Lance folds on drug charges

USADA also have another agenda that comes from the US Govt which part financed the US Postal team (US Postal being a govt agency) that LA rode for in many of his victories.   the US Govt want to be seen as not sponsoring a team of cheats, so they have probably been pressing USADA hard to bring the charges contrary tosome of USADA's own regulations

TopSec - I also think that Brad is telling the truth, and afaik, there have never been any allegations about him doping.   I've always been in 2 minds with LA as he's never tested positive but there's plenty of circumstantial to say he has.

In addition to that DD, at the time drugs were probably needed to win since other riders were using them.

The below has been around for a while but shows at times you have to go down to 8th place in the TdF positions to find a rider without doping connections.

TdF

Hopefully things have improved since then.

FB, you're a race ref and know the rules, what would you do?

For me, if you put a system in place for testing, and then ignore it when you feel like it, you're a fool. 

So are the authorities saying that drugs tests aren't worth sh-1-t, because they don't give a true postive or that circumstantial evidence/ hounding will overule them anyway? Now that's a worrying position for any athlete...

Can't blame him for giving up - there are only so many times you can bang your head against a brick wall before deciding to stop.

So was this years tour Brads second win?

Everyone knows that the cheats are ahead of the drug testers. Its always been that way. 

The evidence against Lance is overwhelming, and now he's wriggled out of having it all proven against him. 

As to re allocating his wins - well most of the podium people have been busted anyway. Lets see who would get it....

1999 - er lets call that invalid

2000 - oh bum

2001 - damn this is hard

2002 - Sastre in 10th ?

2003 - Sastre in 9th takes it.

2004 - Sastre gets his 3rd win

2005 - Cadel Evans !

Anyone else read David Millar's book? Interestingly he goes into depth on how dirty the sport was and what some named cyclists actually took. Millar explains exactly how he gave up under the pressure of trying to stay "clean" but not once does he implicate Lance.

Unless you had physical proof would you want to implicate Lance?  What interests me is if he cheated, how, when so many ohers were caught.  Not impossible.  But how?

DB - I'm a triathlon race ref not a cycling one.  I'm only responsible for enforcing the rules in the "field of play" and have nothing to do with enforecement of any drug testing that takes place outside this area.

"The evidence against Lance is overwhelming, and now he's wriggled out of having it all proven against him. "  but equally he's not getting his day(s) in court to prove the allegations are (possibly) false.    none of the evidence is from drug tests so I can't agree the evidence is overwhelming - only the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and that isn't necessarily proof.

I really have a hard time with understanding the fervor to get lance and find him guilty and also the total lack of understanding that everytime he goes through this it still doesn't clear his name as far as everyone is concerend.  how many times do people have to cleared before they are actually cleared.

If it was you in that position being blamed for something you didn't do but were continually being prosecuted for it and people with zero evidence cited comments from other people with zero evidance as evidence, what would you do?

That article is purely based on the writers opinions, and adds nothing to the argument.

Wheter or not Lance is guity or not and I couldn't really care one way or another, you should however at least care about how another human is being treated under these circumstances.

BIWF He doesn't implicate Lance but he doesn't exactly scream he's clean either does he. It's certainly and interesting read, but I haven't quite finished it yet.

The problem is we will never know what really goes on but as with all sport we need to Pro Cycling to be clean sport.

If that means times and speeds go down and races have to be made less tough then I'm fine with that, but in reality I think many people wouldn't be.

There again if you can boost your bodies ability in ways that aren't listed as prohibited drugs use, should you be peanlised for it? The moral question is should you do it in the first place.

But then where do you draw the line as training and eating the right diet are ways of boosting your bodies ability.

I guess going back and doing this puts the fear of god into the current generation of riders ? Sure you can beat the checks NOW - but if we find out - we will strip the titles off you ?

IW - Millar wouldnt implicate Lance - why would he ? He'd get his ass sued off him, and likely get hounded out of the peleton. Lance wasnt keen on Bassons and Simeoni who spoke out on doping. They left the sport soon after. 

JB - microdosing is the way to do it. Small amounts. And you can rehydrate yourself pretty quickly to to cheat tests. Why did riders have personal blood centrifuges back in the day ? Most people got busted buying the stuff or transporting it. Only idiots actually tested positive.  

Perhaps it should be said that if it's administered by a needle it's banned?

That would kill off rehydrating via IV drip too though.

Yes I'm a total noob to all this

They've thought of that already :

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-approves-no-needle-policy

Noob point well proven there Cougie!

Hmm Medical need though that's rather vague isn't it. Maybe they need to look at the team Dr's thing instead, but then they'd use private Dr's. Or if you could only use UCI mandated Dr's you still get the odd corrupt UCI approved Dr.

I give up! Just need to some how set a moral compass in all the riders, maybe all these very clever specialist Dr's could start working on that!

Mind you it's sort of two things isn't it.

If Lance tested clean by the race rules at the time then surely that should stand. Then figure out how to get the riders to always be clean in today's races.

cougie wrote (see)

I guess going back and doing this puts the fear of god into the current generation of riders ? Sure you can beat the checks NOW - but if we find out - we will strip the titles off you ?

Find out what, exactly? That people you routinely beat are pointing a finger? It's double jeopardy as far as I'm concerned. I'm a fan of process. If we can prove the guilt of an athlete using the process then great. If we can't and they are doping, then we need to improve the process. If we don't know for certain but cannot prove their guilt, we cannot change the process.

Find out that they were doping - but passed the tests as the drugs they were using werent being tested for at that time ? 

He had 6 positives from the 1999 test.  Its just that they didnt come to light until 2005 when tests had improved. 

I think this is pretty comprehensive : 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years

AliBear30 wrote (see)

If Lance tested clean by the race rules at the time then surely that should stand. Then figure out how to get the riders to always be clean in today's races.

But that legitimises any behaviour that can be concealed at the time. I believe it's standard practice now to freeze samples so that they can be tested in the future when testing methods improve. Surely this combined with retrospective action increases the deterrent?