USADA Banned Armstrong new Doping Allegations

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

Locked
KWalker
Posts: 5872
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

Actually it does matter. He admitted to the crime in civil court and was convicted of the murder and thus had to pay damages. He later wrote a book extensively detailing how he would have done it and there was no question that the evidence pointed to him. His high dollar defense team turned the case from all the evidence, to the character of the police detectives just like Lance's team is doing now trying to portray everyone as out to get Lance in a huge conspiracy.

I understand the principle, but the thousands of misstrials in the US court system suggest that there are often many mistakes made that result in false sentences and acquittals. In this case I just want to see what is put out there and then after that a verdict can finally be issued with whatever evidence there is and it can be put to rest, however, its never truly been resolved. I don't count the Justice Department verdict as resolution especially since almost everyone involved except for Birotte agreed that the probe should not have ended and that the evidence was damning. One person (Birotte) made the decision under sketchy circumstances. I do not consider that closure. Again, that trial was about criminal charges such as money laundering and conspiracy whereas this case is all about the doping itself- two VERY different things. I think, therefore, that it fully deserves to be open and wasn't closed again in a similar manner to the OJ case.
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

by Weenie


User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

btompkins0112 wrote:
heathhandsome wrote:I

I don't even think any changes should be made to the results of the era, i still think that for the most part if you took away the drugs it would be mostly the same.


Key point.


But incorrect. When EPO came in there was a major overthrow in who was at the top. LeMond, Hampsten, Roche, and other quickly went from winning GC to barely hanging to retired. Then as EPO testing, CERA testing, and biological passport have kicked in all of a sudden a guy like Voeckler who wallowed in semi-obscurity for years is suddenly battling to win the Tour.

Lance Armstrong recreated himself by getting the best program money could buy. Many others were unable or unwilling to do this. If Lance had said "I invite everyone to join me with Dr. Ferrari -- a free round for the boys!" then you could make a stronger point (although it would still be wrong; doping helps riders address specific deficiencies, so helps some more than others; for example it tended to eliminate the advantage of years at altitude; there's a good reason Colombian riders went from being successful in the 1980's to unsuccessful for two decades and are now winning again).

daj
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:36 pm

by daj

Without having read the entire discussion already one thing is very clear to me. USADA hates cycling. USADA wants to kill cycling. USADA want to chop cycling's limbs off and beat it to death with them.

User avatar
jmilliron
Posts: 2014
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:03 pm
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

by jmilliron

Well said as usual Dan.
2013 Wilier Cento1 SR || 2009 Ridley Crossbow || 2011 Yeti AS-R 5 Carbon

User avatar
J-Nice
Posts: 1474
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:35 am

by J-Nice

djconnel wrote:Lance Armstrong recreated himself by getting the best program money could buy. Many others were unable or unwilling to do this. If Lance had said "I invite everyone to join me with Dr. Ferrari -- a free round for the boys!" then you could make a stronger point (although it would still be wrong; doping helps riders address specific deficiencies, so helps some more than others; for example it tended to eliminate the advantage of years at altitude; there's a good reason Colombian riders went from being successful in the 1980's to unsuccessful for two decades and are now winning again).

Excellent points. The other thing that people conveniently leave out is if doping created this imaginary level playing field, why did Armstrong have a non-compete clause at the Tour with Dr. Ferrari? Ferrari had the best expertise money could buy, and Armstrong made sure he was unavailable to his opponents. That is a HUGE advantage.

This situation is a lot more complicated than those who want to dismiss it as just run-of-the-mill doping regimen, therefore the best rider would always win regardless. This is sooooo not true in Armstrong's case. In fact, it's never been less true.
Check out the latest controversies in sport-

http://berzin.blogspot.com/

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

KWalker wrote:Actually it does matter. He admitted to the crime in civil court and was convicted of the murder and thus had to pay damages. He later wrote a book extensively detailing how he would have done it and there was no question that the evidence pointed to him. His high dollar defense team turned the case from all the evidence, to the character of the police detectives just like Lance's team is doing now trying to portray everyone as out to get Lance in a huge conspiracy.

I understand the principle, but the thousands of misstrials in the US court system suggest that there are often many mistakes made that result in false sentences and acquittals. In this case I just want to see what is put out there and then after that a verdict can finally be issued with whatever evidence there is and it can be put to rest, however, its never truly been resolved. I don't count the Justice Department verdict as resolution especially since almost everyone involved except for Birotte agreed that the probe should not have ended and that the evidence was damning. One person (Birotte) made the decision under sketchy circumstances. I do not consider that closure. Again, that trial was about criminal charges such as money laundering and conspiracy whereas this case is all about the doping itself- two VERY different things. I think, therefore, that it fully deserves to be open and wasn't closed again in a similar manner to the OJ case.


Walker, you really are missing the point. Please take your bias regarding OJ and Lance out of the equation and come to this as objectively as possible. You seem to be a very passionate man but that doesn't help in a case where someone's life and career is on the line.

Deep down do I believe OJ committed the crime? Probably, but I was not there. That is why I (and society at large) left it up to the District Attorney and other prosecutors to try the case in a court of law. Individual vigilantism does not work in a modern society where individuals have rights and freedoms. So if OJ did it, it was up to the prosecution to prove to the jury that he did it. They however were unable to do so. As a result he was found not-guilty on those charges. I don't see what you are making this into a bigger issue than it is. Each person has the right to defend themselves. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Blame the DA for not being able to complete an "open and shut case." His defense did what it was suppose to do, defend him in his day in court. Nothing more. Nothing less.

In summary the key point to take away is Blackstone's formulation which is from old English law: "better to let 10 guilty persons free than let one innocent person suffer." That is how our western society law is based. Innocent until proven guilty.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
stella-azzurra
Posts: 5072
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:35 am
Location: New York

by stella-azzurra

And we are spiraling out of control...Mayday...mayday... :twisted:
I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

J-Nice wrote: Excellent points. The other thing that people conveniently leave out is if doping created this imaginary level playing field, why did Armstrong have a non-compete clause at the Tour with Dr. Ferrari? Ferrari had the best expertise money could buy, and Armstrong made sure he was unavailable to his opponents. That is a HUGE advantage.


Please don't make it sound like Dr. Ferrari was the only one available. Dr. Fuentes was just as good. So all those years Ullrich lost to Lance, he still had a great doctor helping with his doping regimen.


djconnel wrote:
But incorrect. When EPO came in there was a major overthrow in who was at the top. LeMond, Hampsten, Roche, and other quickly went from winning GC to barely hanging to retired. Then as EPO testing, CERA testing, and biological passport have kicked in all of a sudden a guy like Voeckler who wallowed in semi-obscurity for years is suddenly battling to win the Tour.

Lance Armstrong recreated himself by getting the best program money could buy. Many others were unable or unwilling to do this. If Lance had said "I invite everyone to join me with Dr. Ferrari -- a free round for the boys!" then you could make a stronger point (although it would still be wrong; doping helps riders address specific deficiencies, so helps some more than others; for example it tended to eliminate the advantage of years at altitude; there's a good reason Colombian riders went from being successful in the 1980's to unsuccessful for two decades and are now winning again).


Doping has always been a part of cycling and always will be. The guys on the top teams just have more money and expertise.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
stella-azzurra
Posts: 5072
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:35 am
Location: New York

by stella-azzurra

53x13 since you are a physician you might know something about this: What kind of doctor would be an expert in EPO?
I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

^ Stella, the one's that I know that prescribe it most often are nephrologists (kidney docs) who give it to patients who are in kidney failure and are anemic. Pt's in kidney failure can't make EPO (natural occurring hormone in our body) so docs prescribe it to them since they are very often anemic. There are some oncologists (cancer docs) that will also prescribe it to pt's with certain cancers secondary to symptoms from chemo and radiation. Other times it will be used in an ICU under certain limited circumstances. Some research has shown EPO can help with schizophrenia treatment. But really I have never heard of any psychiatrist use it for that.

For me EPO is most commonly prescribed by nephrologists and then secondarily by oncologists. That probably makes up ~90% of its use. The main reason being that EPO is very very expensive and insurance companies don't want to pay for it if they don't have to. As a result there are very strict guidelines and protocols in place for when EPO is an appropriate agent to use. Hope that answers your question.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
stella-azzurra
Posts: 5072
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:35 am
Location: New York

by stella-azzurra

It does.
So then these team doctors that prescribe EPO as a monthly protocol to cyclists are in fact breaking the law because they are not following the guide lines and administering EPO to perfectly healthy individuals.

So its cycle is:

Sponsors pressure General Managers of pro Cycling Teams to win ->
Director sportif pressure cyclists to win ->
Director sportif gets doctor to create a plan for cyclist ->
or
Cyclist gets his own doctor to create a plan for them ->
Cyclist pays doctor for agreed plan ->
The doctors make extra money ->
The cyclists wins races ->
The team gets future sponsorship because the team is winning->
The director sportif and everyone else on the team keeps their jobs ->
The cyclists get better contracts for more money to ride next year->
The cyclists gets endorsements ->
The fans get a great show (not always because there is always one cyclist that responds better to EPO then the others.)
Wins all round!

In the end the cyclist gets caught and pays for it.

:welcome: to pro cycling.
I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

Well I guess they aren't going to ask their insurance company to reimburse them for the EPO are they? :mrgreen:

But yes, medically they are not following standards for its use. I guess one could argue it is for off label use?
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."


User avatar
stella-azzurra
Posts: 5072
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:35 am
Location: New York

by stella-azzurra

That's job security talk right there. Totally normal.
I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree

mjduct
Posts: 662
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:19 pm

by mjduct

Believe what you want about Lance, he did alot of revolutionary things in his training regimen ON HIS BIKE that helped him win for example:

He was one of the early pioneers in interval training developed it with several sports scientists.

He only rode races to prep him for the Tour de France, he didn't ride every race on the schedule he could fit in.

Therefore Lance generally had many less racing days every year than everyone else had.

Drugs or not I don't care, I figure if he was on them so was everyone else, I doubt his drugs were any better than anyone else's...

If you are that anti drug... do me a favor and rip the radio out of your car, take your ipod, cd player, tape deck, 8 track, 90, 45, pandora, napster, etc. make a big ass pile of all the music you've ever collected and enjoyed in your life and put it all in big pile in your front yard and light it on fire. I guarantee you the music industry has consumed tons more "performance enhancing drugs" per capita than all sports combined...

Image

Check.............Mate

by Weenie


Locked