Skip to comments.Armstrong banned for life, stripped of seven Tour titles
Posted on 10/22/2012 4:26:59 AM PDT by Perdogg
Cycling's governing body agreed Monday to strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and ban him for life, following a report from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency that accused him of leading a massive doping program on his teams.
Speaking from Geneva, International Cycling Union President Pat McQuaid confirmed to a news conference that UCI had decided to uphold USADA'S decision to strip Armstrong of his Tour titles.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
That's true. However, given two talented athletes, doping may be the thing that gives the one the edge over the other, unfortunately.
This is essentially the state of cycling today. They are unable to objectively enforce their own rules.
Thanks Mr. Bird. Well said.
They don't have any test results against all the other riders either.
And yet "the agency said 20 of the 21 riders on the podium in the Tour from 1999 through 2005 have been 'directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations' or other means. It added that of the 45 riders on the podium between 1996 and 2010, 36 were by cyclists 'similarly tainted by doping'."
Should we then excuse all of them along with Lance???
All of them have been tied to doping and cheating the same way Lance has and the evidence against him is more substantial.
After further review that should read mismanaged the sport!!!
THis is the saddest part. It shows that the Tour de France and Professional Cycling are a complete joke and the entire sport should just disintigrate into irrelevancy.
There is not a single cyclist out there that can now be considered a champion and taken seriously. It is a very sad indictment and tragic for the one or two cyclists that might actually be clean.
And what about the other, non-verbal evidence? Jeepers.
- Interestingly, I did some research on EPO in a former career (working at a radiation oncology department) and was published on a paper about its effects on patients receiving cancer treatments. This was early on in its adoption for that purpose and it worked splendidly.”
This is one of the things that really bothers me about this. It seems they are trying to lump non-anabolic steroid type procedures and technologies in with anabolic steroids. Perhaps there are some health concerns associated with the use of anabolic steroids (personally I doubt it...but let’s stipulate that that is unhealthy).
Nobody has made the case that EPO is unhealthy. But yet they don’t want it done. Well, just why not? Why shouldn’t every cyclist do EPO?
And what if it turns out that EPO is actually a good thing to do?
What if it turns out that as you sort of note that EPO is a strong immune system stimulant, which fights off cancer?
The problem is, you can’t have that conversation in the light of day, because everyone is so obsessed about punishing those that are “doping”.
I just don’t get it...
Sounds very strange.
What ??? that Armstrong always had high rbc and testosterone counts??? Why would that surprise you about a winner of 7TdFs??? and someone with such a magnificent training regimen??? and someone who used EPO and testosterone in his cancer treatment???
I would be interested in blood data from LA from other time periods except 2009 - 2010.
Read the USADA Report -- it's the closest you will get to them.
500+ blood and urine tests - no doping.
202 pages - doping
264 = reality
Atleast 1 was questioned
This is more about tearing down the heros of the world than any effective program. If you are exceptional, and can prove it, you become a target for any group with a cool acronym and a funding source. Be careful what devil you stand behind. Groups like USADA make me (and evidently UCI) nervous.
OTOH - we all, unfortunately, live in a seriously messed up world. b. Being better than others means a person must have cheated? I have no idea whether or not Armstrong cheated. I was only pointing out that international sports organizations operate as much on innuendo as facts. In many cases, their PR status is more important to them than the athletes that make them possible. Follow the money.
Euro-weenies have been enraged for years that a redneck American, from Texas no less, won their little bicycle race 7 times. They spit on him physically while he was racing, now metaphorically after he has retired. I’m guessing they’ll now pile on with lawsuits in an attempt to ruin him financially.
I just question the methods and if this is fair. From what I’ve red, it does not seem to be. It seems like it is impossible to fight against. Even the guilty, if he is, should have a chance. This? It seems like an injustice.
You may rightly be upset about cheating in general and in sports in particular, however, that does not excuse you from writing pure rot.
Patients post-chemotherapy do not have high blood counts, nor do they have high testosterone levels. To find this post cancer treatment would certainly not excuse an athlete, unless he was shown to undergo continuous replacement therapy. However, someone in need of EPO for medical reasons would not be able to compete at any level.
Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post (in another thread) there has always been a fear that EPO would act to promote cancer regrowth. It has, and is still used, in those cases where there is an absolute need to promote rbc production, but only then.
When it comes to LAs blood counts, they have as far as I know, never been exceptionally high. Apparently you don’t have any more knowledge since you point me towards the USADA report. I have read the relevant parts and it does not contain any data nor any physical evidence of blood manipulation.
However, the low rbc does not preclude doping or blood manipulation, but it shows how difficult it is to analyze the blood profile of athletes.
Finally, this discussion can be broken down into several parts.
There is a moral discussion about cheating in sports, and for the record I am against all forms of doping, though, unfortunately the grey zones are getting wider and wider.
Then there is a discussion of the weight of physical evidence against Armstrong. In that discussion it would be great if those commenting would post facts and not “hearsays” and “what is commonly known”.
Rede some more. Read “The Secret Race” by Tyler Hamilton and see if you still think Lance is a golden boy who was able miraculously to beat all the proven cheaters without himself cheating.
Lance was the market leader, Lance was the innovator. The reason he kept winning was because he was the best at cheating.
“Being better than others means a person must have cheated?”
No, but being better than top athletes who are using performance enhancers means either you must be using performance enhancers, or you are Superman. So, which should a reasonable person believe is the case with Armstrong? Is he a cheater or is he from the planet Krypton?
What confuses the subject for me is that what they now mean by “doping” doesn’t seem to mean what it used to mean. When I think of doping I’m thinking of the use of anabolic steroids and such very strong drugs that cause all sorts of extreme physical changes. It appears though now what they mean by “doping” amounts to little more than taking some extra vitamins on game day. I think I need to know more about what they’re really accusing before I decide to care. Then, if indeed they were all doing it too... Where’s the advantage?
Transfusions sound pretty extreme. I’ll stipulate that. I suppose it’s done to get the RBC count up? Though after all his chemo I’m not sure it’s the massive advantage it’s cracked up to be.
Then I’d like to know what the -legal- means are. What sorts of body chemistry is acceptable?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.