Author Topic: Bye Lance  (Read 282762 times)

RJ

  • Droll rat
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #325 on: 24 August, 2012, 10:09:46 am »
Flouncetastic!

Yes.  Tacitly raising the jurisdictional question of whose ball is it anyway (which was given a reasonable airing on the Today programme this morning).

As well as making himself look more of a martyr to vindictive jealousy than I fear in fact he is.

What's Jan Ullrich got to say on this (assuming he's not still completely absorbed in the Vuelta)?

Torslanda

  • Professional Gobshite
  • Just a tart for retro kit . . .
    • John's Bikes
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #326 on: 24 August, 2012, 10:27:04 am »
This leaves me angry.

I don't for one minute believe that when Lance Armstrong was sacked by Cofidis (according to the story this was when he was lying in a hospital bed with an IV dripping platinum into him) he formulated a plan to dominate world cycling and take shitloads of performance enhancing drugs, stuff that could kill him just as certainly as the wrong dose of chemo could.

For USADA read 'Witchfinder General' and for all the people who have created 'new' rules or new interpretations of rules - including it seems retrospectively banning substances used to help riders 'recover' or 'rehydrate' - bollocks to the lot of you.

Maybe he did or maybe he didn't. I could have taken all those 'legal' substances and a shitload more 'illegal' substances besides and it wouldn't have made the tiniest difference. I could never have ridden up the cols and alps like that. Not even once. At my absolute peak of fitness I was nowhere near him or anyone else.

Grudgingly I am deep down a believer in Lance's story. I can't square that a man who nearly died from the worst possible plague (his own body tried to kill him) would react by doing irreparable damage to his body.

If he's dead by 50 I'll stand to be proved wrong.

Good luck to the USADA in promoting sporting endeavour on the back of intimidation, threats and bullying.
VELOMANCER

Well that's the more blunt way of putting it but as usual he's dead right.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #327 on: 24 August, 2012, 10:28:00 am »
I tend to agree.  Training your body to that degree means staying *just* within the limits of what's legal and what's not.  Every so often, someone who means to stay legal, slips over the line.

Does all this mean that Our Bradley now comes 3rd in the 2009 Tour?

I’m not blanket condoning doping or seeking to ignore Lance’s wrongdoing either but consider too how small a mental jump it must have been to undertake performance enhancing doping techniques after several years of the medical procedures he received to save his life.

That isn't the case with LA though. He was charging hard before his cancer (refer Betsy Andreu) and came out of it charging even more when the rest of the peloton had backed off due to Festina.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

jogler

  • mojo operandi
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #328 on: 24 August, 2012, 10:41:13 am »


That isn't the case with LA though. He was charging hard before his cancer (refer Betsy Andreu) and came out of it charging even more when the rest of the peloton had backed off due to Festina.

Indeed,IIRC he was a World Champion in some event or other before his cancer was diagnosed?

That's an interesting comment wrt to the post-Festina mood of the peleton & it's associates who may have been,at that time,more inclined to avoid treading on eggshells thus giving LA an unexpected competitive edge?

Bye Lance
« Reply #329 on: 24 August, 2012, 10:51:01 am »

Good luck to the USADA in promoting sporting endeavour on the back of intimidation, threats and bullying.

Of course many cycle journos/writers would say that this is a perfect description of lance.


Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #330 on: 24 August, 2012, 11:02:38 am »
My thoughts have been that Armstrong knew these limits and was meticulous in measuring his own chemical levels and topping up to remain within the legal limit so that he could pass over 500 blood tests. He was calculating to the last degree; that's his character as I understand it from a distance.

But is it really 500 ? - the number may not matter but it may be an example of say it enough and the public (who buy into the livestrong brand) start believing it - apologies if it's been posted before but an estimate here:
http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/
(interestingly in the first 2010 quote of his lawyer it mentions 300, which is nearer the article's estimate of 230-odd)

plus some quoted/linked stuff in this first post re testing/irregularities
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17704

Usual caveats of not believing anything/everything you read on the internet, but some interesting reading..

And the Usada thing stinks of someone trying to make a name for themselves by bringing him down.
It may have been said before upthread, but irrespective of any reasons the USADA have it's not just about one man doping, but the elements of intimidation, and collusion/corruption elsewhere - hopefully it'll all come out.  Cycling's been sullied enough for years, I can't imagine anyone in the world of triathlon would welcome that taint being carried into their sport.

TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #331 on: 24 August, 2012, 11:24:23 am »
Lay your prejudices and what you already "know" about Lance to one side for a moment and imagine he is innocent. I know, it's a tough ask, but just imagine it was true.
He's faced, not with physical proof that he took drugs, but with a bunch of people each of whom either bears him a grudge, or stands to have their own doping overlooked if they say they saw Lance take something. How can he disprove it? (Bear in mind we're imagining him to be innocent at this point) The best he can hope for is to show that the "witnesses" have ulterior motives and so might be lying. He can't prove that they are lying. He can't prove the absence of drugs. You can't prove the absence of anything.
So he's facing a fight he can't win. Whether he doped or not, he can't win the USADA hearing. His actions this morning are not necessarily those of a guilty man. Even an innocent man would walk away at this point. Lance is a fighter, but he's not an idiot, he's not going to fight a fight where winning isn't a possiblity.

I agree with Ross. The USADA case appears to be one that can't be fought, innocent or not, not least because much of it depends on the testimony of people who have an axe to grind. And Lance, almost certainly like nearly all pro's of the time, was probably exploiting medical technology to the limits of what WADA and the UCI allowed, which would explain why he doesn't say 'I never doped' but is truthful when he says he never failed a dope test. All sports have rules, and anything that isn't forbidden is allowed. To retrospectively apply modern testing techniques to one athlete and declare him guilty of transgressing the rules of an earlier time seems, to me, to be somewhat unfair - especially if it isn't applied to all athletes in that competition.

Rhys W

  • I'm single, bilingual
    • Cardiff Ajax
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #332 on: 24 August, 2012, 11:50:41 am »
Grudgingly I am deep down a believer in Lance's story. I can't square that a man who nearly died from the worst possible plague (his own body tried to kill him) would react by doing irreparable damage to his body.

What is this irreparable damage? You're making things up now. In his book he tells of taking EPO as part of his recovery from cancer, why would he have any qualms about taking it again?

Good luck to the USADA in promoting sporting endeavour on the back of intimidation, threats and bullying.

There has been no greater bully in all this than LA himself.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #333 on: 24 August, 2012, 12:17:06 pm »
I can't imagine someone as famously tenacious and pugnacious as Armstrong ever walking away from a fight if he believed he was right.
If he believed he could win, I would have said.

He could still be clean but won't fight an unwinnable, or even unfightable, fight - though personally I think the "just inside the limit and occasionally stepping outside" is most likely. I'm not sure to what extent it matters for the record books as he was probably no better or worse than those below him.
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #334 on: 24 August, 2012, 12:38:32 pm »
Believe what you like but there is plenty of evidence that LA and his team charged more than anybody else, protected by the UCI.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Torslanda

  • Professional Gobshite
  • Just a tart for retro kit . . .
    • John's Bikes
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #335 on: 24 August, 2012, 12:42:55 pm »

What is this irreparable damage? You're making things up now. In his book he tells of taking EPO as part of his recovery from cancer, why would he have any qualms about taking it again?


I'm thinking of professional cyclists who had to be woken hourly during the night to make sure their hearts continued to beat.

That's after several whose haematocrit level had gone so high that their blood was 'like soup' and failed to wake up in the morning.

Then there are legions of ex-pros - some very big names indeed - who never made it past their 50s, some even younger . . . 

That's documented fact. I don't need to make this shit up! It's bad enough as is.
VELOMANCER

Well that's the more blunt way of putting it but as usual he's dead right.

Torslanda

  • Professional Gobshite
  • Just a tart for retro kit . . .
    • John's Bikes
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #336 on: 24 August, 2012, 12:43:52 pm »
Believe what you like but there is plenty of evidence that LA and his team charged more than anybody else, protected by the UCI.

When that is proven to be true I will be the first to acknowledge the fact.
VELOMANCER

Well that's the more blunt way of putting it but as usual he's dead right.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #337 on: 24 August, 2012, 12:53:35 pm »
You should be looking closely at the evidence in the Bruyneel case.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Rhys W

  • I'm single, bilingual
    • Cardiff Ajax
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #338 on: 24 August, 2012, 01:04:16 pm »

What is this irreparable damage? You're making things up now. In his book he tells of taking EPO as part of his recovery from cancer, why would he have any qualms about taking it again?


I'm thinking of professional cyclists who had to be woken hourly during the night to make sure their hearts continued to beat.

That's after several whose haematocrit level had gone so high that their blood was 'like soup' and failed to wake up in the morning.

Then there are legions of ex-pros - some very big names indeed - who never made it past their 50s, some even younger . . . 

That's documented fact. I don't need to make this shit up! It's bad enough as is.

Yes, there were a handful of European pros who died in their sleep and EPO, though suspected, was never proven. Similarly the ex-pros who died relatively young - nothing proven.

The difference between Lance and a relatively unknown Belgian on a 2nd-division team was that Lance was able to buy the finest medical care when he had cancer, any doping he might have done later would be similarly scrutinised by medical professionals, partly to avoid detection but also to minimise any health risks. Would you refuse to let a doctor administer morphine when you've broken your leg because you've heard of heroin addicts dying from an overdose?

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #339 on: 24 August, 2012, 01:09:19 pm »
Lance has been and remains a huge inspiration to me. The rights and wrongs of the issue are perhaps unknowable and I'd deny no one their view.

Cancer is real, life changing, and utterly shit for those in or around it. Anyone or anything that can help restore dignity, courage and humanity is to be thanked in my opinion. Bike racing is fun, awe inspiring and transient by comparison.

Thanks.
Mark

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #340 on: 24 August, 2012, 01:11:55 pm »

What is this irreparable damage? You're making things up now. In his book he tells of taking EPO as part of his recovery from cancer, why would he have any qualms about taking it again?


I'm thinking of professional cyclists who had to be woken hourly during the night to make sure their hearts continued to beat.

That's after several whose haematocrit level had gone so high that their blood was 'like soup' and failed to wake up in the morning.

Then there are legions of ex-pros - some very big names indeed - who never made it past their 50s, some even younger . . . 

That's documented fact. I don't need to make this shit up! It's bad enough as is.

Yes, there were a handful of European pros who died in their sleep and EPO, though suspected, was never proven. Similarly the ex-pros who died relatively young - nothing proven.

The difference between Lance and a relatively unknown Belgian on a 2nd-division team was that Lance was able to buy the finest medical care when he had cancer, any doping he might have done later would be similarly scrutinised by medical professionals, partly to avoid detection but also to minimise any health risks. Would you refuse to let a doctor administer morphine when you've broken your leg because you've heard of heroin addicts dying from an overdose?

So, what's been "proven" in the case of LA? All it seems to me is that hearsay evidence from self interested alleged witnesses has been believed.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

RJ

  • Droll rat
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #341 on: 24 August, 2012, 01:15:11 pm »
Flouncetastic!

Yes.  Tacitly raising the jurisdictional question of whose ball is it anyway (which was given a reasonable airing on the Today programme this morning).

As well as making himself look more of a martyr to vindictive jealousy than I fear in fact he is.

What's Jan Ullrich got to say on this (assuming he's not still completely absorbed in the Vuelta)?

This, according to the Times of India

Quote
Jan Ullrich tight-lipped about being handed Tour wins
BERLIN: German cyclist Jan Ullrich on Friday refused to speculate about whether he would be handed three of the seven Tour de France titles won by US rider Lance Armstrong that may now be withdrawn over doping claims.

"I'm not thinking about these titles. I don't know the details of the process. I'm proud of my second-place finishes," the 1997 Tour winner said of his runner-up spots behind the American in 2000, 2001 and 2003.

Ullrich was speaking after the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) said Armstrong would be banned for life and stripped of all of his titles following his decision to abandon a case against drug charges that have tainted his legacy.

Last February, Ullrich was suspended for two years for a doping violation related to a Spanish police investigation into an illegal performance-enhancing drug network and all his results after May 2005 were annulled.

Another German cyclist, Andreas Kloeden could also replace Armstrong as Tour winner for the 2004 edition, after he finished runner-up.

But Kloeden has also been accused of doping in 2009 by experts tasked by the University of Freiburg to probe the work of two doctors in charge of medical support for the T-Mobile team in 2006.
.

EDIT:  and (in German) Der Spiegel

jogler

  • mojo operandi
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #342 on: 24 August, 2012, 01:24:30 pm »
Flouncetastic!

Yes.  Tacitly raising the jurisdictional question of whose ball is it anyway (which was given a reasonable airing on the Today programme this morning).

As well as making himself look more of a martyr to vindictive jealousy than I fear in fact he is.

What's Jan Ullrich got to say on this (assuming he's not still completely absorbed in the Vuelta)?

This, according to the Times of India

Quote
Jan Ullrich tight-lipped about being handed Tour wins
BERLIN: German cyclist Jan Ullrich on Friday refused to speculate about whether he would be handed three of the seven Tour de France titles won by US rider Lance Armstrong that may now be withdrawn over doping claims.

"I'm not thinking about these titles. I don't know the details of the process. I'm proud of my second-place finishes," the 1997 Tour winner said of his runner-up spots behind the American in 2000, 2001 and 2003.

Ullrich was speaking after the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) said Armstrong would be banned for life and stripped of all of his titles following his decision to abandon a case against drug charges that have tainted his legacy.

Last February, Ullrich was suspended for two years for a doping violation related to a Spanish police investigation into an illegal performance-enhancing drug network and all his results after May 2005 were annulled.

Another German cyclist, Andreas Kloeden could also replace Armstrong as Tour winner for the 2004 edition, after he finished runner-up.

But Kloeden has also been accused of doping in 2009 by experts tasked by the University of Freiburg to probe the work of two doctors in charge of medical support for the T-Mobile team in 2006.
.

EDIT:  and (in German) Der Spiegel

so the riders who might benefit from LA's loss are themselves proven or suspected drug cheats ::-)

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #343 on: 24 August, 2012, 01:30:07 pm »

[snipped for brevity]

Yes, there were a handful of European pros who died in their sleep and EPO, though suspected, was never proven. Similarly the ex-pros who died relatively young - nothing proven.

The difference between Lance and a relatively unknown Belgian on a 2nd-division team was that Lance was able to buy the finest medical care when he had cancer, any doping he might have done later would be similarly scrutinised by medical professionals, partly to avoid detection but also to minimise any health risks. Would you refuse to let a doctor administer morphine when you've broken your leg because you've heard of heroin addicts dying from an overdose?


By the time LA came back from cancer, oxygen vector doping had moved from riders effectively experimenting on themselves to some teams letting medical staff take charge for the reasons given above. Many substances that get used for doping are still at the experimental stage, and athletes have been misusing them before the pharma companies have even got them properly assessed in trials. So in that respect, in the early days of synthetic EPO usage (or in doping as a whole), the abusers of the substances were flying blind with regard to safe doses, so it's hardly surprising that a number of athletes got it fatally wrong.

In a way, the 50% haematocrit limit wasn't so much an anti-doping measure, more an anti-unsafe doping measure. Riders who were clocked at >50% were told to take a break from racing for "health reasons". It took some time to develop tests that can detect the use of synthetic EPO, leading to the story in l'Equipe in 2005 about Armstrong's 1999 TdF urine samples testing positive for EPO.

Quote from: Cycling News
L'Equipe allegations
French anti-doping authorities had retroactively applied the new EPO test to samples from the 1999 Tour de France in order to test the robustness of their new test. The samples, which had been taken before the EPO test had been developed, allegedly showed evidence of EPO use but the lab personnel had no knowledge of the identities of riders behind positive samples.

A journalist from L'Equipe managed to acquire documentation from the UCI with sample numbers and match positives to those of Armstrong. However, the UCI's independent analyst ruled the data was unreliable and could not be used for doping punishment because the samples were tested strictly for research purposes. The World Anti-Doping Agency objected, sparking a long, heated battle between WADA president Dick Pound and then-UCI president Hein Verbruggen.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." ~ Freidrich Neitzsche

simonp

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #344 on: 24 August, 2012, 01:30:48 pm »
Yes. Virtually none of the top 10 in lance's 7 tour wins are untainted.

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #345 on: 24 August, 2012, 01:36:23 pm »
Yes. Virtually none of the top 10 in lance's 7 tour wins are untainted.

Handy guide here: http://www.cyclingtipsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/armstrong1150px.jpg

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." ~ Freidrich Neitzsche

RJ

  • Droll rat
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #346 on: 24 August, 2012, 01:36:57 pm »

so the riders who might benefit from LA's loss are themselves proven or suspected drug cheats ::-)

(Assuming USADA can force UCI's hand) - yes  :-\  Though LA probably falls into the "suspected" category;  Ullrich too (AFAIK) never failed a test ...

Rhetorical question:  how low down the results list do you go (in the post-Festina, Armstrong era) in order to be confident of finding a clean rider?

On that basis, there's little point in "stripping" LA of his wins; even if that were to happen, in the eyes of many he'd still have "won". 

Better (maybe) as others have suggested, just to draw a line through the entire period, with a footnote saying "Some results may have been performance-enhanced, but the effect of this on standings cannot be quantified; but hey - wasn't it all exciting?"  ;)

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #347 on: 24 August, 2012, 01:38:59 pm »
In reading the Vaughters article in the other thread, this was the bit that stuck out.
Quote
For people who follow VO2 max numbers, when I was getting mine tested during this period at the same lab Miguel Indurain went to, I was testing mid/high 80s. So why was I one of the very first people getting dropped? So anyway, as 1996 progressed, and we got closer to the Vuelta, all of a sudden there was a shift. And all of us riders knew at this point that we were getting our asses kicked because everyone is taking EPO in the peloton. And the management had held the line: ‘No doping.’ We weren’t getting paid enough to buy it on our own and if we had bought it, we didn’t know enough how to use it on our own.

But finally some months before the Vuelta, Nunez comes to me and he said, ‘You know Jonathan, I’ve been thinking about this, and we aren’t going to dope you. But we think that since you’re training so hard, that we want to make sure we keep your red cell count the same it was at the beginning of the year when you came from Colorado fresh.’ And I said ‘OK, sounds good.’ So he said, ‘There’s going to be some medication we’ll use to make sure that happens.’ And I said, ‘OK.’ And I quickly figured out that what he was talking about was EPO. But again, the way he phrased it to me allowed me to justify it. As much as I shouldn’t have, and been intelligent and said, ‘Wait this is bullshit,’ in my mind he had just spelled out to me that I wasn’t going to dope, we’d just make my hematocrit what it would have been had I not been riding my bike so damn much. And we’re never going to use doses high enough to push you where you shouldn’t be, so I shouldn’t worry about health consequences like stroking out. And of course there’s no chance of you testing positive. So it was like ‘Oh, well my blood’s going to be the same thickness as it is normally, so we’re just avoiding anemia right? So this is actually healthy!’ And so there won’t be health consequences and so it won’t be cheating.

Did you consciously realize those rationalizations at the time?
Of course I can look back 16 years later and say, ‘Clearly these were rationalizations.’ If I had sat down and been honest with myself, I was logical enough to realize that. But at that point in time, I was ripe soil. When you’re team-time trialing off the back to make the back end of the grupetto in every race and you hear that message, your mind is fertile for hearing that. When I look back on that I think, ‘Holy Toledo, here’s a guy who founded a team on the principles of clean racing and to make up the difference through marginal gains and hiring the most talented young athletes, unspoiled athletes, and focusing them and that little by little that the sport could be moved and changed.’ Jose Luis Nunez had the same damn dream and the same damn conviction I did. But his timing was incredibly bad. He held out for 30 months of his dream and then he cracked. And the athletes, once he cracked, the dam broke.


I want to know who devised Armstrong's medication regime, who payed for it and how it evolved in the context of his cancer treatment. I'd be in favour of a truth and reconciliation line being drawn, so we can access a very interesting bit of science. The veiled half-truths hinder that. Big Pharma should square away the disputed win bonuses in exchange for all the data, and Ferrari should cooperate fully.

CrazyEnglishTriathlete

  • Miles eaten don't satisfy hunger
  • Chartered accountant in 5 different decades
    • CET Ride Reports and Blogs
Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #348 on: 24 August, 2012, 01:42:28 pm »

so the riders who might benefit from LA's loss are themselves proven or suspected drug cheats ::-)

(Assuming USADA can force UCI's hand) - yes  :-\  Though LA probably falls into the "suspected" category;  Ullrich too (AFAIK) never failed a test ...

Rhetorical question:  how low down the results list do you go (in the post-Festina, Armstrong era) in order to be confident of finding a clean rider?

On that basis, there's little point in "stripping" LA of his wins; even if that were to happen, in the eyes of many he'd still have "won". 

Better (maybe) as others have suggested, just to draw a line through the entire period, with a footnote saying "Some results may have been performance-enhanced, but the effect of this on standings cannot be quantified; but hey - wasn't it all exciting?"  ;)

+1
Eddington Numbers 130 (imperial), 182 (metric) 571 (furlongs)  114 (nautical miles)

simonp

Re: Bye Lance
« Reply #349 on: 24 August, 2012, 01:43:44 pm »
Yes. Virtually none of the top 10 in lance's 7 tour wins are untainted.

Handy guide here: http://www.cyclingtipsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/armstrong1150px.jpg

Ta. :) I might have bothered to look for the link myself if I'd not been using the phone at the time.