Skip to comments.Really, what are these people who support Lance Armstrong on?
Posted on 10/13/2012 8:22:00 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
So who else knew? There were too many people involved; too many mouths open and too much money was in play for this to remain a genuine secret for so long.
There must have been people in positions of power within the sport who had knowledge of what Lance Armstrong was up to long before this damning dossier was released.
Dragging the proof into the public domain was a difficult task, but only because it was hampered by what has all the appearances of an institutional cover-up, a co-ordinated conspiracy and the propagation of a huge lie that extends way beyond the disgraced riders circle of team-mates.
Of course people knew. Armstrongs team used to sing a song about the drug use, for heavens sake. His fellow rider at the US Postal Service team, David Zabriskie, revealed how he would adapt the words to Jimi Hendrixs Purple Haze when they were in meetings or on the bus. EPO all in my veins, Lately things just dont seem the same. Actin funny, but I dont know why, Scuse me while I pass this guy.
The bigger joke is that cycling tried to pretend the scandal wasnt happening, or did they think it was too big a risk to bring Armstrong down?
It is certainly difficult not to laugh at the idea that the Union Cycliste Internationale governing body once accepted £78,000 from Armstrong for the development of drug-testing equipment. Seriously, what were these people on? Were they stupid?
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
One would have to wonder...how the cycling federation “missed” all this “doping”
Of course, it would not surprise me...and would not be the first in international sports.
Few realized that Carl Lewis had three failed drug tests in Seoul...and the IOC had them covered up....it was the same Olympics that they busted Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson (his 100m gold went to Lewis)
We have a bunch of team mates saying he doped. OK, what were the results of the scientific drug test for that specific race?
We have to factor in eyewitness hearsay vrs clinical test results.
Until Lance is clinically proven to have doped against the standards at the time it is all BS.
Here’s what wiki says:
In October 1999, the USOC created the USADA to begin operation in October 2000. USADA’s status and alleged independence from the USOC contrasts the norm in the United States in which most professional sport organizations (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL) manage the anti-doping aspects of their sports. As a result of USADA’s ongoing multi-year contracts with the USOC and the sport national governing bodies (USA Track & Field, USA Cycling, USA Swimming, US Soccer, etc.) the agency is responsible for managing the anti-doping programs including testing and results management for each sport’s athletes and events throughout the year. Despite its name and status as the country’s official anti doping organization, USADA is a private organization and not subject to government oversight.
I think its been firmly established that those tests had more holes than Swiss cheese. Plus direct testimony (and there seems to be plenty of it by credible witnesses) is not hearsay.
Didn’t Armstrong pass every drug test he was given?
No -- from what I read he took 260 blood tests and there was atleast one that he did not pass but his team explained away.
You know. Just like we assume that politicians aren't telling us the truth.
"Doping" or "lying" becomes part of the game, and the real "rules" of the game aren't always what the authorities say they are.
What drug are the people who refuse to let this thing go on?
That’s a bit ambiguous. Let me try again.
What drug are the jack asses who keep beating this dead horse, on.
Anyone who goes racing around on a two-wheeler is as boring as someone racing around on a tricycle.
I'd think after 260 blood tests, the man would require a bit of a refill.
<>What drug are the people who refuse to let this thing go on?<>
According to SI, your question should be addressed to LA himself:
Lance Armstrong asked to see evidence, and the USADA delivered
Does it really matter!?! People are free (for now) to support what and whomever they choose.
I want to know why some people think it is the job of the government to target a private citizen for slander? Just how is that constitutional since this witch hunt isn’t about prosecuting him for anything but to simply slander him? It takes a real fascist to think the job of the government is to target their personal enemies.
His testicular cancer may very well have been caused by PEDs.
Not unless you're a vampire.
I don’t have a problem with “doping” because I don’t know what the hell that entails. No one ever explains it. Is it the taking of vitamins, minerals, hormones, etc. that millions take on a daily basis for their health? IMO, the whole damn world is nuts.
Ever notice how one of them is always out of action? (getting clean so they can test?) Women just can't be that manly without steroids!
If in fact that is the case, then his Cancer Foundation should be heralding the work of the USADA.
Drug testing should be handled by the event staff that run these events.
Erythropoietin (EPO): A synthetic version of this naturally occurring hormone is used by cheating athletes to boost red blood cell counts, a change that temporarily supercharges endurance by increasing muscles' oxygen-carrying capacity. Before 2000, no test existed to distinguish the synthetic version of the hormone from its natural counterpart, so as long as athletes took doses that would keep their hematocrit (a measure of the volume percentage of blood made up of red blood cells) in a plausible range (below 50 percent), they could use this drug with impunity. And the report alleges that Armstrong's pre-2000 team did just that, fueling its 1999 Tour de France win.
But the USADA also claims that Armstrong's abuse of EPO didn't stop after the introduction of a urine test capable of detecting the drug in 2000; it merely took a more covert form. Conspiring doctors, the report alleges, instructed Armstrong and his teammates to inject EPO intravenously (as opposed to subcutaneously, or into an inner layer of skin) and at night, when surprise tests were unlikely. These measures would make it possible for low doses of synthetic EPO to be cleared from a rider's system by the time he woke.
In situations where EPO tests on recently dosed athletes were unavoidable, team doctors also could have injected saline, or salt water, to dilute a rider's blood and quickly drive down hematocrit. This kind of obfuscating saline injection was a common practice for Armstrong and his team, according to the USADA report.
(Save me your predictable response, Captain Obvious about evidence of Elvis' drugging vs no evidence of your little god's drugging.)
That's the point of the article. The UCI was doing the testing and doping was rampant. They were either incompetent or covering for the big names in the sport.
There's no such thing as eyewitness heresay.
It’s human nature to try to pass, i.e. beat tests, be they drug tests or polygraph tests or college admission tests.
Mr Sheryl Crow beat them! Our hero!
I went to a cycling forum, figuring that the folks that would bother posting on a cycling forum would know what was up more than the average person who wouldn’t bother going to a cycling forum, or even be interested in the sport. The poll I saw was 160-10 that he was guilty.
Well maybe someone saw his lips move :)
I’d rather wear a Livestrong helmet than a Michael Vick jersey.
Is there such a thing as witness theresay?
Is there such a thing as witness theresay?
Is there such a thing as witness theresay?
I believe these people are hurting their sport much more than Armstrong.
They haven’t proved anything except their jealousy and it should be obvious to them if Armstrong did it probabaly others did too meaning the whole sport is crooked.
This reminds me of a spoof article I read awhile ago (dirt rag, MBA Action?) where the writer suggested different classes based on performance drugs or whether the racer was clean.
In the ‘open’ class they’d have IV bags mounted on their handlebars to administer race drugs.
Was baseball hurt by exposing what Barry Bonds and others were doing???
The wives and girlfriends knew about the doping. Interesting WSJ article.
None of this would be happening if he were a Frog.
Oh it's more than that. He doped and he required that all his team members dope and if they didn't dope then they were thrown under the peleton:
"I hated the doping, period. I was never a hypocrite because I wanted my husband to compete clean. When he refused to dope for races in 2000 (especially the Tour) and competed clean, he was fired and his career as a pro was over. I have always and forever been an advocate of clean sport. I never ever excused it. He started his career clean, succumbed to the pressure, and ended his career clean. That's the truth and we've paid a hefty price for telling it." Betsy Andreu
I’ve yet to understand the concern. Did the doping impair his faculties to the point where he was he a danger to others or the public at large? If not, why should I care?
I would offer this if it means that much to people: Continue testing, but only to flag all records/medals with an asterisk if they were juiced. That way, the “natural” competitors could be differentiated. But other than that, I could not care less about it.
I don’t know. I stopped watching baseball when they outlawed Pete Rose from the Hall of Fame.
I don’t know if Armstrong is innocent or not. IMO the people who ‘testified’ against him were threatened and coerced and didn’t have the resources Armstrong had. He passed all the test that also included EVERY day he won a stage of the tour, which is >70 test just during the Tour IIFC.
I'd like to hear more of that: how much fluid could you reasonably inject? The human body has two *gallons* of blood; and the chance of throwing off the electrolyte balance and/or bloating might well outweigh the temporary advantage of a dose of EPO so small that it was cleared by morning anyway.
Face it, Lance survived Stage 4 cancer: and enduring that treatment probably made the Alpe d'Huez seem like a joke by comparison.
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.