Lance folds on drug charges

61 to 80 of 322 messages
flyaway    pirate
02/10/2012 at 08:51

Maddy - part of the problem is that even if the entire peloton dopes, it DOESN'T make it a level playing field. Different physiologies respond differently to different "flavors" of doping, so some people can get more of a benefit. For example, if you can boost "Measureable outcome x" (be that PCV, power output, whatever you want to measure that results in you being stronger/faster) by 5%, then the higher your starting values for X, the higher the level of "boosted-X". If you naturally have a pretty low PCV/ Hct, you can take more EPO/blood and end up with a bigger improvement, that someone who has an already high PCV, therefore ending up with a bigger gain. In addition, it comes down to who is willing to go furthest into the danger zone - if drug Y's effect increases in direct proportion to the amount you take, along with the risky side effects, Athlete A might be willing to take more risks (by taking more drug) than Athlete B, who is a bit more wary.If you said "Previously illegal substances e, f, and g are now allowed, but only up to z kg/bwt cos after that there is a high risk of death", you'd get people taking z+1 kg/bwt, because that would give them a tiny potential advantage.

So the playing field, even if "everyone dopes", is far from even.

02/10/2012 at 09:05
Forget the science. Forget whether a certain phrase is correct. No good will come from raking up the past in a sport which we know was corrupt. In the same way that referees were corrupt in football in the past. We should let Real Madrid etc keep their trophies and Lance keep his titles and us keep our heroes. They should be focusing on the present and how to keep cycling clean and draw a line under the past.
Edited: 02/10/2012 at 09:05
cougie    pirate
02/10/2012 at 09:23
And if we did that it just sends the message to riders that it's ok to dope so long as we don't catch you at the time ?
02/10/2012 at 12:54
Ultra cougie wrote (see)
And if we did that it just sends the message to riders that it's ok to dope so long as we don't catch you at the time ?

 

... the alternative message being, IF you are clean we can still persecute you for eternity until we get the result we want.

02/10/2012 at 13:16
I used to be in the he hasnt tested positive therefore he is innocent camp but the more i read the more i begin to doubt gonna give the Tyler Hamilton book a read see if it tips me one way or the other, the Millar book was good from his perspective on the pressure to dope but avoided the Lance issue
Darkness    pirate
02/10/2012 at 13:51

A pound to a penny it tips you into the "he is guilty as sin camp"!  Well worth a read. It changed my perspective as I hadn't realised the lengths they went to mid tour.

02/10/2012 at 13:54

I'm with you max - I was always in the "he's never tested positive" camp but the evidence now coming to light - proven or unproven - is making me dount the reality more and more.   it's a little bit like the "is Jimmy Saville a kiddy fiddler?" tale that's now breaking - there were lots of comments around that he was when he was alive, but nothing was ever proven, but it seems his death is now opening people's minds and mouths (and maybe filling their wallets).

as they say - the truth will always out

iron fraggle    pirate
02/10/2012 at 13:55

I've just read the Tyler Hamilton book and found it very interesting. It suggests that EPO doping was rife and if you didn't dope there was no chance of getting near the podium as all the major contenders were doping. Mr Armstrong comes across as a vindictive bully - if he didn't like you, you were out, and your career with it. It also implies that LA had the UCi in his pocket.

the EPO and testosterone doping i could kind of understand, but the blood doping made me want to heave .

Darkness    pirate
02/10/2012 at 13:58

Will that be 1 BB or 2 sir?

iron fraggle    pirate
02/10/2012 at 14:05

flyaway    pirate
02/10/2012 at 14:20
fat buddha wrote (see)

I'm with you max - I was always in the "he's never tested positive" camp

He did test positive though - twice. Once for corticosteroids in 1999 (wiggled out of that one with a backdated 'script for saddle sore cream) and again in 2001, for EPO (although this was never followed up, as the positive was part of a research project to develop a test for EPO, and was conducted on stored blood).

Cheerful Dave    pirate
02/10/2012 at 14:36
Ultra cougie wrote (see)
And if we did that it just sends the message to riders that it's ok to dope so long as we don't catch you at the time ?

Merckx, Indurain, Riis, Ulrich etc aren't being stripped of titles won while doping, as they undoubtedly were. 

I don't think there's any question of saying that it's OK to dope - if the evidence is produced Lance will be forever labelled a doper whether he technically holds his titles or not.

Darkness    pirate
02/10/2012 at 14:40

As an aside the BBC carried an article on testing of a new blood booster:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19561158

 

02/10/2012 at 14:56
flyaway wrote (see)
fat buddha wrote (see)

I'm with you max - I was always in the "he's never tested positive" camp

He did test positive though - twice. Once for corticosteroids in 1999 (wiggled out of that one with a backdated 'script for saddle sore cream) and again in 2001, for EPO (although this was never followed up, as the positive was part of a research project to develop a test for EPO, and was conducted on stored blood).

yep - am aware of them but what I meant is that he didn't test positive in a way that  led to a ban. the EPO one was chased to death by l'Equipe but they had no convincing scientific evidence due to the methodology so it never went anywhere.

all dopers try to use get outs - LA seems to be no different here. but the rules have tightened up which leaves less wriggle room now - "it was in my meat", "it was a product bought overseas" etc - i.e. ignorance of the presence of a drug is no longer a defence.   

Darkness    pirate
02/10/2012 at 15:05

Tyler Hamilton's book suggests it was very easy to dope and get away with it - had he had a more reliable doctor that didn't mix up blood bags he probably wouldn't have been caught either.

02/10/2012 at 17:30

Whilst testing positive and then buying off the governing body (I think it was 2x $125,000 payments from LA to the UCI) does in fact mean he didn't test positive in a way that  led to a ban, I hardly think that qualifies someone to use the I've never tested positive defence and expect people with even half a brain to believe it. McQuaid and before him Verbruggen are more culpable that anyone in this mess. Just shocking to see him handing out medals at the Olympic cycling (notwithstanding the fact he actually has an Olympic ban in place for take Sean Kelly (I think) to SA back in the 70s). Thoroughly repugnant individual that needs to go before any progress can ever be made.

BTW the level playing field is nonesense too.  The bigger the star (or the more sociopathic the personality) the better the 'treatment' they receive from the team doctor. Ergo Lance and Bertie get more blood bags than Johnny La Domestique.  He once told the truth inadvertantly it seems - indeed it's not about the bike.

And don't get me started on how Jamacia produces half a dozen of the best sprinters in the world (including one winning by jaw droppingly big margins) from a talent pool the size of Chipping Sodbury when they're going up against the Yanks and there less than virtuous afletic past - Jones, Lewis, Gatlin etc.   The training methods on that island must be pretty damn special to produce that many people to run that much faster than a huge country with a (recent) history of doped athletes.  Now WTF is in them chicken nuggets?

As you were. 

02/10/2012 at 17:57

I didn't say that I agreed with the way that LA wriggled out of the ban my crustacean friend - it was a comment.  and the "buying off" of the UCI is again something that is unproven. despite the lingering doubts, complicity, nasty smells, hearsay evidence etc there are no definitive facts.  LA and UCI say one thing, others say something else

I'm not defending LA here - I've come around to the opinion that the guy as a lying shit  - but nobody has yet to prove one way or another (or at least provide the evidence of proof as the UCI still await the USADA evidence) of absolute guilt in this whole tawdry affair.  it's all supposition so far.  

hmm - chicken nuggets.....

 

 

02/10/2012 at 18:27

The way you go on you'd think he was Welsh ;o)

As you may have gathered I am a little passionate on this and get really agitated by people taking what LA says and holding it up as gospel without questioning and/or researching it - not accusing you of that Big Guy.  He has tested positive and he hasn't been tested nearly as many times as his PR machine says he has and there are an awful lot of people (Andreu, O'Reilly, Anderson etc.) with nothing to gain who are painting a consistent picture. As they don't exist in the peloton their income is directly influenced by omerta.  I guess they are all part of the huge conspiracy to bring down Lance (headed up by Walsh and Kimmage) and probably faked the moon landings before bumping off the people's princess. 

I don't think USADA finding him guilty (cos he folded after seeing what they had on him I'll grant you) is supposition.  I think USADA are due to give the case files to the UCI very soon and they have also said (I think) they will be going public (even if Bruyneel doesn't make them) so the UCI won't be able to bury the evidence under a bland 'we agree' statement.

It's all a load of nuggets I'm tellin' ya!

As U-sada* were. 

On a highly unrelated note wasn't Sada the first person ever evicted from Big Brother?

flyaway    pirate
03/10/2012 at 17:47

On a (mildly) related note, I love the fact that Landis is now legally prevented from saying that the UCI, amongst other things, are "terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of shit, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi" or similar allegations of that kind.

Yep, that just about covers it.

cougie    pirate
03/10/2012 at 17:57

I theeenk they may be a tad different to Gadaffi.  Theyve not got an honour guard of attractive women have they ? And live in tents ?

Oh and the whole hiding in a pipe thing. Although I wouldnt rule them having to resort to that when the Lance fans storm their offices with pitchforks and blazing torches. 

61 to 80 of 322 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums