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

The most interesting thing for me in this investigation isn't Armstrong doping, but if the FBI have got evidence that Vebruggen and Fat Pat took bribes to turn a blind eye to positive tests (or not to test at all) USPS/Disco/Astana/Radio Shack riders.

Has Tyler said Larry failed a test in 2001 Tour of Switzerland ?

He has, which corroborates Landis' initial allegation. I doubt the FDA (who are investigating this - I don't know if the FBI are involved or not) are that interested in corruption within the UCI as they are trying to prove conspiracy to defraud the federal government rather than anything else, i.e. did USPS funds (which is a federally funded body) get used to buy black market drugs to be used by the USPS cycling team.

Ah well, let's hope against hope that the investigation won't spill over to more mundane European matters, then, shall we? ;)

thread is long, work isn't that quiet... anyone want to sum up for me wtf is actually going on?

how sure is everyone that armstrong is guilty?

what is the evidence?

do we really care, and what is it going to change?

also, any ideas what he was on, must've been good for 7 tour wins...

Armstrong is currently under investigation by the Federal Drug Administration (the FDA) in the USA, and the investigation is being led by Jeff Novitzsky, who was the lead investigator on the BALCO investigation.

Armstrong dominated at a time when drug use was widespread in the professional peleton, but very few riders actually failed tests, partly due to the testing regime and partly due to the employment of controversial Doctors like Michele Ferrari, who were expert in administering doping substances whilst avoiding positive tests.

There is a lot of evidence against Armstrong, including a long association with Dr Ferrari (who was convicted by Italian courts of doping athletes but was cleared on a technicality), lots of testimony from former team mates and team helpers, and, most damning of all, a number of failed tests for EPO from a scientific research project conducted by a French laboratory who were doing work to validate the EPO urine test.

Armstrong consistenly cites the fact that he never failed a test, but convicted dopers like Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich et al never failed tests either, and most of them were caught due to investigations by the criminal justice authorities (as drug trafficing is considered a serious crime). He also claims he's the most tested athlete ever but data available from the USADA shows he was not even the most tested cyclist called Armstrong, female cyclist Kristin Armstrong was tested more regularly.

Floyd Landis, a former team mate of Armstrong, made a series of allegations against Armstrong, the most serious of which, in a sporting sense, is that the UCI covered up a failed test by Armstrong at the Tour of Switzerland in 2001. Hamilton has repeated this allegation. This could explain why Armstrong was able to dope (and I'm totally convinced he did) and get away with it for 7 years. There have also been rumours that his team recieved notification of where and when they'd be tested, so were able to avoid detection.

Armstrong consistenly cites the fact that he never failed a test, but convicted dopers like Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich et al never failed tests either. He also claims he's the most tested athlete ever but data available from the USADA shows he was not even the most tested cyclist called Armstrong, female cyclist Kristin Armstrong was tested more regularly.

Ha!

also, any ideas what he was on, must've been good for 7 tour wins...

EPO, testosterone, HGH and the biggie (for the FDA) is rumoured use of something called Hemassist which was an experimental drug that never made it to market and whose distribution as a trial drug should have been super super restricted.

Of all the allegations that were supposed to come out in the Sports Illustrated article in Jan, that was the most surprising as SI lawyers were supposed to have spiked anything which couldn't be corroborated.

No test would have been developed for a drug that didn't exist or was so new to market, which is what the boys busted for CERA thought they'd managed to get away with.

so is consensus that armstrong was doping, but everyone was happy to cover it up because he was such a great press piece/role model etc?

thanks for the info!

Armstrong is currently under investigation by the Federal Drug Administration (the FDA) in the USA, and the investigation is being led by Jeff Novitzsky, who was the lead investigator on the BALKI investigation.

That was a tough one that required a super sleuth for sure.

Armstrong consistenly cites the fact that he never failed a test, but convicted dopers like Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich et al never failed tests either,
Was Ullrich convicted? I thought he settled out of court. Mind you, there is obviously a lot of evidence against him, but from memory, he wasn't actually convicted. I may be wrong, though. He did recently lose a retrial about an injunction he took out against Werner Franke, but his legal saga is so convoluted that I've completely lost track of where he's at.

He retired before any sporting sanction could be applied. But he was caught bang to rights.

I think to anyone with half a mind it is pretty clear that Ullrich must have taken performance-enhancing drugs/measures (e.g., here), but apart from not being convicted by a sports court for the reason you mention, I don't think he was convicted by a non-sports court, either. The trial against him was settled out of court in some way. I think I recently read something that the trial was going to be re-opened.

He was caught bang to rights, even Mark Fabiani would struggle to spin his way out of that one.

That said, if www.facts4lance.com is the best Fabiani can do, then Ullrich was probably fortunate not to engage him.

He was caught bang to rights

Yes, Andy, I don't dispute that. I am just wondering whether, and in what way, it was ever formalised. With a formal conviction, there would be a lot less doubt in the minds of people who don't follow it as closely as you do. These things have a curious way of making an important difference. Surely you'd agree that a formal conviction would be preferable to a legal limbo status?

Jan is only guilty of stealing our hearts.

Jan is only guilty of stealing our cakes.

.

Yes, Andy, I don't dispute that. I am just wondering whether, and in what way, it was ever formalised. With a formal conviction, there would be a lot less doubt in the minds of people who don't follow it as closely as you do. These things have a curious way of making an important difference. Surely you'd agree that a formal conviction would be preferable to a legal limbo status?

If what he did was illegal, then yes. But a sporting sanction after he's retired is utterly meaningless.

Jan is only guilty of stealing our pies.

.

.

Here's the 60 Minutes teaser for those who haven't seen it.

There may be an ad shown before it starts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejaiWZX8p40

Is Hamilton going to admit he doped at CSC and that Riis knew all about it? Riis is still in the sport, Armstrong is not. If Hamilton really does want to help then there is a lot more he can do than just add to the weight of evidence against someone who is retired, welcome though that is.

Only just found this thread, yeh Armstrong seems to be struggling at the moment, shame. Regardless I am a massive lance fan, and disagree with earlier comments about him being a boring rider, he was great at his peak.

I think anyone that can get back on the bike with only 1 ball is pretty awesome to be honest, regardless of anything else, that is a lot to risk and takes a lot of ball (singular) :D

Why is it risky to cycle with one testicle?

Bollocks [if you'll excuse the pun]

why does that make him more awesomer, fuck yeah! than these guys http://www.teamtype1.org/

he survived a potential life threatening illness and got on the bike, just like other riders in the peleton who have had life threatening injuries from crashes and have got back on the bike

or is it the omerta that he orchestrated and enforced by intimidation and crassness that makes him awesome?

Why is it risky to cycle with one testicle?

http://www.livescience.com/5550-cyclists-sperm-suffers.html

With only one left can you risk the loss of any more sperm.

And my point isn't that those other guys aren't awesome, that's a stupid thing to say- in my opinion anyone that achieves so much after such an awful illness is amazing. One of my friends suffered a serious head injury and is now blind but managed to run the London marathon this year. Anyone that can achieve such things is pretty awesome in my opinion so drugs or not, armstrong is pretty cool to me!

I'll assume that your friend didn't have multi million pounds worth of backing and that all s/he achieved, they have through effort and determination?

This makes Armstrongs privileged use of drugs even more despicable.

As said before on this thread, loads of people survive cancer and carry on living the life they were before....including my father....whoopy flip!......I don't understand what people fimd so special about this....If a fireman survived cancer and carried on being a fireman and maybe even got a promotion, isn't that a similar thing? there must be tens of thousands of similar stories, not all these people's identities are a one-man industry with copy-writerss, agents, marketing bods (and chemists) all taking their cut though.