If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Australian)   Laboratory director says Lance Armstrong's test results were "not positive." Here comes the science   (theaustralian.com.au) divider line 41
    More: Interesting, Floyd Landis, EPO, Bradley Wiggins, Court of Arbitration for Sport, UCI, drug tests, Lausanne, United States Anti-Doping Agency  
•       •       •

2864 clicks; posted to Sports » on 21 Oct 2012 at 6:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-21 05:27:16 PM
Bureaucrats: Lance Armstrong is guilty of doping.

Profiteers: Oh yeah. We saw everything.

Scientists: Um, guys? There's no proof of that.

Lawyers: Yawn. $1000 and hour plus expenses. Oh, and the expenses there will be.


Just another textbook case of witchhunting. Even if he did do, what was it, blood transfusions and sticking hgh up his dickhole or something, who cares? He rides a bicycle. I can ride a bicycle. It's not a sport.
 
2012-10-21 05:34:01 PM
I've only sorta been following this.

Dude has never tested positive. Dude has a ton of people willing to testify that he doped. How would this stand up in court? It would probably cost him a small fortune to defend himself.

Then again, if he was innocent, it would be worth it.
 
2012-10-21 06:33:43 PM
EPO is difficult to test for but he's got a LOT of people standing up and testifying against him under oath. You can't ignore that.

You're welcome.

Will the douche just go away already.
 
2012-10-21 07:01:34 PM

snuff3r: EPO is difficult to test for but he's got a LOT of people standing up and testifying against him under oath. You can't ignore that.

You're welcome.

Will the douche just go away already.


Because people are more reliable than science, right?
 
2012-10-21 07:05:28 PM
He's the sporting worlds Richard Nixon.

Lotsa Good... Lotsa Bad... It will be up to history to determine which one we remember.

I hope it is the good one.

Sargun: snuff3r: EPO is difficult to test for but he's got a LOT of people standing up and testifying against him under oath. You can't ignore that.

You're welcome.

Will the douche just go away already.

Because people are more reliable than science, right?


That is on thing I really want to know:

Were the people who testified against him, specifically other cyclists or teammates, offered ANYTHING in exchange for their testimony. If so, it gets 0 weight from me.(Not that anyone cares, or should care what I think about him)
 
2012-10-21 07:38:07 PM

snuff3r: he's got a LOT of people standing up and testifying against him under oath. You can't ignore that.


And how many of those people were caught doping?

From what I saw, he never said no when they asked for a sample. If that's the case, it should be definitive and not have to rely on witnesses who knew all this time, but never came forward until he said screw it I'm tired of this crap.
 
2012-10-21 07:38:55 PM

doglover: He rides a bicycle. I can ride a bicycle. It's not a sport.


Racing a bike UP a freaking mountain is a sport (strength, endurance, etc...)

Driving a car for a couple hours in a oval is not a sport.
 
2012-10-21 07:48:24 PM

Sargun: snuff3r: EPO is difficult to test for but he's got a LOT of people standing up and testifying against him under oath. You can't ignore that.

You're welcome.

Will the douche just go away already.

Because people are more reliable than science, right?


Some times. And this is one of them.
 
2012-10-21 07:48:33 PM

Im_Gumby: doglover: He rides a bicycle. I can ride a bicycle. It's not a sport.

Racing a bike UP a freaking mountain is a sport (strength, endurance, etc...)

Driving a car for a couple hours in a oval is not a sport.


The hell it's a sport. I beat Lance's best feats going to college. 119 miles, tons of big hills, 2 hours or less every time.
 
2012-10-21 08:01:32 PM
There really ARE a group of sycophantic fanboys more obnoxious and willfully blind than Tiger Woods crew of largely repressed homosexuals.
 
2012-10-21 08:12:09 PM
Holy shiat NOBODY CARES.
 
2012-10-21 08:37:37 PM

doglover: Im_Gumby: doglover: He rides a bicycle. I can ride a bicycle. It's not a sport.

Racing a bike UP a freaking mountain is a sport (strength, endurance, etc...)

Driving a car for a couple hours in a oval is not a sport.

The hell it's a sport. I beat Lance's best feats going to college. 119 miles, tons of big hills, 2 hours or less every time.


Unless on your ride to college you biked through mountain passes in the French Alps and above 9,000 feet in altitude, it is most definitely not the same as cycling the Tour de France.
 
2012-10-21 08:42:18 PM
Wait, there are people who actually believe Lance was not doping? Seriously?

You really believe that a man with one testicle can beat the best in the world guys, with as good genetics as him, who were training just as hard as he was, who were doping? I got some land to sell you, if so. It is prime real estate.
 
2012-10-21 08:44:29 PM

Sargun: snuff3r: EPO is difficult to test for but he's got a LOT of people standing up and testifying against him under oath. You can't ignore that.

You're welcome.

Will the douche just go away already.

Because people are more reliable than science, right?


people who admitted that they doped and maybe are getting less a punishment if they testify ??
LOL
you know, unless you have an actual positive test result DIAF.
and if your tests suck so bad that you cant tell the difference between a false positive and a real positive, maybe you need better standards?

oh wait
you are talking about changing the standards that were used when he was competing ?
bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I hate this whole discussion. they all dope. get over it already.
 
2012-10-21 08:50:28 PM
A champion athlete doped?

Wow.
 
2012-10-21 08:55:06 PM
He's HIVpositive about the result of "not positive"
 
2012-10-21 09:10:53 PM

machoprogrammer: Wait, there are people who actually believe Lance was not doping? Seriously?

You really believe that a man with one testicle can beat the best in the world guys, with as good genetics as him, who were training just as hard as he was, who were doping? I got some land to sell you, if so. It is prime real estate.


I believe he doped, but your logic makes no sense since his whole team claims they too were cheating. Shouldn't they have been able to beat him?
 
2012-10-21 09:31:23 PM

SoxSweepAgain: A champion athlete doped?

Wow.


SoxSweepAgain: A champion athlete doped?

Wow.


Ignoring that doping might be against the "rules" of the sport, how is "doping" illegal, even if it were??
Dr proscribes a shot. TADA legal

yes roid rage is terribad.
yes these tards die young chasing the dream.
who cares?

some dumb kiddies are going to juice to be like their hero??
HAHAHAHAHA
GOOD
 
2012-10-21 09:42:53 PM
The Tours have always been doping central. Hell back before you had doping, you had people hitching rides in cars and all kinds of stuff to cheat on the Tour De France. In the 1980s they had at least one guy die in midrace due to the fact he was doped up to the gills. Almost every year you have at least a couple top racers test positive in a Tour or one of the lead up races.

The deal is certain racers appear to have better technical staff and managed to avoid testing positive. At the end of the day Armstrong likely was doping, but of course it has yet to be proved. It also doesn't matter because most of the big names in cycling were likely doping and a good percentage of the domestics are also likely doping. The racing community going after Armstrong though is just sour grapes, they should actually fix their testing and start catching the active guys, as opposed to sitting around looking through the samples of retirees. If you want to end doping in the sport, get the active guys and ban association with certain doctors. Give the teams a real reason to cleanup. Picking off guys like Armstrong doesn't do anything as cycling already made its money off him, you need real punishment to create incentive to end the doping culture.
 
2012-10-21 09:53:59 PM
Still staying neutral on this but the science is intriguing. I however do not blame Armstrong for not throwing any more money away fighting against the USADA when the deck is stacked against him and he likely cannot get a fair hearing.
 
2012-10-21 10:31:33 PM

doglover: Im_Gumby: doglover: He rides a bicycle. I can ride a bicycle. It's not a sport.

Racing a bike UP a freaking mountain is a sport (strength, endurance, etc...)

Driving a car for a couple hours in a oval is not a sport.

The hell it's a sport. I beat Lance's best feats going to college. 119 miles, tons of big hills, 2 hours or less every time.


You averaged 60 mph on a bike? That would be incredibly impressive if it was remotely true.
 
2012-10-21 10:53:45 PM
Tomorrow he should be striped of all his disgraced TFD victories!
 
2012-10-21 11:13:54 PM
From the USADA Decision:

C. 2001 Tour of Switzerland Samples
The 2001 Tour du Suisse (Tour of Switzerland) was conducted from June 19 - 28, 2001. Dr. Martial Saugy, the Director of the WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory in Lausanne, Switzerland, has confirmed to both USADA and the media that his laboratory detected a number of samples in the 2001 Tour du Suisse that were suspicious for the presence of EPO. Dr. Saugy also told USADA that upon reporting these samples to UCI, he was told by UCI's Medical Commission head that at least one of these samples belonged to Mr. Armstrong, but that there was no way Mr. Armstrong was using EPO.
On May 27, 2011, Dr. Saugy told Cycling News that four of the urine samples taken at the 2001 Tour de Suisse were labeled "suspect" and that a sample was considered "suspect" when it "showed between 70 and 80% of the typical EPO parameters (basic area percentage). That meant the probability of doping was high, but because such a result can also be produced naturally, it was all about excluding false positives."


In this Reasoned Decision we discuss the evidence in significant detail, just as an arbitration panel would have done in announcing its decision had Mr. Armstrong been willing to allow the evidence in his case to be heard by independent arbitrators. It is important that the evidence in this case be discussed in detail for several reasons. First, transparency is a fundamental value of the anti-doping movement. It is important that facts relating to doping not be hidden from public view so that there is confidence in case outcomes and sport can learn from each case. Thus, the rules require USADA to issue a "reasoned decision" and this document meets that requirement. Second, over the years Mr. Armstrong and his representatives went to
10 SCA Hearing Transcript, pp. 1374-75 (testimony of Lance Armstrong).
Page | 5
great lengths to attack individuals who were willing to confirm the truth of his doping. Hopefully, this objective examination of some of the evidence of Mr. Armstrong's doping and tactics may rectify some of the harms to reputation brought about by those attacks.
As discussed in this Reasoned Decision, Mr. Armstrong did not act alone. He acted with the help of a small army of enablers, including doping doctors, drug smugglers, and others within and outside the sport and on his team. However, the evidence is also clear that Armstrong had ultimate control over not only his own personal drug use, which was extensive, but also over the doping culture of his team. Final responsibility for decisions to hire and retain a director, doctors and other staff committed to running a team-wide doping program ultimately flowed to him.
On paper, Armstrong's team contract provided him with "extensive input into rider and staff composition." In practice, however, as a team owner and by virtue of the power his rapidly accumulating titles conferred, his effective control was even greater.
Armstrong said, "we had one goal and one ambition and that was to win the greatest bike race in the world and not just to win it once, but to keep winning it."11 However, the path he chose to pursue that goal ran far outside the rules. His goal led him to depend on EPO, testosterone and blood transfusions but also, more ruthlessly, to expect and to require that his teammates would likewise use drugs to support his goals if not their own.
The evidence is overwhelming that Lance Armstrong did not just use performance enhancing drugs, he supplied them to his teammates. He did not merely go alone to Dr. Michele Ferrari for doping advice, he expected that others would follow. It was not enough that his teammates give maximum effort on the bike, he also required that they adhere to the doping program outlined for them or be replaced. He was not just a part of the doping culture on his
11 SCA Hearing Transcript, p. 1346 (testimony of Lance Armstrong).
Page | 6
team, he enforced and re-enforced it. Armstrong's use of drugs was extensive, and the doping program on his team, designed in large part to benefit Armstrong, was massive and pervasive. When Mr. Armstrong refused to confront the evidence against him in a hearing before
neutral arbitrators he confirmed the judgment that the era in professional cycling which he dominated as the patron of the peloton was the dirtiest ever. Twenty of the twenty-one podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 have been directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold. Of the forty-five (45) podium finishes during the time period between 1996 and 2010, thirty-six (36) were by riders similarly tainted by doping.12
The evidence in the case against Lance Armstrong is beyond strong; it is as strong as, or stronger than, that presented in any case brought by USADA over the initial twelve years of USADA's existence. As explained below, the evidence is overwhelming that Mr. Armstrong and his team director, team doctors, team trainers and teammates cheated throughout the 1998 - 2010 time period.13 II. CHARGES AGAINST LANCE ARMSTRONG
The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong was sanctioned include: (1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO,
blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents.14
12 See Appendix K, Tour de France Podium Finishers Since 1996. This chart lists the podium finishers of the Tour de France for the last 15 years and notes any involvement in doping for each listed rider. 13 Mr. Armstrong was officially retired during some of 2005, 2006, 2007 and most of 2008.
14 USADA charged Mr. Armstrong with violations of the following specific rules applicable to the use or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods: USA Cycling Rules (Medical Control) (1997 - 2012); USOC NADP (1997 - 2012); USADA Protocol (2000 - 2012) (Prior to 2004 UCI's substantive rules relating to anti-doping rule violations and sanctions were incorporated into the USADA Protocol. In 2004 the substantive rules in the World Anti-Doping
Page | 7
(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents.15
(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and/or corticosteroids.16 (4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone,
and/or cortisone.17 (5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity
involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.18
Code relating to violations and sanctions were incorporated into the USADA Protocol and the USOC National Anti-Doping Policies.); UCI ADR 2, 52 (1997-2000); UCI ADR 4, 6, 7, 8, 130, 131, 133 (2001-2004); UCI ADR 15.2 (2005-2008); UCI ADR 21.1 and 21.2 (2009-present); and Code Articles 2.1 and 2.2 (2003-present).
15 USADA charged Mr. Armstrong with violations of the following specific rules applicable to the possession of prohibited substances and/or methods: USOC NADP (and incorporated provisions of Code); USADA Protocol (incorporated provisions of Code or UCI ADR); UCI ADR 52, 54, 93 (1997-2000); UCI ADR 130, 131, 135 (2001-2004); UCI ADR 15.6 (2005- 2008); UCI ADR 21.6 (2009-present); and Code Article 2.6 (2003-present). Prior to 2004 UCI's substantive rules relating to violations and sanctions were incorporated into the USADA Protocol. In 2004 the substantive rules in the Code relating to violations and sanctions were incorporated into the USADA Protocol and the USOC National Anti-Doping Policies.
16 USADA charged Mr. Armstrong with violations of the following specific rules applicable to trafficking and attempted trafficking: USOC NADP (and incorporated provisions of Code); USADA Protocol (incorporated provisions of Code or UCI ADR); UCI ADR 3, 135, 136 (2001-04); UCI ADR 15.7 (2005-2008); UCI ADR 21.7 (2009- present); and Code Article 2.7 (2003-present). 17 USADA charged Mr. Armstrong with violations of the following specific rules applicable to administration and/or attempted administration: USOC NADP (and incorporated provisions of Code); USADA Protocol (incorporated provisions of Code or UCI ADR); UCI ADR 1, 2, 54, 93 (1997-2000); UCI ADR 3, 133 (2001-2004); UCI ADR 15.8 (2005-2008); UCI ADR 21.8 (2009-present); and Code Article 2.8 (2003- present). 18 USADA charged Mr. Armstrong with violations of the following specific rules applicable to assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other
Page | 8
III.
(6) Aggravating circumstances (including multiple rule violations and participated in a sophisticated scheme and conspiracy to dope, encourage and assist others to dope and cover up rule violations) justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction.19
In the early years after the EPO test was developed, the criteria to call a test positive was conservatively set at a very high level. Under current WADA standards, a sample in the 70 to 80% (basic area percentage) range can be considered positive if other criteria relating to the testing are met.800 Dr. Saugy led USADA to understand that, under the current positivity criteria for EPO, the 2001 samples would have been considered "positive" rather than merely "suspicious" as had been the case in 2001.
In order to evaluate whether Mr. Armstrong's test(s) from the 2001 Tour de Suisse was merely "suspicious" (and therefore the probability of doping was high), or whether using the current EPO positivity criteria Mr. Armstrong's samples could definitively establish the presence of synthetic EPO standing alone, USADA requested from UCI the test results from Mr. Armstrong's samples from the Tour de Suisse. UCI denied that request, stating that UCI had asked for Mr. Armstrong's consent to provide this information to USADA, but that Mr. Armstrong had refused.801 Mr. Armstrong's refusal to provide consent for USADA to receive this data is telling. Certainly, Mr. Armstrong's refusal contains an inference that the information contained in the documents would not be favorable to Mr. Armstrong.
In all events, it is clear from the evidence of Dr. Saugy that Mr. Armstrong's 2001 Tour de Suisse sample(s) will strongly corroborate the overwhelming additional evidence, including firsthand eyewitness evidence of Mr. Armstrong's possession and use of EPO.
 
2012-10-21 11:19:33 PM

HMS_Blinkin: doglover: Im_Gumby: doglover: He rides a bicycle. I can ride a bicycle. It's not a sport.

Racing a bike UP a freaking mountain is a sport (strength, endurance, etc...)

Driving a car for a couple hours in a oval is not a sport.

The hell it's a sport. I beat Lance's best feats going to college. 119 miles, tons of big hills, 2 hours or less every time.

You averaged 60 mph on a bike? That would be incredibly impressive if it was remotely true.


Bike? Hell no. Station wagon.

Any motor vehicle will beat a man-powered one six ways from Sunday. It's impressive to do the Tour de France. But it's not the Stanley Cup play offs. Let the winner juice it up like Bane for all I care. Multi-stage races are rich guy hobbies. Let France deal with the tour de france. The ADA should be saving its resources for real sports and people who didn't pass 500 piss tests.
 
2012-10-21 11:32:00 PM
doglover

www.polyvore.com

saving its resources for real sports and people who didn't pass 500 piss tests.

-1/10, really you've had some better efforts.....
 
2012-10-21 11:49:50 PM
I think there's a correlation between how big of an asshole an athlete is, and how hard people are willing to work to bring him down. If Armstrong would have learned French and bought a summer home in Europe, he would be king of the world.
Like the USADA note says, it's his hematocrit levels and other indicators, along with witnesses, and his refusal to defend himself, that has done him in. Guilty. guilty. guilty.
 
2012-10-21 11:54:03 PM

Im_Gumby: Racing a bike UP a freaking mountain is a sport (strength, endurance, etc...)

Driving a car for a couple hours in a oval is not a sport.


Dumb comparison is dumb.
 
2012-10-22 12:26:26 AM
It's just a slow version of the bubblegum classic. Rich guys havin' fun, middle class guys tryin' to become rich guys.

Call me when there's a puck and it lasts an hour.
 
2012-10-22 12:48:18 AM
I wish I could pee on Lance Armstrong. All over him with my mellow yellow...
 
2012-10-22 04:15:16 AM
This would be the completely impartial lab that Lance Armstrong, out of the goodness of his heart and because he was notorious for being such a swell guy, made several large donations> of cash and equipment to, right?
 
2012-10-22 04:50:56 AM
It's still a witch hunt.

Know why? Because if performance enhancing drugs were that much of an issue then professional sports in this country would be crushed under the weight of investigations.

They wanted Lance to fail because he was an American winning the Tour de France, and they hated him for it. They hated him with the passion of a thousand suns. I don't know if he's innocent or guilty but the powers that be were never, ever, ever, going to leave him alone or let it go.
 
2012-10-22 04:59:50 AM

randomjsa: They wanted Lance to fail because he was an American winning the Tour de France, and they hated him for it.


Why would the USADA hate an American? The people who pursued Lance Armstrong were the *American* authorities. The French UCI and Tour authorities are now the last people who still proclaim Lance's innocence (or, at worst, their complete uninterest in his guilt).

Also, Greg Lemond - who despite the slightly Gallic name is an American - is still loved in France, and was basically the first big name to say "Lance is doping" and refuse to back down in the face Armstrong's media / legal onslaught.
 
2012-10-22 06:04:21 AM

randomjsa: They wanted Lance to fail because he was an American winning the Tour de France, and they hated him for it.


So the ADA is French now.

(fark your US, ADA. You'll get three letters and be grateful. I'm American, too. You don't see me making people call me USdoglover)
 
2012-10-22 07:24:35 AM

Shadow Blasko: He's the sporting worlds Richard Nixon.

Lotsa Good... Lotsa Bad... It will be up to history to determine which one we remember.

I hope it is the good one.

Sargun: snuff3r: EPO is difficult to test for but he's got a LOT of people standing up and testifying against him under oath. You can't ignore that.

You're welcome.

Will the douche just go away already.

Because people are more reliable than science, right?

That is on thing I really want to know:

Were the people who testified against him, specifically other cyclists or teammates, offered ANYTHING in exchange for their testimony. If so, it gets 0 weight from me.(Not that anyone cares, or should care what I think about him)


Of course man, most of them are admitted dopers themselves. Hell, if you spend 10 minutes examing the cesspool that is "professional cycling" the fact becomes apparent that they are all dopers. They're worse than MLB roid abusers.
 
2012-10-22 07:43:30 AM

TwistedFark: Of course man, most of them are admitted dopers themselves. Hell, if you spend 10 minutes examing the cesspool that is "professional cycling" the fact becomes apparent that they are all dopers. They're worse than MLB roid abusers.


That's what I don't really get. Lance doped- I think that's obvious. But you can't give the award to #2 since they were doped too. And #3, and #4....

I read recently that overall performance in bicycle racing was down about 10% in recent years. Gee, I wonder why?
 
2012-10-22 08:13:53 AM
i really like watching the bike races on TV (the road courses, anyway), knew some guys who rode, and still like dicking around on my own bike from time to time ... but I'm officially bored with this story by now.

If I feel like showing support to Lance, I'll pick up some batteries at Radio Shack or something.
 
2012-10-22 08:47:46 AM

srhp29: machoprogrammer: Wait, there are people who actually believe Lance was not doping? Seriously?

You really believe that a man with one testicle can beat the best in the world guys, with as good genetics as him, who were training just as hard as he was, who were doping? I got some land to sell you, if so. It is prime real estate.

I believe he doped, but your logic makes no sense since his whole team claims they too were cheating. Shouldn't they have been able to beat him?


Correct. How would he beat his team, who were doping and were really good too, if he was clean?

EPO is a ridiculous advantage in cycling. No way he was beating dopers while clean.
 
2012-10-22 09:47:46 AM

machoprogrammer: srhp29: machoprogrammer: Wait, there are people who actually believe Lance was not doping? Seriously?

You really believe that a man with one testicle can beat the best in the world guys, with as good genetics as him, who were training just as hard as he was, who were doping? I got some land to sell you, if so. It is prime real estate.

I believe he doped, but your logic makes no sense since his whole team claims they too were cheating. Shouldn't they have been able to beat him?

Correct. How would he beat his team, who were doping and were really good too, if he was clean?

EPO is a ridiculous advantage in cycling. No way he was beating dopers while clean.


Because the whole team is set up to make sure he wins. They're not racing against each other
 
2012-10-22 12:15:36 PM

doglover:

The hell it's a sport. I beat Lance's best feats going to college. 119 miles, tons of big hills, 2 hours or less every time.


I found Paul Ryan's fark account.
 
rka
2012-10-22 02:11:23 PM

Shadow Blasko: Were the people who testified against him, specifically other cyclists or teammates, offered ANYTHING in exchange for their testimony. If so, it gets 0 weight from me.(Not that anyone cares, or should care what I think about him)


Even the old, "we won't rake you over the coals in a deliberate smear campaign and cost you your cycling license" is enough to get someone to say anything and sign anything.
 
2012-10-22 03:19:01 PM

SuperChuck: Because the whole team is set up to make sure he wins. They're not racing against each other


I meant the other people he was racing against.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report