What is everyone's take on the latest allegations against Armstrong?
OK, I know, not swimming related, sorry.
Former Member
I think the test of old blood samples was flawed and not based on sound medical or ethical processes. The tests were done on only one set of samples ("A" or "B", I don't remember which), and a test against the other was not possible. At minimum there is a "reasonable doubt" on the integrity of the testing process. I also believe there was inherent bias in the process because the testers WANTED to find positives for Lance.
I won't say that I believe 100% that Lance has never used EPO. Of course I don't know anything. But Lance's association with Dr. Ferrari is mysterious enough to create some doubt. I also think a lot of people simply don't accept that Lance has been an exceptional athlete his entire life. His VO2 max is off the charts and he trains harder, has timed his training for peak performance at the TDF, and he uses technology (e.g. aerodynamics) better than anyone.
In any case EPO was not a banned substance at the time. And they didn't test the entire TDF set of blood samples. I think Lance's history of ZERO positive tests over his cycling history is a powerful statement.
Originally posted by Frank Thompson
Last Wednesday, I heard a press conference that said Lance Armstrong was cleared of EPO wrong doing back in 1999. Then this weekend, *** Pound of the WADA rejected the independent investigation and says it "borders on farcicial".
Read *** Pound's comments here: www.smh.com.au/.../1148956590634.html
Read the background of the story here:www.usatoday.com/.../2005-08-25-armstrong-doping_x.htm
What would you expect from WADA/*** Pound now that their butts are in the fire and someone is suggesting a tribunal be set up to look into the wrong doing in this situation?
Originally posted by hofffam
In any case EPO was not a banned substance at the time.
Actually it was banned, but there was not an approved test for it at the time.
gull80 - I stand corrected. In any case - the test of old blood samples was not done fairly and in the claimed spirit of academic research.
Why else was Lance the only named positive? L'equipe hates Lance and was only too happy to publish the leak. I bet the tests would have produced many positives with 198 cyclists.
Tested because he won, they don't test everyone usually the winner and then random testing. This is how they test horses that win races probably the same for other competitions.
All i can say
is lance armstrong is a hero to go through what he has done with his battle with cancer...I mean a less than 10% chance of living..the guy is a amazing.
It says alot for the people who are trying to drop him in the s**t trying to stitch up a guy that has been through more than most people in the world.
Inner strength is the key and a won battle against the deadliest cancer has got to be a huge boost for inner strength
I would bow to the bloke if necesary
All TDF cyclists are tested at least once just prior to the race start. I found the following at "dummies.com" in their section on TDF regulations:
Drug testing at every stage
Every rider in the Tour is tested for banned substances prior to the race. Various cyclists are tested after every stage, according to a selection process determined before the race. Under current rules, at least 180 urine drug tests are given, including daily drug tests for the race leader and stage winner and six to eight cyclists selected at random throughout the field.
It seems possible that someone might ride the TDF with no random tests if they are neither a stage winner or tour leader.
Lance of course has been the both the stage winner and race leader many times.
Last Wednesday, I heard a press conference that said Lance Armstrong was cleared of EPO wrong doing back in 1999. Then this weekend, *** Pound of the WADA rejected the independent investigation and says it "borders on farcicial".
Read *** Pound's comments here: www.smh.com.au/.../1148956590634.html
Read the background of the story here:www.usatoday.com/.../2005-08-25-armstrong-doping_x.htm
