Posted on 10/13/2012 4:43:34 PM PDT by Vision
I use that test on myself now, but since I'm not working I ask, "Would you bet your 401(k)?"
When it comes to doping and who did and who didn't that is a bet I'd not be able to make with anyone, except LeMond - and even that is not 100%.
Thank you for that offer, but no kindle. I’ll keep my eye out for an Amazon cheapie or make the guy in book mobile order it for me when he comes next week.
What apparently makes testing and detecting for EPO difficult is that it is out of the system after 24 hours, but its effect lasts for 14 days.
Nutmeg is about to read it.
I guess that about sums it up!
Let me say this, though. I work with French people all the time, and when the Dominique Strauss-Kahn scandal hit, they all said “Do not be so naive, (golux!) Yes, maybe something happened, but it was not rape. This (expletive) lying (expletive) immigrant (expletive) knew exactly who he was and is milking every drop in the media and through her lawyers.” I thought they were fools. Come to find out they were right: she WAS using his fame to advance her stature on false testimony. And we all recall the Duke Lacrosse case. And Tawana. AND I think it’s fair to say we all rather detest the underhanded USADA. So... You know what? Based on personal experience and my knowledge of Lance’s style, career, habits, leadership, personal history, innovations in training and racing... I still believe in him. Maybe he is a doper, maybe not. But I believe in him.
Actually, although Armstrong may have been given EPO to relieve chemotherapy induced anemia (I haven’t read his autobiography, but ask someone who likes books...) I can assure you that no pharmaceutical company would get involved with EPO enhanced blood counts in athletes. FDA and the European counterparts would be down on that company like a ton of bricks if that ever became known.
Also, Armstrong’s doctors would probably have been very careful prescribing any EPO more than absolutely necessary to combat a dangerous anemia. Reason: There has long been a suspicion that EPO could enhance tumour growth! Though, this was more of a suspicion than anything proven until 2007/2008. EPO is still given to cancer patients, but only in cases of severe chemotherapy induced anemia.
The evidence has already been presented and is out there on the net. It consists of a lot of testimonies, mainly by former team members. That is the evidence.
The so called Reasoned Decision also includes discussions about 3 times when Armstrong is supposed to have given positive samples. However, these cases have all been adjudicated in Armstrong’s favour already.
Finally, the Reasoned Decision also includes a mention of a theoretical analysis of the results of the previously posted blood data from 2009 - 2010. However, the analysis is not described in any depth, and there is no report included in the appendices (as far as I have been able to find).
Thus, given that all the data except the testimonies have already been put in front of the UCI and not lead to any conviction, the case rests on those 26(?) testimonies.
I’ve just read a few of them and they’re very, very convincing.
I haven’t read them so I take your word for it. However, USADA via lots of press leaks etc promised new physical evidence - none of that has been forthcoming.
(I didn’t believe they would have anything, but sometimes one just would like to be positively surprised by a governmental (or semi-governmental) agency.)
<>Thus, given that all the data except the testimonies have already been put in front of the UCI and not lead to any conviction, the case rests on those 26(?) testimonies.<>
and those accounting records showing payments from Armstrong to the now banned Dr Ferrari’s Swiss company for over a million dollars — and probably USPS dollars at that.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-lance-armstrong-paid-ferrari-more-than-dollar-1-million
Some of it’s in these links:
Takes a while to look-up each of the people mentioned, but plenty of stories, articles and damming stuff.
I think the accounting records would qualify as new physical evidence. I don’t know if that was previously known though. Seems especially damning since Armstrong claimed to have no professional relationship with Dr. Ferrari when that money was being paid to the doctor.
Thank you for a bit of sanity in the discussion.
That is a sane approach taken by someone who doesn’t have an ax to grind or a preconception, who is interested in the truth rather than in getting someone they hate.
I have no idea if Armstrong is guilty. I know a set of facts, and a lot of people’s opinions, and a lot of hearsay testimony (hearsay not in the legal sense, but in the sense that I have read what others said, I don’t have a chance to speak directly to the people, ask them questions, and judge their veracity for myself).
And of course, he is either guilty or not, and that is already true, regardless of what we know. We are trying to devine the past, but there is an objective truth, we just don’t know it.
To me, the overriding fact is that Cycling has rules, and those rules have an enforcement mechanism — much like every sport has rules and various enforcement mechanisms. And by the measure of those rules and those enforcement mechanisms, Armstrong was never found “guilty” of what he was charged with during his career. Just as a soccer player may be “known” to be dirty, but the ref never catches them, nor does it show up on video. We just are told by other players.
And many people here have claimed that everybody in the sport uses drugs. If you believe that, a LOT of people are using drugs but are never found guilty. So if they could now prove that he had certain drugs, and just missed it all those years, it wouldn’t bother me. I understand why the TDF might want to remove his titles if they decided he used drugs during their race, because they want to make sure everybody is scared of getting caught.
But, in my opinion, there is NO CALL for the USADA, an ‘arm’ of our government acting with our money but outside our laws and our control, to go after a guy after he is retired, who isn’t interacting with the USADA in any way, and to then think they can “strip” him of titles that are given out by other bodies.
What i don’t understand is the inconsistancy. If the argument was that Lance Armstrong, unique in the sport, cheated to win, gaining an unfair advantage, I could understand the outrage. But a lot of people who decided to take drugs, now complaining that Armstrong was better at it than they were? Crocodile tears.
And I guess the stories about Armstrong being a “crappy person” don’t bother me, because I’ve never been one to idolize athletes beyond their athletic achievement. I would guess that a lot of athletes are not people you’d like to know personally. I know people in other fields who are really good at things, and that can lead to being stuck up and boorish.
When trying to decide who is telling the truth, the key isn’t whether a guy got a big book deal. It’s how well what they claim matches reality.
When your claim is that you can’t explain your side, but instead people have to go read an entire book, it’s a cop-out. Offering a book is nice. Attacking people for not reading some book is lazy.
Explain how what you believe to be true fits into the reality of the world we live in. Answer the arguments. BTW, I’d say the same if some pro-Armstrong person was telling me I had to read a book Armstrong wrote.
Of course, you are free to argue that people should just read a book. But it isn’t part of the discussion, and doesn’t do anything for your point of view.
Isn’t that the real problem? IF you say you are banning drugs, but then set up a testing regime that people can apparently thwart easily, but which requires secrecy that greatly increases the risk for harmful side-effects, you pretty much eliminate the chance for those people who really don’t want to use drugs.
So people who believe that everybody does it should be mad at the cycling leadership, not one man. If every center charges and carries half the time, it would make no sense to just be mad at one guy who does it better than others. You need to go after the refs, and make the game fair.
If we are to believe every charge made in this thread, if Armstrong had NOT used drugs, he would have been at a tremendous disadvantage against all his teammates and challengers, wouldn’t have won anything, and we’d all have to be hating and trashing some OTHER person who won all the races while doped.
That’s a problem I see. Every person who follows the rules ends up like Scott Mercier, unless you fix the real problem — a testing regime that, if you believe what you read in this thread, is laughable.
It’s like having speed limits, but no radar, and you only get caught if you happen to speed right past a cop car. Then we all get mad because everybody isn’t driving the speed limit out of the pure ethical and moral requirement.
Given that a vast majority of people on a highway break the speed limit, even though they DO think there is a chance to get caught, is it a surprise that athletes, believing that MUST do drugs to win, and needed to win to earn a living, wouldn’t do so? And why then be mad at ONE of them, who already retired and therefore will never be part of the problem again?
Could we stop speeders if we picked some random speeder, and executed them? That is what we are trying here, hoping that if we can take just this one guy, because he is so well known, and punish him far beyond what was expected by the rules of the sport as he competed. If it works, the sport will be better off.
But I don’t know who put the USADA in charge of “saving” sports. I don’t find that in the constitution. And frankly, that is the argument that really belongs in a conservative political forum, but a lot of people just hate Armstrong and want you to read a book, instead of discussing the conservative political implications.
DING DING DING! We have a winner.
You just nailed it. IF everyone was doping, and Armstrong's team was just a little better at it and never got caught the whole witch hunt retroactive punishment is still a moot point.
Everyone seems to think Lance doped, and they all also say Everyone doped. So it is only fair that either Lance's records stand as he was never found guilty during his time racing or they just need to go back -- decalre a certain set of years as "THE DOPING PERIOD" and wipe out ALL THE RECORDS! period.
Have you read the USADA report???
Why not???
How can you possibly opine about what's in it and Armstrong's guilt or innocence if you haven't read it or excerpts from it???
There is nothing lazier than an uninformed opinion and that is what you are advocating and expressing.
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.