Lance Armstrong - cheating liar?

I haven't made up my mind on this.
There are a couple of things that bother me about these stories coming out.

I think some of the charges are a bit over the top and smell of fabrication, innuendo or extreme exaggeration. Many of come from disgraced former racers (known liars) with no means of support trying to hawk their latest book like Landis and Hamilton.

With all that Armstrong had at stake I just find it hard to imagine that he would be so open and caviler about the doping. He has been accused of taking blood transfusion on the team bus in front of 50 or 60 people, casually sharing his dope with other riders, chatting about it in mixed company, buying off the regulation agencies and you name it. All the while knowing that the press was after him on this issue and what the damage would be if any one of these hundreds of people spilled the beans.

Wouldn't you think with all he had on the line that he would have used a tad more discretion instead of blatantly exposing his usage to these hundreds of people openly?

The two that seem most ridiculous are Landis's charge of Armstrong getting doping transfusions on the team bus traveling from one stage to another in front of everybody and buying off the anti-doping agency. Armstrong traveled by private car from stage to stage and did not the bus. The anti-doping agencies have busted many big name riders, so I don't think they are easily paid off.

One thing that will prove to be interesting is to hear what Hincappie really said to the grand jury. There are rumors that he testified that he doped with Armstrong, but there are no solid reports on what he actually testified to. Seeing that he is still racing, will he be confessing to doping publically and putting himself up for a ban that will surely not only end his career but destroy his reputation?
If he does, that will go a long ways towards me believing that Armstrong doped as Hincappie is one person that has a lot to lose by coming forward with such information.

As to the current state of things, I am certain that Contador dopes as he did test positive. It will be interesting if he's allowed to race the Tour this year.

Originally Posted by harplayr

I haven't made up my mind on this.
There are a couple of things that bother me about these stories coming out.

I think some of the charges are a bit over the top and smell of fabrication, innuendo or extreme exaggeration. Many of whom are disgraced former racers (known liars) with no means of support trying to hawk their latest book like Landis and Hamilton.

With all that Armstrong had at stake I just find it hard to imagine that he would be so open and caviler about the doping. He has been accused of taking blood transfusion on the team bus in front of 50 or 60 people, casually sharing his dope with other riders, chatting about it in mixed company, buying off the regulation agencies and you name it. All the while knowing that the press was after him on this issue and what the damage would be if any one of these hundreds of people spilled the beans.

Wouldn't you think with all he had on the line that he would have used a tad more discretion instead of blatantly exposing his usage to these hundreds of people openly?

The two that seem most ridiculous are Landis's charge of Armstrong getting doping transfusions on the team bus traveling from one stage to another in front of everybody and buying off the anti-doping agency. Armstrong traveled by private car from stage to stage and did not the bus. The anti-doping agencies have busted many big name riders, so I don't think they are easily paid off.

One thing that will prove to be interesting is to hear what Hincappie really said to the grand jury. There are rumors that he testified that he doped with Armstrong, but there are no solid reports on what he actually testified to. Seeing that he is still racing, will he be confessing to doping publically and putting himself up for a ban that will surely end his career?
If he does, that will go a long ways towards me believing that Armstrong doped as Hincappie is one person that has a lot to lose by coming forward with such information.

As to the current state of things, I am certain that Contador dopes as he did test positive. It will be interesting if he's allowed to race the Tour this year.

Thanks this is very well put and I agree 100%. I do not keep up with every story that is out there on Lance or pro-cycling. The points that you make here are extremely good at least to me they are.

The UCI appeal hearing of the Contador case has been postponed until possibly September. That should allow Contador to race in the Tour since he is currently not under any suspension. If he goes as well in the Tour as he currently is in the Giro, everyone else will be racing for second and then hoping the appeal goes poorly for him.

In further Lance news, the director of the Swiss lab that found the questionable samples in the 2001 Tour De Suisse has admitted to having a meeting with Armstrong and Bruyneel after the test to help determine the difference between Positive and Questionable (seemingly legal semantics) and to learn what the testers were looking for. All valuable information if you're trying to avoid a positive dope test. Armstrongs' lawyer is still denying this meeting took place.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swis...uspect-samples

Originally Posted by jonathan2263

The UCI appeal hearing of the Contador case has been postponed until possibly September. That should allow Contador to race in the Tour since he is currently not under any suspension. If he goes as well in the Tour as he currently is in the Giro, everyone else will be racing for second and then hoping the appeal goes poorly for him.

In further Lance news, the director of the Swiss lab that found the questionable samples in the 2001 Tour De Suisse has admitted to having a meeting with Armstrong and Bruyneel after the test to help determine the difference between Positive and Questionable (seemingly legal semantics) and to learn what the testers were looking for. All valuable information if you're trying to avoid a positive dope test. Armstrongs' lawyer is still denying this meeting took place.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swis...uspect-samples

Also from that article....

Saugy, who was the lab's scientific director at the time, told Swiss newspaper Neue Züricher Zeitung that he remembered four "suspect" samples from the 2001 Tour de Suisse but did not know whether they belonged to Armstrong.

---snip---

"They were taken at four different stages, so I don't know whether they were from four different riders or all of the same athlete," said Saugy. "But the tests were not covered up, and it is also not correct that they could have been interpreted as positive. They were suspect, and you wouldn't stand a chance at all with that sole argument in front of a court."


However, Saugy said that the meeting did not take place at the Swiss lab - as stated by Hamilton in the 60 Minutes TV show - but during a trip made to collect blood samples. "And it also wasn't about discussing a particular result or to cover up anything. I explained how the EPO test worked and why there were suspect samples as well as positive ones. This information was part of a lecture that I had been giving in various locations."

This version of the meeting is much less sinister than the sensational story presented by Hamilton who had no firsthand knowledge of any such meeting.

The "meeting" apparently took place when Saugy was collecting samples from Armstrong and not when he held the high position he now does. He also states he had no idea which rider's samples tested with traces but below the threshold of a positive. The way the system is designed to be blind in that respect I believe him when he says he doesn't know who the rider or riders were.

It's quite natural to chat about things in the process of collecting samples and Saugy said he gave public lectures with the same information he discussed with Armstrong. No trade secrets were told. I'm not aware of any no-talking rule between the people sent out to collect samples and riders or management.

It's a big leap to infer from this that Armstrong bought them off through this person who that at that time was a mid level employee.

Getting back to Contador, what disappoints me is the fact that he DID test positive in both A & B samples at last year's tour. The reports of plastic particles found in his blood (indicating transfusions) while not yet admissible further makes me believe he was blood doping.

While the legal battle is still ongoing, I don't think he should be racing in this year's tour. I remember a couple of years ago when a bunch of riders (including Ulrich) were prevented from riding in the Tour when they were just suspected of being involved with doping, but had not yet failed any tests. It did turn out that most of them were guilty of doping, but there is precedent for denying a rider's eligibility to race in the Tour without positive tests. Contador was implicated somewhat in that doping scandal too, but there wasn't enough evidence to go after him on it.

Originally Posted by harplayr

Also from that article....



This version of the meeting is much less sinister than the sensational story presented by Hamilton who had no firsthand knowledge of any such meeting.

The "meeting" apparently took place when Saugy was collecting samples from Armstrong and not when he held the high position he now does. He also states he had no idea which rider's samples tested with traces but below the threshold of a positive. The way the system is designed to be blind in that respect I believe him when he says he doesn't know who the rider or riders were.

It's quite natural to chat about things in the process of collecting samples and Saugy said he gave public lectures with the same information he discussed with Armstrong. No trade secrets were told. I'm not aware of any no-talking rule between the people sent out to collect samples and riders or management.

It's a big leap to infer from this that Armstrong bought them off through this person who that at that time was a mid level employee.

Getting back to Contador, what disappoints me is the fact that he DID test positive in both A & B samples at last year's tour. The reports of plastic particles found in his blood (indicating transfusions) while not yet admissible further makes me believe he was blood doping.

While the legal battle is still ongoing, I don't think he should be racing in this year's tour. I remember a couple of years ago when a bunch of riders (including Ulrich) were prevented from riding in the Tour when they were just suspected of being involved with doping, but had not yet failed any tests. It did turn out that most of them were guilty of doping, but there is precedent for denying a rider's eligibility to race in the Tour without positive tests. Contador was implicated somewhat in that doping scandal too, but there wasn't enough evidence to go after him on it.

Agreed. However, I do find it interesting that there is silence on this issue from the Armstrong camp. From what I gathered from the article, it sounded to me like Saugy had a sit down with Bruyneel and Armstrong regarding these questions and it was more than casual chit chat while he was drawing blood.

Contador did indeed test positive, but apparently there's a loophole that states if you can prove you didn't mean to take it, you get away with it. The plasticizers in the blood are not currently banned so they're a non issue. If you remember, Pedro Delgado tested positive after winning the 08 tour for a masking agent that was not yet on the banned substance list.

It would not surprise me if Tour management dis-invited Contador. They have a history, as you stated of not allowing riders under suspicion to race. I guess the difference may be that Contador won his initial case and is therefore technically not under suspicion. Either way, I bet he gets off. He won't be the first athlete to use the "tainted beef" defense and get away with it.

Originally Posted by jonathan2263

Agreed. However, I do find it interesting that there is silence on this issue from the Armstrong camp. From what I gathered from the article, it sounded to me like Saugy had a sit down with Bruyneel and Armstrong regarding these questions and it was more than casual chit chat while he was drawing blood.

Contador did indeed test positive, but apparently there's a loophole that states if you can prove you didn't mean to take it, you get away with it. The plasticizers in the blood are not currently banned so they're a non issue. If you remember, Pedro Delgado tested positive after winning the 08 tour for a masking agent that was not yet on the banned substance list.

It would not surprise me if Tour management dis-invited Contador. They have a history, as you stated of not allowing riders under suspicion to race. I guess the difference may be that Contador won his initial case and is therefore technically not under suspicion. Either way, I bet he gets off. He won't be the first athlete to use the "tainted beef" defense and get away with it.

We can only have his word on what was discussed, but to me it rings true.

It certainly is WAY different than the story Hamilton is spinning. I would tend to believe the actual participant rather than somebody that wasn't there that is currently on a media blitz spreading gossip while trying to sell his book.

Regarding the plasticizers found in Contador's blood, I know that there is no rule on acceptable limits yet, and that it can't be used against him, but it does reinforce the theory that he was getting transfusions.

I have a hard time with Contador's mystery meat story. That's almost as good as Hamilton's story about a dead twin decomposing inside of him causing his failed tests.

Follow this sport and you will hear some doozies!

Alejandro Valverde is a former Spanish Champion and has never tested positive. Blood bags with the name of his dog written on them were found in the freezer of the famous doping expert Dr. Fuentes in Spain. The Italians obtained a sample of the frozen blood and compared it to a sample taken in an Italian race and found Valverde guilty and then banned him from racing in Italy and threatened to charge him with criminal charges if he stepped foot on their soil thereby keeping him from both the Giro and le tour (there was one stage that ended in italy that year). The Spanish federation investigated the whole affair as Operacion Puerto but did not suspend him as there was no proof that he was doping. Only that his blood was in a doping doctor's freezer. The Italians took that decision to CAS who suspended him for two years. One of the other names on the blood bags was Jan Ulrich's dog's name. Another bag was labelled "cowboy". I wonder who that would refer to? While all of this crap was going on Valverde raced and won the Vuelta and a couple of major races. He has not lost those titles as he did not test positive during the races that he won. AC will likely have the tour victory last year struck if he loses at CAS. Maybe that's why his lawyers are playing games so that he can win the tour and the giro this year and maybe go for the vuelta before his case is heard.

One point that may not be clear judging by the comments above is that the Swiss lab did not cover up the test. The UCI is the body that asked that no further steps be taken on the 'suspicious' tests and the lab did what they were told by the sport's governing body.

Let's face it, they all dope or at least the ones who are in the upper 25% of the peleton are on some form of PEDs be it EPO, Insulin, HGH, or roids. The dopers are head and shoulders above the level of testing capable of detecting PEDs.

The sport I've followed and loved for 40 years is now officially a joke.

We all just human, human make mistakes.

I do believe....It's better to explore life and make mistakes than to play it safe.

Sent from my iPad using BimmerApp

Lance Armstrong's dog is/was called Rex to my knowledge - of course there may be another dog... he had Rex flown to Colorado State University for open heart surgery in '05 - I remember hearing about it...

I've been saying this for years... I like the doping scandals. I read cyclingnews most mornings in hopes of seeing the latest soap opera. Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid cyclist who has spent many years as an active racer, love watching spring classics and even make my living in the bike industry. But without the scandals, it's just skinny dudes on bikes. If I want to see that, I can look in the mirror.


Signals sent from The Mother Ship

Any new news? It seems like it has been awfully quiet.

Originally Posted by skywalkerbeth

Any new news? It seems like it has been awfully quiet.

Let me check....

How you could post this, just after he was cleared, without knowing?

Originally Posted by cwsqbm

Let me check....

How you could post this, just after he was cleared, without knowing?

Yeah, interesting timing. So to recap, the government has dropped its case against LA without filing any charges. However, USADA is requesting all information that was gathered and will probably go ahead with its doping investigation.

In other doping news, the verdict is finally in in the Contador case and he will serve a two year ban starting from the day of the initial finding. He'll be able to race again 8/5/12. I think that means he can race the Vuelta this year. He loses all results gained since then, including the 2010 Tour and 2011 Giro. I think it's the only Grand Tour the Schlecklett will win.

I think both decisions were the right ones, but they should have come down harder on Contador and banned him for the entire season at the least. He failed the doping test.

The next test they have to approve is for plastizers in the blood. That is one of the things that convinced me that Contador was guilty. The theory that he doped during training, stored his blood and transfused during the Tour causing the low levels of banned substance and plastizers in his blood is very credible.


Some of the stories about Armstrong were way beyond belief, like him lying down in the aisle of the team bus while going down from a mountain stage and getting IV bags of doping junk transfused into him.

Simply don't care if he took PEDs. Have no problem if all pros used PEDs.

Originally Posted by harplayr

I think both decisions were the right ones, but they should have come down harder on Contador and banned him for the entire season at the least. He failed the doping test.

The next test they have to approve is for plastizers in the blood. That is one of the things that convinced me that Contador was guilty. The theory that he doped during training, stored his blood and transfused during the Tour causing the low levels of banned substance and plastizers in his blood is very credible.


Some of the stories about Armstrong were way beyond belief, like him lying down in the aisle of the team bus while going down from a mountain stage and getting IV bags of doping junk transfused into him.

What convinced me he's guilty is that he's a professional athlete.

Originally Posted by blueguydotcom

Simply don't care if he took PEDs. Have no problem if all pros used PEDs.

I prefer when they dope. The racing is better and I watch it to see great entertainment, not guys who are afraid to blow up so they don't go for heroic attacks.

I wish they would just allow everything. The prototypical stage racer would become a 220 lb. muscle head, who is snarling and bleeding from the eyeballs, and every mountain stage would be run at full on time trial pace. It would be great.

Yeah and then we'd have a rash of tear-jerker stories about former athletes with their gonads falling off at age 43, getting all weepy about how they did it for the fans, if only they'd known, so on, ad naseum. Might make for better theater, but athletics, instead of improving the breed would get into the business of turning people into basket cases wholesale.

Originally Posted by jonathan2263

. But without the scandals, it's just skinny dudes on bikes. If I want to see that, I can look in the mirror.


Signals sent from The Mother Ship

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/conc...-and-us-postal

Yup, this is why I read cyclingnews. I love a good scandal. Looks like we should stay tuned because there is clearly more to come from this.

Originally Posted by jonathan2263

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/conc...-and-us-postal

Yup, this is why I read cyclingnews. I love a good scandal. Looks like we should stay tuned because there is clearly more to come from this.

I read that article earlier.
Of course the witch hunt will continue. It will still be a hard case to prove without a positive test to back the accusations up with.

Contador was easy…failed test on a zero tolerance substance. Why that took almost 2 years to decide is beyond me. As soon as the “B” sample tested positive they should have banned him immediately.

I think they should spend their time going after the current crop of dopers rather than spend their resources trying to prove something from years past that will be extremely hard to prove.

Originally Posted by harplayr

I read that article earlier.
Of course the witch hunt will continue. It will still be a hard case to prove without a positive test to back the accusations up with.

Contador was easy…failed test on a zero tolerance substance. Why that took almost 2 years to decide is beyond me. As soon as the “B” sample tested positive they should have banned him immediately.

I think they should spend their time going after the current crop of dopers rather than spend their resources trying to prove something from years past that will be extremely hard to prove.

Hear, hear!!! I've said that a few times. Stop trying to bust someone from 10 years ago and level the riding field on the new riders with a zero tolerance!

Originally Posted by jonathan2263

I prefer when they dope. The racing is better and I watch it to see great entertainment, not guys who are afraid to blow up so they don't go for heroic attacks.

I wish they would just allow everything. The prototypical stage racer would become a 220 lb. muscle head, who is snarling and bleeding from the eyeballs, and every mountain stage would be run at full on time trial pace. It would be great.

Amen. They're paid well to entertain and get endorsements. So give us the best show possible.

Interesting about the comments by those who prefer to allow PEDs - the rules don't allow them - the rules these @ssholes agree to when they enter the races.

In other news - Armstrong's Doctor and associates get life-time bans from cycling:

http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/sto...lations-071012

We'll never know and we'll always wonder. The truth is, even with PEDs he's one of the greatest athletes ever. Though I certainly wish he wouldn't have the PED stigma attached to them. There is no easy way to handle this situation. Allowing PEDs sends a horrible message and will potentially lead to youth athletes already being shot up to "become a Pro." The health consequences could be devastating. Then there's the moral dilemma. If you shoot yourself up, is it really you doing well now or is it the drugs making you do well? I doubt the performance gain is tremendous, but it's a race of minutes over hundreds of miles. Any performance increase can help! If I started shooting PEDs would I suddenly be able to ride up the Pyrenees mountains? Doubtful.

So then how to deal with PEDs? I think continuing bans are good, particularly long term bans for proven deliberate offenders. You cannot simply institute lifetime bans, because sometimes people do indeed accidentally ingest something they shouldn't or weren't aware of.

It's a touchy subject and in the end, as an avid cyclist myself, I find no joy anymore in watching the Tour. As soon as the next person wins the doping allegations will come flying...

Originally Posted by brkf

don't care. like so many other entertainers I do not understand our culture's obsession with destroying them. he served his purpose... he entertained millions. what drugs he took, who he screwed, how he lied, it's all totally irrelevant.

All true, the only problem for me is the fact that teenage athletes will imitate their heroes. The pressure to get ahead is huge at all ages in sports. If someone could have convincingly indicated to me that they had a drug that could get me down to sub 4:10 miles in high school, I've no doubt I'd have been sorely tempted. Anyone running 4:07 in high school was a major stud in the scene back then. Still are.

It's one thing for Barry Bonds to juice it, quite another for a 16 year old kid whose body is still developing.