Armstrong drops fight against doping charges

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by adventure

You have got to be the laziest schmuck on the planet. You have the energy to troll this thread non stop but not enough to do a 5 second internet search on this topic which will give you several days of reading material and evidence.

I'm pretty good at Google, and the USADA has never claimed to have samples from Lance that have tested positive for anything. If you have some insider knowledge that they do have this, let the rest of us in on it.

[adventure]

Originally Posted by jonnythan

I am repeating myself, because you keep repeating the same lies. You seem to change them slightly every post, but the gist of it remains the same.

You keep saying there's physical evidence against Armstrong in the form of failed drug tests. There are not. There may be eventually, but the USADA has not said they have any and they have not produced any.

You can say it over and over, but that doesn't make it true. Accusing the people pointing out your falsehoods of "repeating themselves" is laughable when you keep telling the same lies.

WRONG! Again, your laziness is your worst enemy. His positive samples have already been reported and are in USADA's possession. FAIL.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by adventure

WRONG! Again, your laziness is your worst enemy. His positive samples have already been reported and are in USADA's possession. FAIL.

Maybe if you say it a few more times it will become true.

[adventure]

Originally Posted by jonnythan

I haven't changed any goal posts.

I've been saying for a long time that it doesn't make sense to vacate past victories for which you cannot produce a sample of tainted blood.

That's the goal post. If they can produce a sample of tainted blood from one of Lance's Tour victories, then it makes sense to vacate that victory. Some testimony from a bunch of guys that have either been caught doping themselves, have books to sell, or have a personal beef with Lance isn't enough to vacate 7 Tour victories.

You don't even have the slightest clue what 'tainted blood' means in relation to pro cycling. Stop talking out of your a--.

[adventure]

Originally Posted by jonnythan

Maybe if you say it a few more times it will become true.

Not at all, I just want you to keep defending Lance as often as possible. The bigger the ego, the greater the fall as they say. Keep it up.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by adventure

Certainly not enough to educate yourself on what doping in pro cycling entails, I see.

I'm educated enough to understand that no doping agency is in possession of samples from Lance's victory days that test positive for PEDs.

Or, if they do have any, they aren't saying anything about them.

[fundrazer]

I have been enjoying Tyler's book so far. Here's one of the tidbits that has already been mentioned here:

"In 2005, as part of a retrospective study by the Cjatenay-Malabry French National doping-detection lab to improve their methods, urine tests from the 1999 Tour de France were tested for EPO. Using the six-digit rider identification number, L'Equipe reporter Damien Ressiot established that fifteen samples belonged to Armstrong. Of the fifteen samples, 6 tested positive for EPO, including those taken after the prologue, and stages 1,9,10,12, and 14; in addition several others showed the presence of artificial EPO in levels too low to trigger a positive test. All samples taken after stage 14 tested negative.

Aromstrong argued that the samples may have been tampered with. But according to Dr. Michael Ashenden, one of the world's most famous doping experts, the odds of someone successfully tampering with the samples to achieve this precise spiking and tailing effect would be beyond astronomical; in fact, he's now aware of any lab equipment that is calibrated to such a degree. As Ashenden summed up" There is no doubt in my mind that Lance Armstrong took EPO during the '99 Tour""

I believe 1999 is also the year Lanced tested positive for cortocoids at the Tour.

[FastFreddy]

Originally Posted by jonnythan

I'm educated enough to understand that no doping agency is in possession of samples from Lance's victory days that test positive for PEDs.

Or, if they do have any, they aren't saying anything about them.

Lance is done get over it! His hstory of cheating is erased end of story. Even Eddie from Maiden said he will save him a seat in HELL.

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by NonP

But you're a bit off when you say unequivocally that Armstrong didn't gain an unfair advantage. No outsider can claim to know (yet) the real answer, despite what the gullible know-nothings think they know.

Not saying he wouldn't have had an advantage due to better doping, but that if it was unofficially acknowledged and prevalent, everyone else had the same opportunity to be the best doper - of course taking the risk that a test would turn up positive and their name would have been ruined.

Really stupid way to run a sport, though, where the competition is who can be the best doper and everyone knows it.

[fundrazer]

What most people don't understand is the fact that these doping methods don't have the same effect on everybody. Everybody's body responds differently, but with that said, to be a champion still requires a hell of a lot of training.

Tylers book uses an example involving EPO. Tyler'ss natural hematocrit is 42, meaning if he raised it to 50, this would add 19% more oxygen-carrying red blood cells.

Another rider with a hematocrit of something like 48, would only add 4% more red blood cells.

*50 is a significant number, because it is the UCI's limit on hematocrit.

[Bartelby]

You're positively addicted to the word positive because you know the official terminology is 'consistent with' because for technical reasons its ludicrous to talk about positive versus negative, so you keep on trying to use the word positive

- a word that has positively no use in some current testing protocols.

In normal speak, he did test positive for illegal drug use or cheating.

In official speak, his results were 'consistent with' drug use or cheating.

Originally Posted by jonnythan

I'm pretty good at Google, and the USADA has never claimed to have samples from Lance that have tested positive for anything. If you have some insider knowledge that they do have this, let the rest of us in on it.

[jonnythan]

"Consistent with" does not mean "positive test." I'm sorry you want it to so badly.

[Bartelby]

I'm sorry but science does not speak your language, but you'll always have your faith.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

Not saying he wouldn't have had an advantage due to better doping, but that if it was unofficially acknowledged and prevalent, everyone else had the same opportunity to be the best doper - of course taking the risk that a test would turn up positive and their name would have been ruined.

Really stupid way to run a sport, though, where the competition is who can be the best doper and everyone knows it.

I don't see how the problem (if you view it as such) can be fixed, though. The dopers have historically kept ahead of the authorities. What do we have in place now that will somehow reverse this trend?

This is one of the reasons why I'm sympathetic to the idea that they should just let the athletes take whatever they want, but of course it presents its own set of problems.

[Benhur]

The last few days the press has carried these statements by UCI's boss Pat McQuaid. They ALL precede it by big headlines saying that UCI will not appeal. Except that's not actually what McQaid is saying. All he said is they are waiting to see the case USADA is supposed to provide them, and unless they see reasons to appeal, they won't. (USADA hasn't provided the case file to UCI yet).

You have to love how all the headlines say that UCI will not appeal. It's quite a concerted interpretation.

http://tinyurl.com/9sulpkk

Here is what McQuaid actually said (from the Reuters report on the Reuters page)

The UCI has no reason to assume that a full case file does not exist. They (USADA) have a full case file so let them provide the full case file," McQuaid told Reuters by telephone.

"And unless the USADA's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise, the UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) or not to recognize the USADA's sanctions on Lance Armstrong."

However, the UCI is still waiting for USADA's reasoned decision and the case file it requested.

"We need to examine the decision and the file in order to deal with it properly and this is going to take some time. However, I can assure you that this will be prioritized," the Irishman said.

"The reason the UCI is seeking the file is that we want to provide a timely response and not delay matters any further than necessary. The sooner we receive the full decision and case file the sooner we can provide its response."

Should the reasoned decision and the case file come to the UCI within two weeks as he expects, McQuaid said they could be examined at the governing body's management committee on September 19-20.

McQuaid also wants to look into the riders who allegedly have testified against Armstrong in exchange for a reduced sentence on past doping offences.

"The UCI assumes that the decision and file will also detail the sanction the USADA may wish to enforce upon the riders who have provided testimony in exchange for reduced sanctions," he said.

McQuaid addressed former Armstrong team mate Tyler Hamilton's book, "The Secret Race: Inside the Hidden World of the Tour de France: Doping, Cover-ups and Winning at All Costs", in which the American reiterates a claim that Armstrong had failed a dope test in 2001 but that it was covered up by the UCI.

"There is nothing new. There was no cover up in 2001 and we see no evidence to support such allegation," he said.

McQuaid also asked the USADA to provide the UCI with three Garmin-Barracuda riders' files after their own team manager Jonathan Vaughters hinted this month that they had doped earlier in their careers.

"We need to see if Jonathan Vaughter's accusations have any substance so we can see if we take action against these riders," said McQuaid.

[fundrazer]

I see your Pat McQuack article, and raise you this one:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sche...ean-up-cycling

[Bartelby]

From the above link.


UCI took money from a drug cheat to buy a machine to analyse blood samples!:



The UCI has altered its stance on the case, first stating that the matter was for USADA to deal with before bringing a case to a US court where they fought for but failed to attain jurisdiction of results management. They await the evidence from USADA, which has yet to be made public, while Armstrong chose not to fight charges leveled at him.

"There is a big effort needed in this historic situation in cycling to really change the sport. I doubt that McQuaid has the credibility to lead the reform that is needed," Schenk told Cyclingnews.

Schenk has previously called for an independent inquiry into the UCI's actions after it was confirmed in 2010 that they received donations from Lance Armstrong during the rider's career. The money was used to purchase a machine to analyze blood samples.

Although Schenk said that she had never been a witness of covering-up a positive test result during her time in the UCI management committee (from 2000 to 2005) she has raised concerns over the payments made by Armstrong, and in her opinion cites them as an example of how the UCI's credibility is undermined.

[Sander001]

You know you're incompetent when there's new legislation aimed directly at you. And in these days of extreme partisanship, it takes a lot for Democrats and Republicans to agree on something and work together but they are, such is the deficiency of USADA.

Originally Posted by USA Today

The Athlete Due Process Protection Act aims to require that an accused athlete is served with specific charges and given a "reasonable" time to prepare a defense. It creates new reporting requirements and requires USADA to provide Congress with an annual report summarizing its enforcement activities and also written notice when it amends its rules.

"Ensuring that our athletes compete vigorously but drug free is a shared value of all in this body and all Americans as promoting the integrity of sports competition," Conyers said in a statement. "But no less critical in ensuring the integrity of sports competition is the protection of individual athletes' due process rightsor adjudication surrounding testing results."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycli...ada/57821062/1

[Bartelby]

Lance and Poe:

A mordant humour sometimes frames the shooting up and downbeat cheating. In his team they named EPO after Edgar Allan Poe, a novelist of mystery whose final words on his deathbed were reputedly: "Lord, help my poor soul." If they usually called their performance-enhancing drug of choice "Edgar", being on first-name terms with EPO, Hamilton claims to have also asked Armstrong a simple question about "Poe". They were in Armstrong's villa in Nice, in the spring of 1999, preparing for the Tour de France – and the first of his seven wins.

"Hey dude, you got any Poe I can borrow?" Hamilton supposedly asked Armstrong. "Lance pointed casually to the fridge," Hamilton writes. "I opened it and there, on the door, next to a carton of milk was a carton of EPO, each stoppered vial standing upright, little soldiers in their cardboard cells. I was surprised that Lance would be so cavalier." Unlike Hamilton and other paranoid members of the peloton, "Lance acted like he was invulnerable."



Lance got the UCI to stop a rival:

One of Hamilton's most serious allegations in his book is that the UCI not only did so little to combat doping but that he was summoned to their headquarters and given a quiet warning about his blood-test results after he out-climbed Armstrong on Mont Ventoux during the Dauphiné Libéré classic in 2004. Floyd Landis, who has since also admitted to doping, apparently told Hamilton that "Lance called the UCI on you … and said … you were on some new ****." Hamilton confronted Armstrong – who denied the allegation.

[fundrazer]

Yep, I remember reading those bits from Tyler's book. Apparently Lance has also "called the UCI" on quite a few other riders.

I was reading on another forum that big George Hincapie might be making a statement sometime this week.