Tour de France 2010

sodium pentathol?

Are we really supposed to believe that he came back to the sport for a last surge, knowing he would be under intense scrutiny due to his position, only to fill himself full of drugs?

Leaving aside for the moment that Lance was tested at every possible chance and never found to be doping, I just don't think he would do it. He had too much to lose, and not just personally; he seems to be doing it more for the charity and the exposure now than for cash, so the risks involved in cheating are way too high.

Sure, there may have been medicines and treatments going on that pushed up to the rules, but that's sport. F1 teams go as close to the rules as possible, then the rules change and so do their strategies - it's all part of the game.

Are we really to believe that having got away with blood doping for seven consecutive Tour De France wins that he came back clean? He's a proven liar and cheat. Why anyone would believe a word he says now is beyond me.

Proven how, exactly?

Proven how, exactly?

You're a journalist aren't you? Do some research; it's laughable that any one would give their opinion of Lance Armstrong's probity without, apparently, knowing that he tested positive for EPO (retrospective but no serious challenge to the validity of the tests was ever mounted; not did he sue as he did every time it was his word against someone else's).
Try reading anything by David Walsh, or find out what Paul Kimmage thinks of the great hero. Or you can google Greg Lemond. Discover how he lied about his supposed weight loss; often give as the reason he was suddenly able to be the best climber in the world. There is a stack of conclusive evidence against Armstrong; and that is leaving aside the *fact *that ***he tested positive for EPO. ***
That the team he rode for this year has been discovered to have been in possession of blood transfusion equipment may not be proof that he is still up to his old tricks; but there were reportedly seven different DNA profiles taken from that equipment. Somehow seven of his team mates were cheating while he fought the good fight.

In late summer in 2005, French antidoping authorities said Armstrong’s urine samples from the 1999 Tour showed traces of EPO. It was never proven.

New York Times

Seriously Sparky if that is your idea of research then....

This alone discredits the whole article :*He tested positive for a banned substance once, for cortisone at the 1999 Tour, but produced a doctor’s note saying the drug was medically necessary for saddle sores. He received no punishment and went on to win his first Tour.
*When you read the background to that you will find that he didn't just produce a doctor's note. He should have had a TUE (therapeutic use exemption) certificate; he didn't have one. He managed to produce a retrospective one that was, curiously, accepted by the UCI. The UCI later accepted a large donation from Armstrong towards it's 'anti doping' programme though the money was never tracked once it had been given. The then UCI president Hein Verbruggen was, and remains, a big pal of Armstrong and one of the key figures in denying the real extent of the doping problem in cycling.
And so it goes on..... and on and on and on. I am afraid that one article, which is sketchy at best and plain wrong at worst, is hardly going to weigh much against the stack of evidence against Armstrong. I thought journalists were meant to be interested in getting at the truth not simply finding the most tendentious piece of drivel that comes to hand but which supports the position they have already decided to take?
Really, there are quite a lot of people on here who know a lot about professional cycling, have read a lot of books about it, followed it for decades. I would be very surprised if any of them believe Arstrong rode clean. In fact, laughably, the article you quote actually undermines your own case; it mentions that riders who had previously finished second, third, fourth and fifth to Armstrong didn't start in 2006. Because they had all either been caught doping or were so heavily implicated the TdF wouldn't let them start. And yet we are still meant to believe that Armstrong was so good he could not just beat them but beat them by a margin while he was riding clean? Perhaps that doesn't meet your standard of proof but there are none so blind as those who will not see.

After reading Bad Blood and following cycling a bit more closely, it seems to be a very dirty sport. The whole of Armstrong's behaviour (from his relationship with Ferrari, to his bizarre chasing down of Simeoni, his donations to 'anti-doping' programmes, and his confession to a doctor when he was being treated for cancer that he'd taken a string of banned substances) looks pretty suspect. Then, when he makes his return to cycling, he goes to Astana.

Seriously Sparky if that is your idea of research then....

This alone discredits the whole article :*He tested positive for a banned substance once, for cortisone at the 1999 Tour, but produced a doctor’s note saying the drug was medically necessary for saddle sores. He received no punishment and went on to win his first Tour.
*When you read the background to that you will find that he didn't just produce a doctor's note. He should have had a TUE (therapeutic use exemption) certificate; he didn't have one. He managed to produce a retrospective one that was, curiously, accepted by the UCI. The UCI later accepted a large donation from Armstrong towards it's 'anti doping' programme though the money was never tracked once it had been given. The then UCI president Hein Verbruggen was, and remains, a big pal of Armstrong and one of the key figures in denying the real extent of the doping problem in cycling.
And so it goes on..... and on and on and on. I am afraid that one article, which is sketchy at best and plain wrong at worst, is hardly going to weigh much against the stack of evidence against Armstrong. I thought journalists were meant to be interested in getting at the truth not simply finding the most tendentious piece of drivel that comes to hand but which supports the position they have already decided to take?
Really, there are quite a lot of people on here who know a lot about professional cycling, have read a lot of books about it, followed it for decades. I would be very surprised if any of them believe Arstrong rode clean. In fact, laughably, the article you quote actually undermines your own case; it mentions that riders who had previously finished second, third, fourth and fifth to Armstrong didn't start in 2006. Because they had all either been caught doping or were so heavily implicated the TdF wouldn't let them start. And yet we are still meant to believe that Armstrong was so good he could not just beat them but beat them by a margin while he was riding clean? Perhaps that doesn't meet your standard of proof but there are none so blind as those who will not see.

No offence, but there's so much heresay and rumour in there that not a newspaper in the land could publish it. Yes, I'm sure the sport has skeletons in the closet, but I'm just completely unconvinced that Lance has come back to the sport and been doping.

[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/16226502/Lance-Armstrong-Doping-History"]Lance Armstrong Doping History[/ame]

No offence, but there's so much heresay and rumour in there that not a newspaper in the land could publish it. Yes, I'm sure the sport has skeletons in the closet, but I'm just completely unconvinced that Lance has come back to the sport and been doping.

A leopard doesn't change it's spots. He doped before cancer, he's been proven to have doped since so why should he suddenly change his ways?

Don't be confused by the cancer work, just because one does good deeds doesn't mean that one is a latter day saint who can do no wrong, despite what many would have you believe.

The question I always find hard to answer is; where do you draw the line?

If we assume (as it's not that difficult to) Lance, Contador and Schlecks both cheat how far down the GC do you hit your first clean rider?
How endemic is the problem?
Does Cav EPO-help himself over the Poggio so he can chase down Haussler in the last inch?
Does Wiggins offer to declare his blood values for the last 10 years only mean his drugs are better than Ricardo Riccos?

I don't know the answer and the truth is I enjoy the racing anyway and for me a drug scandal in Le Tour always makes it better viewing.

A leopard doesn't change it's spots.

what about the contrite jock David Millar

He's much slower now than in his tour stage winning leopard spotted days

The question I always find hard to answer is; where do you draw the line?

If we assume (as it's not that difficult to) Lance, Contador and Schlecks both cheat how far down the GC do you hit your first clean rider?
How endemic is the problem?
Does Cav EPO-help himself over the Poggio so he can chase down Haussler in the last inch?
Does Wiggins offer to declare his blood values for the last 10 years only mean his drugs are better than Ricardo Riccos?

I don't know the answer and the truth is I enjoy the racing anyway and for me a drug scandal in Le Tour always makes it better viewing.

It's a tough one. But both Astana and Saxo Bank have previous when it comes to team wide doping regimes, whereas Garmin, whilst being a relatively new team, have a very different attitude towards doping, i.e. they are vociferous in their opposition to it. I don't know if that means anything, especially when you consider T-Mobile's policy when cuddly Bob Stapleton took over, where he claimed they were clean yet they had more positives than any other team that season, leading to T-Mobile's withdrawal from sponsorship.

As for how endemic it is, I think it's much better now than it was ten years ago. The 1990s were arguably the dirtiest in cycling history where almost without exception everyone was taking the drug du jour, EPO. It's improved since the introduction of the EPO test but there are still, on average, 15-20 positives for EPO every season despite it being detectable now. This suggests to me that micro-dosing, taking it little and often, is still fairly widespread.

The biological passport is improving things further but until there is a reliable test for transfusing your own blood then some will continue to use this method. I'd suspect Astana, and the story above backs this up, and Saxo Bank of doing so.

what about the contrite jock David Millar

He's exceptional. I can't think of a single other rider who has been as outspoken as he has on doping since his ban, can you? The likes of Basso, Vinokourouv and now Ricco have ensured that they keep silent on it as is the omerta way.

Alf from 'Home & Away' will make sure Ricco stays clean.

No offence, but there's so much heresay and rumour in there that not a newspaper in the land could publish it. Yes, I'm sure the sport has skeletons in the closet, but I'm just completely unconvinced that Lance has come back to the sport and been doping.
What is it exactly that you're not convinced about? That he is doping now, or that he doped to win his 7 tdfs? Because you don't have to look far to turn up some pretty suspect behaviour during his main career.

Good interview with David Millar on NY Velocity couple of weeks ago gives a bit of insight into the "everybody's at it" attitude when he got busted; you had to get the UCI ranking points to get the bonuses in your contract. Same bonus culture that fucked the financial markets. http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/david-millar-interview

And the Ricco interview in Feb's Procycling is jaw-dropping for all the wrong reasons. WAC.

The question I always find hard to answer is; where do you draw the line?....
I don't know the answer and the truth is I enjoy the racing anyway and for me a drug scandal in Le Tour always makes it better viewing.

Good point; I admit I enjoy a good drug scandal too. AndyP sums it up well; better than it was, still not right but you don't know for sure what is going on. But anyone who followed cycling through the 90s knows to be sceptical and that often it is the way that riders and managers* talk *about doping that gives the best clues. I think even the most doped up riders have some conscience or at at least don't want their colleagues laughing in their faces after they have condemned doping when they are well known to be using the stuff themselves. So Pantani, for example, never said anything convincing about doping and never sounded angry about it; likewise Armstrong. Whereas Wiggins and Moncoutie and others do sound convincing; they sound pissed off. Evans falls somewhere between the two and maybe that's just his slightly odd, slightly shy, personality. If Evans is doping then clearly he needs to get a new doctor.
The difference between third and first in the tour seems small but can often actually be pretty big; drugs can make that difference. Contador's time trial performances are an example I think; the last climber to TT like that was Heras and before him Pantani.
One thing I am sure of; genuinely clean riders are never implicated in drug scandals. So the elder Schlek can't be believed and his little brother is pretty mealy mouthed on the subject. That they work with Riis hardly helps; which then implicates Sastre and so on and so on. You just can't be certain of any but a handful of riders.

MDMA dissolved in vodka?

You had a similar NYE then?

I was in bed before midnight.

Who's bed? :)

Yours. You've got some weird stuff under there.

That's possible. I was standing out on Horsenden Hill watching fireworks whilst you were fondling my GT, a large stash of Vittoria tyres, some FSA track cranks, some books, some kind of tube probably containing posters, suitcases full of something or other..

S I thought journalists were meant to be interested in getting at the truth not simply finding the most tendentious piece of drivel that comes to hand but which supports the position they have already decided to take?

i don't think you did really think that.