Armstrong formally charged by USADA
- DavidS
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby DavidS » Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:49 am
I just cannot believe that a clean athlete could do what I describe above. He won 7 tours because he had better and less detectable drugs. Mind you, if they strip him of the titles I have no idea who they could award them to given the drug use in the sport at the time.
DS
- greyhoundtom
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am
- Location: Wherever the sun is shining
- Contact:
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby greyhoundtom » Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:13 am
At the same time there seems to be this mind set that all a competitor had to do was use EPO and all of a sudden be turned into a champion.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
Guys like Lance Armstrong worked their butts off to be at their very best, and did the hard yards to be super fit and ready for every race they contested.
He competed within the environment that existed at that time, and proved that he was the best there was.
Now the witch hunt is on by the holier than thou brigade who still cant believe that the guy was a freak with more ability and determination than everyone else that competed at that time.
- clackers
- Posts: 2065
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby clackers » Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:36 am
Chuck wrote:I too used the "never tested positive" argument but I now know how ridiculous that argument is.... Jones, Basso, Ullrich, Valverde etc etc.... they're ahead of the game ....
Excellent point, Chuck ... guys who were suspended due to association or the evidence of witnesses (like Fuente) rather than actual chemical tests.
Thanks for the repost. We learn that retrospective testing found six of Armstrong's '99 tour samples positive. It's not just all about Floyd Landis being paid to say what 60 Minutes viewers wanted to hear.
I think Lance's life story with his single mum making sacrifices so that he could succeed is great, as are his seven victories (eight if we include Sheryl Crowe). But we can't trust a sport until we know it can prosecute its high profile stars as well as the small fish.
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:01 pm
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby The_Eggman » Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:38 am
Please.greyhoundtom wrote: He competed within the environment that existed at that time, and proved that he was the best there was.
Now the witch hunt is on by the holier than thou brigade who still cant believe that the guy was a freak with more ability and determination than everyone else that competed at that time.
Was the Melbourne Storm the best team in the NRL in 2009? No, they were cheating the system.
The fact that it has taken the system longer to catch up to LA is in my mind a positive. The longer they are prepared to go back, the less likely people are to dope in future.
And LA deserves more scruitiny than most. For one, he has benefited massively financially from his success on the bike, two, he enjoyed more success on the bike than anyone else in the spot for a decade, and three, he's continued to paint himself as a lily white character.
Guilty or Not Guilty no-one is denying the guy was a talented bike rider, but that's not really the point. No-one would claim the Melbourne Storm weren't a very good rugby league side in 2009, they just happened to be breaking the rules.
- Chuck
- Posts: 4376
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:19 pm
- Location: Hiding in the bunch
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby Chuck » Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:01 am
Tom it seems you acknowledge that he doped but you want him treated differently to others that doped and were punished ?greyhoundtom wrote:Most people are prepared to acknowledge that at the time that Lance won his seven TdF that many competitors were using some type of performance enhancing method, whether it be blood doping and/or EPO.
At the same time there seems to be this mind set that all a competitor had to do was use EPO and all of a sudden be turned into a champion.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
Guys like Lance Armstrong worked their butts off to be at their very best, and did the hard yards to be super fit and ready for every race they contested.
He competed within the environment that existed at that time, and proved that he was the best there was.
I don't have any problem conceding that he was a talented endurance athlete that worked hard. I could endulge in all the PEDs I want and never make it to open A let alone get to Pro level, but there is a much much bigger issue at stake here!!
It's far from a witch hunt, there is compelling evidence that he doped, and the only person putting themselves up there as holier than thou is Armstrong.greyhoundtom wrote: Now the witch hunt is on by the holier than thou brigade who still cant believe that the guy was a freak with more ability and determination than everyone else that competed at that time.
- foo on patrol
- Posts: 9008
- Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:12 am
- Location: Sanstone Point QLD
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby foo on patrol » Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:12 am
The top and I mean very top athletes in the world, will have pi88ed off somebody on their way to the top because they have the ability to be totally focused and single minded in their approach to their training and this is why they get there 9 times out of ten.
I was beaten by cheats when I was racing but only some were caught and I remain bitter to this day about that. The only thing I indulged in was 1000mg of Vitamin E a day as this helped with getting more oxygen into my blood and also helped with recovery for me and it was not an illegal substance.
Like others have said, bring it to a head and lets get it, once and for all determined, not by some jerk that has an axe to grind or jealousy but by hard evidence and everyone should remember, it's hard evidence not innuendo that needs too be in place.
Foo
Goal 6000km
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 11:29 am
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby trojam » Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:28 am
Better of riding your bike.
Looking at the bigger picture though we would be fools to trust politics and especially American politics and if you think this isn't politics then think again.
- RICHARDH
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:46 pm
- Location: adelaide
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby RICHARDH » Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:05 pm
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby jules21 » Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:18 pm
i guess another question is - why are popular and humble guys like Indurain able to escape the spotlight, while Lance gets put in the spotlight?
- London Boy
- Posts: 818
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:43 pm
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby London Boy » Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:39 pm
It does in Australian criminal law for offences of strict liability, like, say, speeding, or possessing banned drugs.trailgumby wrote:In view of this momentum that these agencies get, I'm glad we have a presumption of innocence and a beyond reasonable doubt onus of proof for guilt here in Australia for criminal cases.
The problem with the WADA and USADA is that the onus shifts to the accused.
Re USADA etc., the onus only goes to the accused once there is evidence to support the allegation of doping. Although it's simpler than that. Both sides pick one of the three tribunal members, those two pick the third, and between the three of them they decide whether he did it or not..
- DavidS
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby DavidS » Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:17 pm
The question really is: how serious are we about stamping out drug use in sport?
The fact is that the drug cheats will always be ahead of the testers. So, if we're serious, then lets change the timeframe. If we're serious lets institute a drug testing system whereby all participants in every olympic final, the top 10 of every jersey in the Tour, Giro, Vuelta etc and whatever equivalents in other sports, submit blood an urine samples and these are tested 10, 20 and 30 years later when testing has caught up with drug use. If we're serious then that is the only way.
How far back do we go? Well, do we strip Carl Lewis and Flo Jo of their medals? What about the East German who beat Raeline Boyle into second at the Munich Olympics who later admitted she was using drugs? It's not an easy question but if we are up front about testing old samples and any positive test is retested and, if positive, the record is changed, then everyone knows the score.
I also look at the times up some of those mountains and how they cannot be matched today and I can't help wondering if the best athlete won, or the best pharmacist. I also feel for those who weren't on drugs, they are the ones who have truly been cheated and they deserve some plaudits. plaudits they won't get unless we expose the drug cheats.
DS
- greyhoundtom
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am
- Location: Wherever the sun is shining
- Contact:
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby greyhoundtom » Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:12 am
In reality it is extremely impractical, and certainly leaves everything wide open to sample contamination and degradation which will make any results obtained totally invalid.
For over 40 years I have worked as a successful trainer in an industry where competitors are swabbed regularly, and where even ingesting innocuous substances such as chocolate or the use of over the counter cough medicines, even the use of excessive amounts of vitamins, or the use of some liniments does result in a positive swab and automatic loss of prize money, which in some instances could be over 100,000 dollars.
An industry where accidental sample contamination at the testing laboratory, or the accidental contamination of every day foodstuffs is a constant concern as this could result in a positive swab, and has done in far too many instances.
So if anyone should understand what is involved in training an athlete to produce their very best performances, and not run foul of the drug Rules I certainly should, even though in this instance the athletes were racing greyhounds. In an industry where the Rule is that all competitors must be presented completely drug free, and that includes all drugs and/or excessive endogenous substances, and hundreds of swabs taken from my competitors both prior and post race, none have ever resulted in a positive swab.
At what level is an athlete considered a drug cheat? Is the competitor that ingests a drink with 1000 mg of caffeine prior to a time trial, or towards the end of a gruelling day’s racing a drug cheat? Or the athlete that has themselves listed as suffering asthma and uses an asthma puffer prior to a race a drug cheat, even though they do not suffer asthma?
In my mind the answer is yes, yet this type of behaviour is a common occurrence.
In regard to the assumption that drug testing is always behind the eight ball when it comes to testing for new performance enhancing substances.
There is certainly no need for this to be so, as the scientific community always publishes advances in any field prior to possible drugs being produced, and regulatory Authorities and their chosen laboratories have every opportunity to come up with detection methods well in advance of any substance being used by athletes.
As far as I’m concerned if an athlete has passed the stringent swabbing methods in place at that time, that should be the end of it, no witch hunts 10 or 20 years later.
- foo on patrol
- Posts: 9008
- Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:12 am
- Location: Sanstone Point QLD
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby foo on patrol » Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:45 am
I don't have a problem with the caffeine side of things so long as it is not ridiculously high but asthma puffers when not asthmatic is a different kettle of fish to me.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but the testing agencies tell the athletes when or by when they will be tested and not just rock up on their door and say surprise, surprise, twinkle into the bottle for me please.
Foo
Goal 6000km
- clackers
- Posts: 2065
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby clackers » Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:07 am
Foo, I think for cycling it's a mixture of testing.foo on patrol wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here but the testing agencies tell the athletes when or by when they will be tested and not just rock up on their door and say surprise, surprise, twinkle into the bottle for me please.
At last year's TdF Andy Schleck apparently tweeted a complaint about the testers coming for him when he was in a restaurant one evening with guests.
AFAIK in the recent past it was only podium finishers who had to have good pharmacists ... journeymen in the peloton could get away with just about anything.
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:01 pm
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby The_Eggman » Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:45 pm
A few points:greyhoundtom wrote: As far as I’m concerned if an athlete has passed the stringent swabbing methods in place at that time, that should be the end of it, no witch hunts 10 or 20 years later.
LA has been charged on the basis of activities/results from 2009-2010. I think anyone would accept that is a more than a reasonable window of time to still be under investigation.
As someone who has a PhD in Biochemistry, I don't accept the idea that just because a sample is old that the results of any analysis automatically become dodgy - that's rubbish. Degradation will vary compound to compound, and while some things will no doubt become untestable over the years, other things will remain testable for literally hundreds of years - it depends on the nature of the compound and the assay used to test it.
I also think the issues of storage & contamination are fundamentally quite simple to manage and monitor.
The notion that you pass the testing and that's it again makes no sense. Look at how many dopers have escaped the net over the years. And it's all very perfect world to say the testers should be ahead of the dopers, but it just doesn't work that way.
- greyhoundtom
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am
- Location: Wherever the sun is shining
- Contact:
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby greyhoundtom » Sun Jun 17, 2012 1:09 pm
These can apply for instance to substances used to speed up the healing of injuries.
As it stands all therapeutic substances have a know withholding period that is primarily determined by ability of the laboratory to detect these substances.
Which is all good and well, however analytical laboratories are continually upgrading their ability to detect various metabolites of anything that could even vaguely be considered performance enhancing.
Why should someone that is prescribed a therapeutic substance and waits the appropriate period of time before recommencing competition, is swabbed, and the swab comes back negative, then be deemed a drug cheat five years later when the swab is retested with better detection methods?
-
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:14 pm
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby Cruiserman » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:34 am
1986 Spokesman Model 11 Racing - Campag Nuvo Record - Stronglight - Shimano 600
- twizzle
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
- Location: Highlands of Wales.
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby twizzle » Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:43 pm
Well, if it prescribed then it can be tracked and discounted. The reason for keeping the samples & retesting is so that everyone understands that they might be able to get away with it undetected today but they can still get caught in the future.greyhoundtom wrote: ...
Why should someone that is prescribed a therapeutic substance and waits the appropriate period of time before recommencing competition, is swabbed, and the swab comes back negative, then be deemed a drug cheat five years later when the swab is retested with better detection methods?
The only way to stop people giving into to doping is to make it pointless. For some people - if they think they can get away with it, they will. The only way to make the sport clean is to put obstacles like this in the way.
The only people I feel sorry for are the athletes who have to put up with random tests and the possibility of being done for doping through 'accidental' means (ie. performance 'supplements' with dodgy ingredients) in the effort to try and keep sports clean.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
- hazmat5765
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:29 pm
- Location: Coffs Harbour NSW
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby hazmat5765 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:48 pm
You can say what you like, whether you are a supporter of Armstrong or not, that's fine as long as the post does not criticise the intelligence or the judgement of Armstrong supporters or non supporters. Then it's different.Oxford wrote:so we're not allowed to discuss the matter and draw our own personal conclusions no matter how inconceived they may be? do we have to do it round the water cooler at work only, or at the pub, or somewhere else? its a forum, for the discussion of these things. don't like it, don't read it!
- The 2nd Womble
- Posts: 3058
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:21 pm
- Location: Brisbane
- Contact:
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby The 2nd Womble » Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:19 pm
I'm curious as to why those who so vigorously defend the guy without haven't actually looked at any of the plethora of info relating to U.S. Postal or more recent times, think he shouldn't be srutinised. Riders careers have ended for less.
If he's found guilty, shame! If he walks away scott free, I'll hang a framed poster of him on my lounge room wall.
And as for this destroying the image of pro cycling? Pffft! Athletics is no different. I only wish all ball sports were as strictly governed, rather than the AFL for example banning reefer simply because it's players do enough damage to the sport's reputation off the field without available access another excuse for their behavour. Do any of us think that the NRL is played by merely talented athletes?
Huge fan of booted RGers who just can't help themselves
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby jules21 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:24 pm
- cavebear2
- Posts: 2201
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:46 am
- Location: Perth
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby cavebear2 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:46 pm
Hmmmm....I've read this thread for a few days but have resisted the urge to post. Good entertainment value tho'.....Cruiserman wrote:This thread is pure proof of the main problem that exists here - 5 pages of people extolling their opinions as to whether he did it clean or dirty - and that is just this time the subject has raised it's head, I would hate to count up the posts in all the threads not just on this board but many others (not to mention the comments posted after news stories) by people who really have no idea as to what did or didn't happen. Trial by internet at it's finest.
- Chuck
- Posts: 4376
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:19 pm
- Location: Hiding in the bunch
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby Chuck » Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:56 pm
Hmmm, he corrects someone for using "ensuring" instead of "assuring" while spelling lose as "loose" and now he wants to tell people they can only have an opinion if they have first hand knowledgeCruiserman wrote:This thread is pure proof of the main problem that exists here - 5 pages of people extolling their opinions as to whether he did it clean or dirty - and that is just this time the subject has raised it's head, I would hate to count up the posts in all the threads not just on this board but many others (not to mention the comments posted after news stories) by people who really have no idea as to what did or didn't happen. Trial by internet at it's finest.
- foo on patrol
- Posts: 9008
- Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:12 am
- Location: Sanstone Point QLD
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby foo on patrol » Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:35 pm
Foo
Goal 6000km
Return to “General Cycling Discussion”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.