Lance Armstrong... greatest doper there was or ever will be

Armstrong failed a test for EPO. He worked with Dr Ferrari who was convicted of blood doping cyclists. You need to do some research.

I thought he had never been tested positive.

Will you are a funny fucker mate, i'll have to buy you a beer sometime, just for managing to completely sum up my thoughts on Lance Armstrong in one concise hilarious anecdote.

Greg Lemond is the conscience of professional cycling. He is the last Tour winner who won without using blood doping. We should all listen to what he has to say.

I realize I sound like a jerk saying this, but he's also a self-righteous schmuck who, it seems abundantly clear, is bitter that way more Americans remember who Lance is and couldn't care less about who is he is...

Admittedly most Americans don't pay the slightest attention to professional cycling, which causes part of the problem... we'll be polite and not talk about the other problem.

Lemond is a complete tool.
And Fignon was better in the mountains.

I really don't get all the Lance hating, everyone still idolises so many other cyclists who have been caught doping but whenever Lance comes up its always he got there by doping and cheating. Is it just because he's never been caught?

To be honest I really don't care anymore if Lance was doping or not, what he did was incredible in everyway wether he was taking drugs or not.

Armstrong is hated because he encapsulates the omerta that surrounds professional cycling. He claims he is clean and that he is the most tested athlete ever yet will bully and threaten anyone who dares to speak out against the institutionalised doping culture of the sport, i.e. Christophe Bassons, Filippo Simeoni and Lemond. He has been caught doping, witness the positive tests for EPO from urine samples he gave at the 1999 Tour, but due to complicity at the highest level of the sport has managed to get away with it.

He is an unpleasant bully who has perpertrated the largest sporting fraud the sport of cycling has ever seen and just when we thought we'd got rid of the unpleasant cunt he's come back promising to be open and transparent. However, like many of his pronouncements, it was a lie and just PR. This piece by Lionel Birnie sums it up well;

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/Armstrong_and_Catlin_drop_antidoping_programme_article_276898.html

I thought he had never been tested positive.

He never did officially. There were some tests made on 1999 Tour samples a few years later that turned up traces of EPO in a blood sample, and a leaked document linked the numbers on the sample (cos naturally they don't write the riders names on!) to Lance.

+1 on the Pantani book too, it really made me feel for the guy, and I agree that it was the high haematocrit reading that did for him in the end. Poor fucker

I realize I sound like a jerk saying this, but he's also a self-righteous schmuck who, it seems abundantly clear, is bitter that way more Americans remember who Lance is and couldn't care less about who is he is...

Admittedly most Americans don't pay the slightest attention to professional cycling, which causes part of the problem... we'll be polite and not talk about the other problem.

Why is he self righteous? He cares passionately about a sport that gave him a lot, both financially and personally. He has no commercial interests in the sport so doesn't have to toe the party line and he speaks out against doping at every opportunity. He should be hailed as a hero.

The pathetic argument that he is somehow jealous of Armstrong's success is yet more of the cynical PR Armstrong and his cronies put out to undermine the veracity of Lemond's arguments. Armstrong's attempted bullying of Lemond and attempts to damage his credibility and his business show Armstrong up for the unedifying cunt that he is.

He never did officially. There were some tests made on 1999 Tour samples a few years later that turned up traces of EPO in a blood sample, and a leaked document linked the numbers on the sample (cos naturally they don't write the riders names on!) to Lance.

Documents weren't leaked, they were released to the L'Equipe journalist investigating the story by the then head of the UCI medical commission. Recently the current head of the UCI medical commission said in an interview on German TV that the science behind the tests was sound and they should have therefore been considered a positive.

Armstrong got away with it because of collusion between him and the then President of the UCI, Hein Verbruggen.

Armstrong got away with it because of collusion between him and the then President of the UCI, Hein Verbruggen

I am not really arguing the case for Lance but in principle if you are going to ruin a guys career by calling him a cheat you need to have sound and sold proof. You can't have someone come along after the event dispute the evidence claim that they would have done it differently and that the previous guy was in cohoots. For all you know Hein Verbruggen could have been banging the current head of the UCI medical commission's wife!

I don't think my ranting on the internet have much affect on Lance Armstrong's career. All the information you need to arrive at your own conclusion is out in the public domain. The David Walsh book 'From Lance to Landis' is a good start.

Documents weren't leaked, they were released to the L'Equipe journalist investigating the story by the then head of the UCI medical commission. Recently the current head of the UCI medical commission said in an interview on German TV that the science behind the tests was sound and they should have therefore been considered a positive.

Armstrong got away with it because of collusion between him and the then President of the UCI, Hein Verbruggen.

Apologies, it wasn't a leak, that's bad semantics on my part

The thing is that it doesn't matter if the tests were sound or not, and that has never been in dispute. They were unofficial and investigative, and that is why nothing came of them: "The investigations had an experimental character," LNDD scientific Jacques De Ceaurriz told ANP. "Since there is no possibility of a counter-evaluation, a rider can not be sanctioned on the basis of our findings."

Also, these tests were done on 'B' samples, as the 'A' samples had been used in the official testing, meaning that there is no legal way under current legislation to take it further (do have any chance of a ban in practice, both sets of samples have to test positive)

Now, I fully believe that Lance took EPO, but the simple fact is, he hasn't officially tested positive, and there was no cover up in 1999 (as the 'positive' tests weren't done until 2004)

We know that Lance took EPO and steroids to recover from chemo. I've no idea how long for or how long it stays in the system, nor how big an amount was found. All we know is that at the moment official tests do not show Armstrong to be a doper, and yet people hate him for it.

Many legendary Tour de France winners were using drugs - Eddy mercx tested positive three times. Francesco Moser admitted doping, Jaques Anquetil even had a drug cocktail named after him. Simpson died in the saddle doped up to the eyeballs on speed. Do we reserve the same level of hatred for these people? No: we call them heroes.

Lance does act like a a tool too, but that doesn't excuse Lemond's behaviour - it's like he's on a personal vendetta against him.

I'm just going to sit in the corner and let andyp be my mouthpiece this morning :)

We know that Lance took EPO and steroids to recover from chemo. I've no idea how long for or how long it stays in the system, nor how big an amount was found. All we know is that at the moment official tests do not show Armstrong to be a doper, and yet people hate him for it.

The official tests conducted by the UCI have been shown to be worthless in the recent past. All the big names caught doping have pretty much been caught because of judicial investigations into organised doping rings involving criminal activity. The UCI have recognised this and finally tried to do something about it with the biological passport scheme but their 15-20 years of inactivity and tacit acceptance of doping is going to take some time to recover from.

Many legendary Tour de France winners were using drugs - Eddy mercx tested positive three times. Francesco Moser admitted doping, Jaques Anquetil even had a drug cocktail named after him. Simpson died in the saddle doped up to the eyeballs on speed. Do we reserve the same level of hatred for these people? No: we call them heroes.

Have you heard of moral relativism? You are judging the behaviour of the past on today's norms. When Anquetil and Simpson rode drug controls were non-existent, in fact it was Simpson's tragic early death which led to their introduction.

Anyway, the drug used up until the late 1980s were mainly psychological in effect not physiological so the best guys still won. Greg Lemond is exceptionally physically gifted with a V02Max of 92. Armstrong has one of 82 yet can produce approx 20-20% more power than Lemond. That kind of performance enhancement is only possible through the use of blood doping and other blood boosting doping techniques and these were introduced into the pro peleton in the early 1990s by the likes of Prof Francesco Conconi and his protege, Dr Michele Ferrari, who just happens to have worked with Armstrong.

Lance does act like a a tool too, but that doesn't excuse Lemond's behaviour - it's like he's on a personal vendetta against him.

Excuse me? So Armstrong using his influence on Trek to drop the Lemond brand, which they'd licensed from Greg Lemond, means Armstrong doesn't have a personal vendetta? You must be blinded by the PR.

I don't need to defend Lemond, he can do a perfectly fine job of that himself.

I think that a lot of people don't like the 'man' that is Lance, and the drug thing is just something focus attention on. The thing that I don't like is that he stands tall and professes to being clean at every opportunity-Antequil et al did not. They freely admitted to using 'medicines' to help their performance, and simply put it wasn't against the rules back then.

I think Lance is an incredibly driven athlete, but is a bit of a cock. I also think that he was doped to the gills for his 7 wins, but I also think that the rest of the peloton were too, so it was a level playing field. He is a 'great' in the sport, but I still don't like the man!

Lance is awesome. We are gonna make sweet, sweet love and have fat babies that win Le Tour.

I think Lance is an incredibly driven athlete, but is a bit of a cock. I also think that he was doped to the gills for his 7 wins,** but I also think that the rest of the peloton were too, so it was a level playing field**. He is a 'great' in the sport, but I still don't like the man!

This argument annoys me for three reasons;

1. It makes drug taking the accepted norm and punishes those who don't want to play fast and loose with their health and take industrial quantities of drugs; and

2. It was not a level playing field as people respond differently to the same doses of the same drugs, and Armstrong clearly responded better than most; and

3. Armstrong, Ullrich, Basso, Landis, Beloki and all those other goons were paid well enough that they could afford to see some bent Dr like Ferrari or Fuentes but up and coming riders couldn't as they couldn't afford it.

Not exactly level was it.

People respond differently to no levels of drugs as well, and to levels and types of training. They also have different body types, muscle masses and so forth. Some are sprinters, some are grinders, etc etc. If Armstrong "clearly" responds better to drugs it's also possible that he "clearly" responds better to training, pressure, etc.

Maybe Lance is doped. Maybe he's just naturally gifted. Maybe you should wait until it's proved one way or the other before making up your mind. If he is doped then managing to compete for a decade without getting caught is pretty fucking amazing. That would mean that every other rider could also be doped exactly the same and not get caught. It also seems bloody unlikely. less likely that the idea that he might just be performing at that level without the use of any banned substances.

Guilt by association isn't guilt. Lemond has been in teams with cheaters. Does that make him a cheat? Fuck it, being in the sport of professional cycling at all during that era means you would have been surrounded by dodgy people.

I'm not blinded by PR - what a cockish thing to say. I just think that allegations and innuendo are not enough to write off the man's achievements, whilst you clearly don't. I'll wait for some proof, and until it arrives I'll accept that he won by being a better rider.

I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Lance Armstrong doped. The validated and accepted test for EPO was applied retrospectively to urine samples he gave in the 1999 Tour and 6 of them returned a positive test. The science of this cannot be disputed.

So what happened in 2000-05? :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong#Allegations_of_drug_use

Vrijman's report cleared Armstrong because of improper handling and testing.[39][40]The report said tests on urine samples were conducted improperly andfell so short of scientific standards that it was "completelyirresponsible" to suggest they "constitute evidence of anything."[41]

This argument annoys me for three reasons;

1. It makes drug taking the accepted norm and punishes those who don't want to play fast and loose with their health and take industrial quantities of drugs; and
   
   

I never said it was a good thing, it's just how I view it. I'd rather a clean sport, I just don't think it'll ever happen. I suspect that any professional sport where there are great rewards to the winners breeds drug taking, and it's just the cycling is always in the spotlight. I honestly think (at the risk of going off topic) that most pro sports have a similar level of doping than cycling, it's just that for whatever reason they don't get caught. Operacion Puerto uncovered lots of blood form different sportsmen, yet it was only cyclists who got punished. That sucks.

1. It was not a level playing field as people respond differently to the same doses of the same drugs, and Armstrong clearly responded better than most; and
   
   

As pointed out above, people not on drugs respond differently too. Most of the top guys were doing similar things to each other, thereby keeping the enhancement fairly level

1. Armstrong, Ullrich, Basso, Landis, Beloki and all those other goons were paid well enough that they could afford to see some bent Dr like Ferrari or Fuentes but up and coming riders couldn't as they couldn't afford it.
   
   

Not exactly level was it.

That's always the way it is in sport. The top guys get better taken care of, better advantages, better just about everything than the humble domestiques. As I said above, that's pro sport for you.

I think it's just getting into the usual circular argument now of pro and anti Lance fans. It boils down to the fact that he's never been caught doping and never failed a proper test. The circumstantial evidence is that he doped, and the '99 samples are seen by some as proof. We'll just keep going round and round and no one will change their mind I suspect

I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Lance Armstrong doped. The validated and accepted test for EPO was applied retrospectively to urine samples he gave in the 1999 Tour and 6 of them returned a positive test. The science of this cannot be disputed.

My only issue with this is this;

Why is it that every single time a rider gets busted on the Tour the journos know well ahead of it being made official to the ASO?

I would have very grave doubts over the accuracy of the information and data that comes out of the French Anti-Doping Labs - the LNDD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong#Allegations_of_drug_use

Vrijman's report cleared Armstrong because of improper handling and testing.[39][40]The report said tests on urine samples were conducted improperly andfell so short of scientific standards that it was "completelyirresponsible" to suggest they "constitute evidence of anything."[41]

The same Vrijman report which was criticised by WADA for "so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical"?

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/newsarticle.ch2?articleId=3115287

Vrijman was personally appointed by Hein Verbruggen, the then chairman of the UCI and a long standing personal friend. To say it stinks of a cover up would be generous.