The whole doping thing is about subjectives anyway. I'm sure Lance doped and he almost got caught a couple of times if the shower story is true. Anecdotes of using a catheter to replace urine before a test show the extremes some of them go to in avoiding the tests showing a positive result. While I'm a fan, don't believe the 100s of passed test line, that's his publicity machine, not the reality of the number he has taken. The thing is, in the early days of the tour, riders used cocaine to stimulate themselves in a goal to improve times. The tour has always been relaxed about anything that involved upping the average speed and being able to handle day after day of long endurance racing up rough climbs. The thing is, we take painkillers that are drugs, I'd argue they enhance performance by reducing inflammation like ibuprofen. We take supplements like vitamins, creatine and the like that are not easily available in food. So we take drugs anyway, it's just about what is currently out of vogue. Let's face it, if we had bought back marijuana rather than tobacco from the Americas then that would be taxed now so I'm cool about the whole thing. Lance didn't win because he doped, he won because he was the best of the doped riders and that was the vast majority of the field.
Competitors continually infringe technical rules in every sport. If it's not noticed at the time by the umpire/referee/stewards or whatever, or by somebody lodging a protest, then the result is what it is, life goes on, and it all becomes water under the bridge. If it were discovered today that a car or bike which won a world championship in 2007 breached a rule in some way, should it be retrospectively disqualified and the win given to others? Absolutely not. Prosecuting people for criminal offences committed several years ago is all very well, but fair only for very serious crimes. Less serious matters criminal, civil or sporting should be left. It is wrong and unfair to rewrite sports results retrospectively IMHO.
Agreed, but the truth should come out and he should be held to account in some way, even if that is just losing reputation, credibility or respect.
What truth? Armstrong has been dope tested both in competition and out, during the T de F and the Olympics and has NEVER tested positive. So the USADA have decided he's guilty based on no more than the alleged statements of former colleagues and associates. The USADA are supposed to be the regulators of the officially agreed method of checking for doping, i.e. urine and blood tests, methods that have come up short in this case, so they have resorted to making up the rules to suit themselves. What would happen if Armstrong had failed a dope test, but the same former colleagues and associates testified that they had been with him 24/7 for weeks beforehand had swore that he had never taken any illegal substances? Do you think that USADA would accept their statements and reject the results of the tests? No of course not, they would stand by the results of the test, so why don't they do that now, they can't have it both ways. Yes, Armstrong's results in the T de F are impressive, but are they any more impressive than Usain Bolt's defense of the 100 & 200 metres or Mark Spitz's 7 golds in the '72 Olympics or Michael Phelp's record of 22 Olympic medals, or were they all doping as well?
The T de F is essentially an inhuman competition. I can't see that there is THAT much skill in cycling. It's really an endurance test. The fittest guy will probably win. Yes, I know, there are tactics, it's a team effort etc. etc. But the fastest guy over 3 weeks wins. You don't get to be the one helped by the team unless you have already proven that you are the fastest guy in it. One can barely conceive of climbing the big cols at racing speeds, let alone doing a couple in a day, and then doing a whole load more the next day. These people are superhuman. Hardly surprising they are getting all sorts of pharmaceutical help. The swimmers and the sprinters are supreme athletes, but I don't think anyone beats the cyclists for sheer gut-wrenching sustained fitness. The real ironman contenders are also out of this world - running a marathon straight after the ludicrous swim and bike ride. WTF? But even they don't have to do it again the next day, let alone for 3 weeks. In some respects, there is little point in complaining about doping if you have devised a test that pushes the very boundaries of what humans are capable of.
My points are none the less still valid, as the only evidence publicly presented are the results of all the tests that Armstrong has taken over the years, all of which he passed. Nobody has yet proven that his former team mates have said that he did, as the USADA have yet to make public any of their claimed evidence.
It's not true to say he's never failed a drug test - he has. He tested positive to small amounts of corticosteroid in '99 and he allegedly had a Dr backdate a subscription for a saddle sore cream that contained it and no action was taken. His massuese on that tour has given quite a bit of information on him and Lance sued her. It is also alleged that he has tested positive to EPO but a report concluded that the samples weren't handled correctly and weren't able to be used to base any action upon. There's a lot of info out there on it. Lance then subsequently refused to have his previous samples tested under newly developed tests. To me it looks very damning but I also think his legacy won't suffer too much as he's effectively buried the evidence by not participating in the arbitration - keeping it grey. Unless Bruyneel's case brings it all out in the open. It's also alleged that the UCI accepted bribes from Armstrong to bury evidence of positive tests in 2002 and there's evidence of $125,000 worth of donations being made by Armstrong. So I don't think the UCI want him to go down because they could go down with him. It's a very messy affair but I think we should just forget about it to be honest. Cycling is cleaning itself up and as the highest profile sport when it comes to drug taking they're under a lot of scrutiny and are, perhaps, doing the most about it. I'd like to think that the last two tour champions are clean - Cadel Evans and Brad Wiggins, and I'd be pretty gutted if Cadel every tested positive. I was disappointed in Armstrong, because it was him who got me into the sport and I now do quite a bit of cycling. But now I kinda don't care and one of the reasons is because of how the USADA have handled the whole thing.
Not sure what you mean by that but I think we'd be a bit naive if we hid behind that word. So he has tested postive before and no action was taken - that we definitely know. The rest is all allegations that he has managed to avoid facing and has again recently. Like I said, I think the world would be better off forgetting about it - it's old news and the guy has done a lot for cancer and we know the riders he beat (Ulrich, Pantani etc) were drug cheats too so ... whatevs! It won't stop me buying a Pinarello next year :biggrin:
I agree that it would be better forgotten, but don't think it will go away that easily - unfortunately. Pinarello - nice :0) unfortunately having bought a couple of Bianchi this year, I'd find buying another bike difficult to justify to the Mrs.
I'm a long time cycle fan, especially the Tour de France. For a long, long time I wanted to believe that Lance rode clean, I really admired his guts and determination and he had those in spades, dope or no dope. The flipside is that he was, and is, an excellent manipulator of the press, other cyclists, the cycling authorities and the public. He would freeze out anyone who raised questions, belittle and litigate against anyone who spoke up against him. There was a great deal of, albeit circumstantial, evidence against him which with his connections and status he was able to deflect or discredit. The majority of people wanted to believe he was clean and would take his side. I would agree that 'most' of the good riders at that period were either blood doping or on EPO, most of the runners up should equally be banned (or have already been caught out) so who do you award the trophies to for the years that Lance won? I think an asterix against those victories is enough of a punishment. Who'll get Lance Armstrong's Tour de France titles? - More Sports - SI.com The testimony of other team members and riders would be very damning and is apparently the reason they dropped the initial investigation so that they could explore more strict sanctions. By 'giving up the fight' the evidence will probably never be fully heard in court (depending on the other co-defendants stance) and Armstrong can maintain his vendetta defence without being questions or fully exposed in court under oath. I still want to believe he rode clean but there is a lot of stuff that really just doesn't stack up. Let's hope that cycling can now really be the clean sport that it deserves to be and let everyone compete at the same level playing field. Lance Armstrong: the whistleblowers | Sport | The Observer Was Lance Armstrong too big to fail? - SI.com - Magazine
