothing factual.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/other...099_gunn24.html

On the subject of drugs, she says, "There is no question in my mind that Lance is clean. I've been a sportswriter for 20 years. I'm a skeptic, not a fool.

"I know the signs of abuse. We swam in a Texas river together. His body doesn't have any of the signs of steroid use -- the acne or that bloated oil-base look."

Jenkins says if you do the math on his performances before and after his battle with testicular cancer -- accounting for the bigger loss of weight than power output -- Armstrong's times are logical extensions that don't require banned substances to account for the improvements.

"He's the most tested man on the planet," she says. "He's tested for drugs more than 40 times a year. ... They even gave him a surprise test at the hospital when his wife was in labor with twins."

("Jenkins", refers to Sally Jenkins who wrote Lances books.")

You make the claim that I deftly evade requests for hard data. As is relevant to this discussion, it is the lack of proof with which I am concerned. Since the burden of proof is on the accuser and proof of that which doesn't exist is impossible, you are on the side of the issue which must produce hard data. As for your personal attack, I invite you to offer one example where I have evaded a request for hard data when such request was reasonable or possible. For the record, I have several posts on this forum which are nothing more than lists of hard data including sources which had to be split into multiple posts as they exceded the 15,000 character limit per post. Fallen^sparrow eluded to a few of these posts in his comments on this thread. Keeping in mind that proving one has not doped is no more possible than proving the existance or lack thereof of a god, please show me one example... just one, to substantiate your accusation.

When you're done with that, then offer something tangible, substantiating your claim that I'm a liar. Otherwise you'll stand exposed as one yourself.

antoineg

Beastt, you continue to evade. You claim that I am changing the subject, but then you give a quote that has NOTHING TO DO WITH EPO TESTING.

300+ tests for EPO in 2003 is a published fact. How many of those did Lance receive? What is wrong with my analysis on the likely number?

Can you provide any other official source for the number of "other" tests other than Sally Jenkins, who will join you in the special 8th level of hell reserved for indignant butt-kissers? Talk about a compromised source. If she says anything remotely bad about Lance, or even implies it, there goes the chance for another big payout on the next book deal.

Not to mention that we all know that there are ways to dope for which there are no tests right now.

Not to mention the EPO test is only valid if you've used EPO within a matter of days, even though the benefits last for weeks.

In a way, I love these forum debates because I can imagine the righteous indignation you must feel every time your hero is mentioned in the same post as the word "doping." You're fighting an uphill battle. Continue to invest the time though, it's entertaining watching you shovel water out of your sand-castle moat as the tide inexorably moves in....

VeloFlash

Last time I read the title it was "Do you think lance is doping? yes or no"

That calls for an expression of an opinion. Not with a supplementary disclosure of evidence to support your response.

BTW, Beastt, "beyond all reasonable doubt", as you keep re-iterating to support your case on evidence, is only applicable in a criminal court of law not when there is a breach of rules laid down by a sport's governing body. The UCI's rules are patently clear that any infraction of the rules as delivered to the rider must have a standard of proof less than beyond all reasonable doubt but more than the balance of probabilities. This, of course, refers to the collection of samples, delivery, storage and testing. To rebuke the infraction at the hearing, the rider has a lower standard of proof of the balance of probabilities.

Circumstantial evidence does not enter into the equation. However, for the purpose of this discussion it can support a forum argument when expressing an opinion.




The allegation of Emma O'Reilly is that LA took the steroid during the Route du Sud and during testing for the 1999 TdF the corticosteroid had not cleared his system. Hence the low reading.

The back dated prescription for a topical ointment for saddle rash containing the steroid was allegedly a cover up. There was no exemption lodged by LA prior to the TdF disclosing the use of this claimed topical ointment. The UCI was obliged to sanction LA as he had no exemption to use the product. Inexplicably, they did not pursue sanctions. LA should not have been excused on the alleged backdated prescription. The topical cream should have been listed on LA's mandatory medical form.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

Matt N

Has anyone else picked up on this point about Liggett and Sherwin exclusively commentating on OLN? I don't know much about OLN, but I noticed during the 2004 Tour de France that the TDF section seemed to be somehow sponsored by Trek/Armstrong (at least, it had them plastered all over it) and Liggett and Sherwin were the exclusive commentators (oh, and comments by Carmichael). Then I noticed that they seemed particularly favourable towards Armstrong and appeared to leap to his defence when Greg LeMond made his remarks about Armstrong doping.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick, or is there some deal between OLN/Armstrong/Liggett and Sherwin. I am a big fan of these two commentators and have immense respect for them, but if they are doing deals with individual competitors, I would regard this as very devious and unprofessional.

Any comments?

Cheers

VeloFlash

No. However, on another note, to underscore the knowledge of commentators of drug taking in the TdF peloton a quote can be attributed to Phil Sherwin in commentary during the closing stages of the 2000, from memory, TdF.

If this is the correct year (could be 1999), it was the year that the French authorities after the Festina Affair had come down hard on French registered riders concerning drug taking in the lead up to the TdF.

Sherwin said (or gaffed), with words to the effect: "Have you noticed that as a result of the French drug crackdown for the first time no French rider has won a stage of the TdF and a French rider is the holder of the Lanterne Rouge (last place)".

Obviously the drug raids had destabilised the French (drug) preparation and they were at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the peloton as implied by Sherwin.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

szbert

I think Lance is, without a doubt, GUILTY of taking an oxegenated nitrogen compound, likely through inhalation, along with various "supplements" of a top secret amino acid/fat/carbohydrate formulation. These substances are used by his body to cause massive catalytic reactions in his heart, lungs and muscles - often for hours, and even weeks at a time.

The effect is that he has a far higher cardio-pulmunary and musculo-skeletal endurance and power ratio than other atheletes.

To simplify: It is completely unfair that Lance is able to breath, eat and train at such high, and well planned, levels as to destroy his competition.

If being genetically gifted, and then training harder, and smarter than anyone else is against UCI rules - LANCE IS GUILTY!

LIVESTRONG and keep ridin'

jhuskey

I have followed this thread for, I can't remember how long, and one comment that was made was that this forum is not subject to American justice.

That is correct but in most societies an accused is allowed to face his accusers before being convicted.
This is also true, however the truth is not revealed in questions but in answers.
In that I believe we will have to wait for any changes in what we now know to make any statements except what is "mere opinion".

__________________
Whenever I can't get excited about riding I just fantasize about someone else's bike.

Beastt

I'm evading nothing, antoineg. My quote offered a minimum number of tests administered directly to Armstrong. ("more than 40 times a year") Certainly the specifics of those tests weren't mentioned but at least there is a number and that's more than you have offered. Since the topic of the thread is about whether or not Lance Armstrong is doping and your data is applicable only to the full body of riders, neither of us has any idea how many or if any of the 300 EPO tests you speak of, were administered to Lance Armstrong. I'll say it for you one more time; the only tests relevant to the topic are those given to Armstrong. If you don't know that number, as obviously neither of us do, then you have nothing.

I noticed you completely ignored, (evaded) the challenge I put to you to give even one clear example of my failure to provide hard data when a reasonable request is made nor did you respond in any way to the challenge I set forth to offer some proof to back up your accusation that I'm a liar. It would seem that both of these accusations you cast toward me are similar in nature to the reason you are so completely assured that Lance is doping despite the fact that you can produce absolutely no hard data yourself to substantiate these assertions. He's done something you don't like so you're instantly willing to believe anything you hear against him. Likewise, I've offered reason to doubt doping accusations which you disagree with so you carelessly fling the accusation at me claiming that I'm a liar, that I share some kind of rectal intimacy with Lance and that I'm suffering some kind of hero worship. I think what he's done is remarkable. As for who he is, his personality, likes and dislikes, I can only say I don't know the man so I can neither like him nor dislike him.

As for the many comments that Sally Jenkins is bought and paid for by Lance Armstrong, I certainly can see where any negative comments she might make about his doping would have a very substantial backlash which she would likely wish to avoid. However, the accusations that she is lying are no more justified than those cast toward Armstrong or myself. Of those who made such comments, how many have met her? How many know her personally? How many know anything about her other than she has been the writer behind Armstrong's books?

It would seem that if someone claims Armstrong is doping then it serves as sufficient proof of his guilt and if anyone states that he is not or they have no reason to believe that he is, then in the minds of those who disagree, they're instantly a liar.

You're so completely twisted on this topic that you're unable to even conceive of anyone not being similarly twisted to the opposite direction should they suggest that until proper evidence exists, the only reasonable claim to make is that you believe he is doping. And some have very carefully retained that level of discretion. Some have not.

As for comments made by VeloFlash concerning the corticosteroids found in a drug test in 1999: The statement is made that Armstrong used the corticosteroid "during the Route du Sud" and that the level found in his blood was only below the allowable limit because it hadn't cleared from his bloodstream yet; what of the test done on the day just prior to the positive result which showed a corticosteroid level of zero?

The reason given; cortizone cream for saddle sores, fits within that scenario. The idea that the level had been higher to a degree likely to be outside that allowed by the UCI doesn't fit because the level would have been even higher the day before rather than being zero. As for the prescription written after use of the ointment, it's certainly reason for suspicion, but I would guess that close scrutiny would show a lot of instances where riders are given whatever medication their team doctor suggests and the paperwork may often tend to follow at a later date. That's only my suspicion but that's pretty much what this thread is built on - suspicions lending to the idea that Lance does dope and suspicions lending to the idea that he doesn't.

The problem is that if you happen to be someone who feels that accusations without sufficient proof are inappropriate - even wrong, then you're labeled as evasive and a liar. Others who don't simply state that they believe Lance is doping but go so far as to state that it's an absolute fact, seem not to be judged nearly so harshly, if at all.



It comes down to this, antoineg; you don't know how many tests Lance does or doesn't receive nor do you know when or how those are administered or whether he has any advanced notice. Similarly, I don't have any real numbers showing how many tests he receives or even if he is ever tested. I have only what reports the media offers and the comments made by Sally Jenkins. We all know the media often tosses out anything that will get a bite but I find it doubtful that anyone here knows Sally Jenkins. Please step up to the plate and correct me on that if anyone on this thread does know her. So the point remains; you don't know and I don't know. I tend to believe that he isn't doping and you tend to believe that he is. When you don't know and can't prove your suspicions and can't produce hard data relating directly to the one you accuse, then accusations are inappropriate. You can think or believe what you wish to think or believe and, as VeloFlash pointed out, that is the topic of the thread - what you believe, but to go beyond that with Lance is inappropriate as it is to label me a liar when you can't offer a single time when I have shown dishonesty.

Just for your peace of mind, I don't feel indignation when people suggest that Lance is doping. I'm willing to concede that a possibility exists. But I find it sad that so many are willing to pronounce sentence based on their gut feeling and a few unsubstantiated rumors and gossip.

VeloFlash

You are only "accused" if it relates to a crime. You are only "convicted" if it relates to a crime.

Being found positive for a PED is not a crime, unless it occurs in France or Italy where you can be charged with a sporting fraud. It can be a crime if you are caught with PED's in your possession without any legal right to have those drugs,ie, a prescription. You would be charged with possessing forbidden products.

Being found positive means you have breached your sporting body's rules which you had agreed to be bound by to compete. The rules set out the procedure to enter a defence against the infraction. No judge, no jury, no prosecutor.

There is a plethora of circumstantial evidence from which doubts are being raised that LA could not be a unique phenomena to turn mediocre performances to superlative performances through contracting testicular cancer.

The opinions expressed in response to the topic appear to be residency based.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

Beastt

The topic of the thread is "Do you think lance is doping?".


How does accusing Lance of doping without sufficient evidence keep other riders from dying?


What you seem to be saying is that anyone who wins should be so scrutinized. I don't recall that happening to Ullrich in 1997 or to Pantani in 1998. Yet both of them have a history of illegal drug use. Lance doesn't. Virenque is the first man to win seven King of the Mountains titles in the Tour de France and has a well publicized history of doping. I don't see any threads asking if he's doping.

How does recovering from cancer through chemotherapy make him more suspect? EPO is used to treat cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy to keep them alive, not to create world-class athletes. Many hospital patients are given morphine for pain. Does that mean they're all dopers, tweakers and crack addicts?


Guilt by association? That's a precarious position to take. If we can be found guilty by association with those who are, or may be which I believe is actually the case, (has Ferarri been convicted?), then certainly the entire world is guilty. Lance spoke out against Pound because the assertion Pound made sounded like he was pointing fingers and proclaiming the peloton to be a group of dopers. Lance has been accused for at least the past 6 years and is a little tired of it. If you weren't guilty of cheating and had complied with every test thrown at you to prove that you weren't cheating yet constantly had people implying that you were, you might have something to say as well.


I assume you're referring to his endorsements for Bristol-Meyers Squibb? He's endorsing medications to help people overcome cancer and live. You have a problem with medications that save lives? He doesn't use those drugs, or claims not to because he doesn't have cancer and has no need for the medicinal affects of those drugs. A man could accept a contract to endorse a feminine hygiene product. It doesn't mean he uses it. In Lance's case he definitely did use it when it was needed to save his life. I have trouble faulting him for that.


He could be. Then again, so could you. So could any of us. But the point is, most of us... probably all of us, aren't.


The key words are "may have access". Ullrich may be testing some German super drug, (which isn't working). Marco Pantani may be alive and well and living in Hawaii as a hula girl. Saddam Hussein may be a Hooter's girl at restaurant in California.


I saw the conjecture and the "may", "possible", "could be". I guess I missed the "evidence".

Beastt

Steroid use is criminal in many if not all states in the U.S. Possession of controlled substances, (i.e. EPO), is a crime in most, if not all, states in the U.S. Isn't France where Lance is racing? Wouldn't that make the alleged drug use a crime?


Who suggested that contracting testicular cancer gave Lance the ability he demonstrates? What is being said is that in the process of undergoing chemotherapy, which is used to combat many kinds of cancer, Lance's body was reduced to a mere shell. Upon rebuilding that body, which started as a swimmer's body, then a triathlete and finally a cyclist, Lance lost about 20 pounds of upper body mass. But through rebuilding as a cyclist, he retained his former power but now has 20 pounds less body weight to propel up the mountains. No one is suggesting that cancer turns people into superlative athletes.


Which is very interesting in and of itself no matter which side of the debate you stand on. When geographical location plays such an obvious roll, perhaps it's not the supposed evidence so much as the nationality that matters.