Another L. Armstrong doping allegation

[punisher73]

Do you think that the allegations are legit, or people making the allegations for personal gain? As Lance Armstrong said, he has taken over 500 drug tests both in and out of competitions and has never failed one. Do you think that athletes should come forward years later to make the allegations?

http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/st...s-Lance-Armstrong-used-drugs-051911?GT1=39002

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

some people will do anything for money.
some people will never believe that nearly superhuman achievements are possible with performance enhancing drugs regardless of what drug tests say.
I find Lance to be a extraordinary athlete who accomplished amazing things in his sport.
I will back him until he is proven to have taken EPO, or some other performance enhancer.
I had never watched bike racing before him, and I stopped watching shortly after he finished, nobody in the sport was exciting like he was.

 

[punisher73]

some people will do anything for money.
some people will never believe that nearly superhuman achievements are possible with performance enhancing drugs regardless of what drug tests say.
I find Lance to be a extraordinary athlete who accomplished amazing things in his sport.
I will back him until he is proven to have taken EPO, or some other performance enhancer.
I had never watched bike racing before him, and I stopped watching shortly after he finished, nobody in the sport was exciting like he was.

That's how I feel about it. He has been tested repeatedly and never failed a test or had to retake one. I'm going to need something more definitive than people trying to publish their own book.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Having been around a great majority of athletes both High School, Collegate and Pro I have a very biased view point. I know few that have not utilized some performance enhancing drug at some point in their career the allure it simply to strong! Plus it is relatively easy to mask them particularly people with lots of money and good doctors. So with team mates coming out and it's wide spread abuse known in the cycling world it is hard to ignore that he might have been using. Still that does not marjanalize his win's as most if not all of them were using!

 

[MA-Caver]

It's why Voltaire listed Envy as one of the 7 deadly sins.
Mark Spitz did incredible things in the Olympics all those gold medals, same with Michael Phelps, Carl Lewis, Jesse Owens, Jackie Joyner Kersee, and dozens of others then you have non-Olympic events in which people from around the world have done incredible things all without doping.

Granted winning a particular bike race that's over 2300 miles long 7 times consecutively makes you wonder. On All Things Considered I was listening to the reporter saying something about how it does look suspicious because there are hundreds of younger (stronger) athletes competing against the man and he still won.

But as mentioned he's never failed a test. If he has been doping then he's doing something else to hide the fact from the tests.

It's sad that steroids have been abused in the manner that they have been. They're a useful drug for those who really need them. My father who broke his back (crushed his L-5 vertebrae) has a type of steroid injection which reduces or alleviates the pain normally associated with such an injury. But to use such drugs to enhance performance in a competitive setting is just wrong.

The guy is probably trying to make a few bucks with his allegations and he'll soon be dismissed. Pity him for muddying up the waters of such a great athlete.

 

[elder999]

Lance has always been careful about what he says.


"I've tested" x number "of times, and never tested positive."

"I don't use any banned substances."

"I never used any banned substances."


Pretty willing to bet he had some as yet undetectable and relatively unknown designer equivalents to EPO, HGH, and steroids.

That said, it shouldn't take away from all that he's accomplished, and he should stick to his story-since all the "credible witnesses" coming forward are men who tested positive themselves, and the whole thing is being driven by a prosecutor and investigator with an agenda-since the Postal team was sponsored with federal funds, this becomes a corruption and fraud case.

 

[granfire]

Maybe I am just a cynical a-hole again, but I don't care one way or another.

As one who can't ride a bike on the flat for 2 miles, let alone a small hill, the Tour is pretty amazing. Just to finish it, really.

I don't think anybody can compete at that level without the help of modern sports medicine (and pharmaceuticals) because, lets face it, the human body isn't build for such things.

And again, I think since pretty much everybody is doing it - the cynic in me is speaking again - the playing field is pretty level.


However:
There is a price to be payed.
There has been a number of athletes dieing of heart attacks at way to young an age.
A few years back Ken Caminiti (I think he played for the Padres...) died at the tender age of 41 or so...I wonder if the Macho Man could fall under this category.

We are at a cross roads I believe.
There has to be a healthy middle ground for athletes to receive the treatments that preserve their body's health (and as such enhance performance) and the outright dangerous cheating.
I mean the tests are so sensitive these days that you have to scratch from competition some times even though it has been three weeks since you took a certain banned substance for medical reason. It long since has dropped below a level were it would affect anything, but it can still be detected...that's insane.


(on a side note, I am not one for hero worship. I can appreciate the accomplishment, but I am not about to kowtow)

 

[Carol]

Lance has always been careful about what he says.


"I've tested" x number "of times, and never tested positive."

"I don't use any banned substances."

"I never used any banned substances."


Pretty willing to bet he had some as yet undetectable and relatively unknown designer equivalents to EPO, HGH, and steroids.

That said, it shouldn't take away from all that he's accomplished, and he should stick to his story-since all the "credible witnesses" coming forward are men who tested positive themselves, and the whole thing is being driven by a prosecutor and investigator with an agenda-since the Postal team was sponsored with federal funds, this becomes a corruption and fraud case.

EPO wasn't detectable until the 2000 Olympics as it took some serious chemistry to develop a test that would delineate between what was produced by doping, and what was produced naturally by the human body.

Does that mean he WAS doping? No...but it is certainly is within the realm of possibility that he could have used EPO for the 1999 Tour de France and still pass a drug screen.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I can remember lifting weights with a University football team back in the day. It was amazing how intensely we weight lifted. I was not in a competive phase of my life at this point but they certainly were. Many were hoping to go to a larger college or of course onto the pros. (sadly most had no shot from this smaller University) I can remember being asked multiple times if I needed anything to boost performance from the guy's in the gym. Were they all juicing? Yes, they were! I am very confident in this statement!

In regards to Lance Armstrong I believe they still have all of his urine samples so if he was taking some thing it will eventually come out!

I think you need to get into the high level athletes mind to understand the allure of performance enhancing drugs. First the money they can make by winning or making it to the pros is astronimical. Second look at athletes just trying different work outs to get an edge any edge. Then understand meeting and seeing people that are your physical equal to motivate and push you further. Next, well you guess it as you age you will be looking for any edge you can get and pharmacological ones are the easiest way to go! Finding that edge or seeing other people getting an edge from performance enhancing drugs is almost an irresistable allure for athletes. Do I think there are a few that slip through the cracks and do not need it. Sure! What percentage would I give to them? Less than 1% of any high level athlete pool! But then again that is just my experience with athletes talking as before I went full time into Criminal Justice I was thinking of being in Sports Medicine!

Look at Elder999's post above on how Lance Armstrong words exactly what he has said through the years. It is very telling!

 

[granfire]

well, there is that thing...if it's not banned it has to be legal, right?

Or maybe instead of a list of banned substances they should make one of the stuff one can take!

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

ya a couple things to note.
Most of Lance Armstrongs samples are still available for testing, and still stored to face future tests.
As was already pointed out
Lance is very specific in what he says.
He never failed a test ....so far true.
he never took a banned substance....so far true.
he doesn't take a banned substance now...so far true.

He never said that he has not used substances to enhance his performance. Hell anyone who takes a protein bar, or amino acid pill is taking substances to enhance performance. The question is how enhanced was the substances he was taking, and did they break the rules of the race?
I don't think anyone thinks he did not supplement his diet with substances to boost his performance, the question is can any of that fall into the illegal category for the race.
I think hes fine, how much longer is anyone besides the French going to pursue him anyways? The sport is pretty much a mess right now, with many of its current riders getting caught for Performance enhancing drugs, including past winners. I think that Lance Armstrong is the least of their worries at this point... of course the one exception of French Pride... that will always hurt them.

 

[Sukerkin]

Whenever there is money involved in sport (and that includes the national kudos from things like the olympics), there will be cheating.

It belittles the whole idea of competative sports and gives ordinary people unrealistic ideas of what is achievable.

Doing a sport becuse you love it, not because of what you can make from it, is the only way that that athletic competiton will be 'healthy' in all senses of the word.

 

[Twin Fist]

he has never tested positive right?

then **** them

 

[granfire]

Whenever there is money involved in sport (and that includes the national kudos from things like the olympics), there will be cheating.

It belittles the whole idea of competative sports and gives ordinary people unrealistic ideas of what is achievable.

Doing a sport becuse you love it, not because of what you can make from it, is the only way that that athletic competiton will be 'healthy' in all senses of the word.

But I think even the old Greeks had a problem with that.
I thikn it's as much part of human nature as the urge to compete.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

the upper limit of human abilities can not be tested without performance inhancing substances. From scientifically tested optimal food, to supplements, to blood doping, to steroids, to EPOs, and beyond.

If you want to test the human ability, you have to test it to all extents. Banned substances are banned only because they pose a danger to the individual, not because they are giving an unfair advantage. If it is healthy, or at least unable to prove it has negative side effects then it is legal.

 

[elder999]

If you want to test the human ability, you have to test it to all extents. Banned substances are banned only because they pose a danger to the individual, not because they are giving an unfair advantage. If it is healthy, or at least unable to prove it has negative side effects then it is legal.

Banned substances are banned because they are giving an unfair advantage-or perceived to be giving one. Many of them are not steroids, or blood doping, or EPO, but commonly prescribed and over the counter remedies for things like asthma and acne, or supplements that you and I are permitted to use and can buy in the grocery store, but they are on the list of banned substances.

And there are steroid and HGH regimens that have no negative side effects-it's usually when they're used to develop absurd amounts of muscle and strength, like bodybuilders, pro wrestlers and football players, that they become such a hazard, both in the long term and the short term. There are ways to use those drugs with minimal side effects-look at the pro baseball players who have tested positive for them....EPO and blood doping present their own hazards, especially with the already super conditioned elite athlete-very often, between the extra corpuscles, and their low resting heart rate, these guys are close to dying in their sleep because their blood turns to sludge when they're not moving.....and then they die.

But yes, nutrition, drugs,supplements, placebos. All valid and as old as human kind.

[yt]hP63KJoVmjQ[/yt]

[yt]caJ9kJuu7qY[/yt]

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Banned substances are banned because they are giving an unfair advantage-or perceived to be giving one. Many of them are not steroids, or blood doping, or EPO, but commonly prescribed and over the counter remedies for things like asthma and acne, or supplements that you and I are permitted to use and can buy in the grocery store, but they are on the list of banned substances.

And there are steroid and HGH regimens that have no negative side effects-it's usually when they're used to develop absurd amounts of muscle and strength, like bodybuilders, pro wrestlers and football players, that they become such a hazard, both in the long term and the short term. There are ways to use those drugs with minimal side effects-look at the pro baseball players who have tested positive for them....EPO and blood doping present their own hazards, especially with the already super conditioned elite athlete-very often, between the extra corpuscles, and their low resting heart rate, these guys are close to dying in their sleep because their blood turns to sludge when they're not moving.....and then they die.

But yes, nutrition, drugs,supplements, placebos. All valid and as old as human kind.

I disagree, its not banned because it gives an unfair advantage, if that was the case then they would make everyone ride the same bikes, wear the same gear, and weigh the same weight before start of race, giving everyone the exact same nutrition during the race and see who wins.
It's never been about a fair field, or an unfair advantage, the millions made by the suppliers of equipment and supplements count on all athletics being as unfair an advantage as possible, so they can tout their product as supplying that advantage.
Like you said steroids, and HGH absolutely can be used in moderation to give helpful benefits to almost everyone on the planet, and virtually all of the horror stories told have been due to massive abuse.

 

[elder999]

I disagree, its not banned because it gives an unfair advantage, if that was the case then they would make everyone ride the same bikes, wear the same gear,

THere are, in fact, limitations on these things-the bikes are scrutinized almost as much as the riders. There are limitations on the support teams, and how much contact they can have with the riders. There are limitations on strategy, and how and how much the other riders on a team can protect the lead of one of their members. There are limitations on what they wear, much like the limitations on those form-fitting swim suits after the last Olympics.There are limitations on the number of gears the bikes can have, and their ratios to each other. Disc brakes are prohibited. There are limitations on how little each bike can weigh. There are limitations on the type of helmet worn in each stage.

and weigh the same weight before start of race,

They roughly fall into a window in terms of percentage of body fat and VMAX-this is really where Lance had an advantage, btw-even as a teenage triathlete, his aerobic capacity and physical strength were exceptional-freakish, really-the guy's some kind of mutation, though, while his advantage in this regard seemed huge when he was winning-and after his riding style was tweaked for efficiency, another area where he excelled-it was really only a slight edge over everyone else.

giving everyone the exact same nutrition during the race and see who wins.

Not only is this not practical, it's not even feasible. Why not do some gene-splicing, and make their DNAs as close a match as possible? :lfao:

Now, the World Anti Doping Agency's mandate is simply to fight doping in sports-there is nothing about "whys.". THey utilize the IOC's prohibited substance list. If health were truly their concern, though, why then are blood transfusions prohibited. Why ban antihistamines? Why ban "gene-doping," when there isn't quite even a technique to test for it? Why prohibit alchohol (on a sport by sport basis) or cannabis? WHy prohibit local, topical anisthetics like lidocaine, which comes in over the counter ointments for toothaches and muscle pain (and was wonderful for my feet on a 50 mile run, or on my crotch for a long bike ride....and..other things)? Why prohibit beta blockers, which are prescribed for high blood pressure? Why place a relatively low limit (12 micrograms/milliliter) on caffeine, so that an athlete can only have to cups of coffee?

It's never been about a fair field, or an unfair advantage, the millions made by the suppliers of equipment and supplements count on all athletics being as unfair an advantage as possible, so they can tout their product as supplying that advantage.

That's always been exactly what it's about...otherwise, they would have stopped Julie Moss at the 1982 Ironman triathlon before she collapsed and defecated all over herself crawling across the finish line-for her health, dontcha know, and they'd have banned utlramarathons and Ironman triathlons shortly afterward-instead, I've watched men and women collapse at the end of various stages, and dropped out of the Leadville 100 to help a guy who was in renal failure.

They're not called "performance enhancing drugs" for nothing, after all.

Like you said steroids, and HGH absolutely can be used in moderation to give helpful benefits to almost everyone on the planet, and virtually all of the horror stories told have been due to massive abuse.

And yet they're prohibited.

Julie Moss could've died. She also was probably anorexic, and should have had a sandwich, or ten, but physical standards, especially for runners, were completely different 30 years ago:

[yt]WxNB_W1QgpM[/yt]
Banned substances are banned because they're considered cheating: obtaining an [unfair advantage over your fellow competitors. That's why so many simple, innocent substances are limited, if not prohibited. Not because they'll make your heart stop. Not because they'll make your liver fail-often enough, just competing could do that.

Of course, what kind of "unfair advantage" is it if everyone else is doing it?

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

THere are, in fact, limitations on these things-the bikes are scrutinized almost as much as the riders. There are limitations on the support teams, and how much contact they can have with the riders. There are limitations on strategy, and how and how much the other riders on a team can protect the lead of one of their members. There are limitations on what they wear, much like the limitations on those form-fitting swim suits after the last Olympics.There are limitations on the number of gears the bikes can have, and their ratios to each other. Disc brakes are prohibited. There are limitations on how little each bike can weigh. There are limitations on the type of helmet worn in each stage.



They roughly fall into a window in terms of percentage of body fat and VMAX-this is really where Lance had an advantage, btw-even as a teenage triathlete, his aerobic capacity and physical strength were exceptional-freakish, really-the guy's some kind of mutation, though, while his advantage in this regard seemed huge when he was winning-and after his riding style was tweaked for efficiency, another area where he excelled-it was really only a slight edge over everyone else.



Not only is this not practical, it's not even feasible. Why not do some gene-splicing, and make their DNAs as close a match as possible? :lfao:

Now, the World Anti Doping Agency's mandate is simply to fight doping in sports-there is nothing about "whys.". THey utilize the IOC's prohibited substance list. If health were truly their concern, though, why then are blood transfusions prohibited. Why ban antihistamines? Why ban "gene-doping," when there isn't quite even a technique to test for it? Why prohibit alchohol (on a sport by sport basis) or cannabis? WHy prohibit local, topical anisthetics like lidocaine, which comes in over the counter ointments for toothaches and muscle pain (and was wonderful for my feet on a 50 mile run, or on my crotch for a long bike ride....and..other things)? Why prohibit beta blockers, which are prescribed for high blood pressure? Why place a relatively low limit (12 micrograms/milliliter) on caffeine, so that an athlete can only have to cups of coffee?




That's always been exactly what it's about...otherwise, they would have stopped Julie Moss at the 1982 Ironman triathlon before she collapsed and defecated all over herself crawling across the finish line-for her health, dontcha know, and they'd have banned utlramarathons and Ironman triathlons shortly afterward-instead, I've watched men and women collapse at the end of various stages, and dropped out of the Leadville 100 to help a guy who was in renal failure.

They're not called "performance enhancing drugs" for nothing, after all.



And yet they're prohibited.

Julie Moss could've died. She also was probably anorexic, and should have had a sandwich, or ten, but physical standards, especially for runners, were completely different 30 years ago:

[yt]WxNB_W1QgpM[/yt]

the fact remains they allow for variations so that there can be that allowance for the products used.
yes all these guys are great athletes, and Lance was freakish, no arguments there, The fact remains, they are not all equal, they do not compete in weight classes in the bike race, there is room for differences and advantages. In the fighting arts they have seperated out weight classes so there is no unfair advantage... but thats another topic all together when discussing cutting weight lol.
they only ban drugs, or substances that are harmful, or possibly harmful under certain situations. Its not about the unfair advantage as much as it is they dont want their athletes dropping dead and scaring away fans, sponsors, companies, new athletes etc.
Unfair advantages are encouraged, its why so much money is spent on new substances, and new gear to continuously improve the limits. The don't dan or suspend things that do not have a high probability of potential damages... either physical or perceptual.
Also athletes are always going to push themselves, and nobody is going to stop them from doing it. So you will get those unbelievable scrap everything out of the tank attempts, accomplishments, visuals, etc. I should absolutely change my statements... at a certain point I think most of the athletes played for love of the sport. Tha thas changed over the last 30 years, in the steroid era have you. Now you see very few athletes playing for love of the sport... I also am very careful to word any comments so as not to be complete... meaning there are always exceptions but they are few compared to the total involved. Seriously why do you think the NFL is in a lockout, and why so many athletes are using any extra tool they can to win.. its for the paydays. you will always have a small percentage who want to do it for the love, but they are few and far between now. Its all about the money.

 

[JohnEdward]

My thoughts, since this allegation was first made back in 2004.

Guilt By Association?
The world's best athletes are such because they highly competitive and will do what ever it takes (including cheating for some, not alluding to Lance) to win. Meaning, they get the best trainers, coaches, etc to get them an edge and to pull out every ounce of what ever it takes to win out of them. Lance with that same mind-set took on controversial trainer Michele Ferrari to help him win. Lance dropped Ferrari after the conviction. Ferrari as trainer obtain achieve outstanding and remarkable improvements for many top cyclists, he did knowingly and purposely commit malpractice and sports fraud. His controversial reputation proceeded him in the cycling world. A handful of cyclists admitted to doping while under Ferrari. Lance's relationship with Ferrari, put Lance in question and heavy scrutiny creating the allegations that still persist today. The question then is did Lance naively take on Ferrari because Ferrari did have remarkably results with cyclists' performance prior to the era of doping? Or did Lance intentionally take on Ferrari because of Ferrari's remarkable doping concoctions? Many weigh the later because of the fact Lance stuck with Ferrari until after the conviction, and in spite of Farrari's well know malpractice and sports fraud reputation in the world of pro cyclists.

That Dog Won't Stop Hunting
With that, it is hard for many to believe Lance didn't dope under Ferrari, or continued to do so there after. And, since then a number of people have been making allegations that have had a snowballing effect to try and prove Lance doped. Professional jealousy, blackmail via false allegation, or simply because so many famous athletes got into doping, and lied about it lends to the logic Lance did too, how else did he win so many times, especially hiring a trainer such as Ferrari. And losing a race after being watched so carefully for cheating. The more Lance deigns the allegation the more motivation there is to prove he did in fact cheat.

One would think, after the conviction of Farrari, if Lance was doping, he would be very careful about future doping. Any reasonable amount of intelligence would dictate that. Lance would have to be a complete moron to dope during a race under such hyper-scrutiny. It is evident he isn’t a moron, as a result of the number of times Lance has tested, including samples of urine held from past races showing no indication of doping. Proving Lance to be a doper is now the great challenge of the cycling world. Instead of racing, it seems many have taken on the challenge of the only way to beat Lance is to say he cheated and try to prove it.

The Rub
After reading a fair about on this controversy, I have a sense many people believe that if several of Lance’s team mates and other cyclists have admitted to doping during races Lance was in, than how did Lance beat them, if he was clean? The thought is by many that he had to be doping to win because doping turns you into a super natural athlete. That is he had to have doped in higher amounts then other athletes to win.
That thinking completely overlooks the fact that if everyone is doping, the determining factor is that everyone biological, atomically, physiologically or psychologically are equal. There are cyclists would still couldn’t beat Lance if they where doped to the hilt anyway, there are cyclists whose only chance to beat Lance where if they doped. And who says that wasn’t a motivating factor for those cyclists? Which many of those cyclists doped lost more times than against Lance, before he under Farrari. It isn’t like Lance won every race he entered the moment he hired Farrari. Lancing performance record didn’t happen over night or jump when he hired Farrari. Many other cyclists doped and still didn’t beat Lance, doped or not. Or that Lance had cancer big time, and as a result of the treatment he went though that effected his body could make him highly susceptible to negative effects of performance drugs that would clearly be evident for the case of doping.

The bottom line is your dope performance results are only is a good as the body it is put into. If you have a 4 banger Honda, adding professional race car fuel enhancers isn’t going to mean crap when you race against a NASCAR. If you have a NASCAR and you put in an illegal fuel it doesn’t result in a better built or designed engine. The margin of performance is relative. You can’t turn lead into gold, you can only make the lead shine.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Overall, in this situation, I take in account Lance’s background what it took for him prior to the advent of doping to become a world class athlete and competitor, to be able to race at the elite level, kicked some major *** along the way. Clearly, he didn’t start from being a hack cyclist to world class over night. And doping can’t, yet, do that. The man, as a matter of fact trains unrealistically hard, and obsessively. His training habits i.e. taking legal enhancements etc. are within the bounds of his competitors. And maybe he felt he had to even the playing field know his competitors where doping because that way the only way they could win, by training under Farrari- not alluding to doping. Maybe, Lance truly felt Farrari’s proven non-doping methods worked remarkably, would help him. Whatever the case, Lance is without a doubt, the best cyclist of our time. He is innocent until proven guilty, and should not be deemed guilty by association or suspicion. Unfortunately, his association with Ferrari has and will always case doubt.