Skip to comments.How Did Lance Armstrong Avoid a Positive Doping Test?
Posted on 10/13/2012 4:13:16 AM PDT by GonzoII
The evidence presented in the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's 202-page report on Lance Armstrong's alleged years of doping, scheming, pushing and evading is, according to its authors, "beyond strong." Even so, the case against Armstrong doesn't involve any definitive failed drug tests, a fact that the former seven-time Tour de France winner has long used to shield his claims to innocence.
So if Armstrong is the inveterate doper the USADA claims he is, how did he manage to avoid an unambiguous positive test during more than a decade of pro cycling?
Below is a rundown of the doping practices the USADA accuses Armstrong of using, and an explanation of how, in each case, he might have covered his tracks for so long. [How Did Armstrong Get Busted?]
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....
(Excerpt) Read more at lifeslittlemysteries.com ...
Armstrong's critics have the perfect set-up...he can never “prove” his innocence and the critics can accuse endlessly.
I ask anyone to prove they did not take an injection years ago.
Having been in such a situation where to be accused is be considered guilty I can tell you it's maddening.
All those years and never a misstep.......how convenient for the accuser.
Ya know...I don't care what meds he was using...He wworked every day of his life at this, rode his butt off and won.
IMHO: They're all using something.
I wonder how much this investigation has cost, or perhaps wasted, is the better word. And who ends up paying for it.
"Plausable Range" meaning a level that an athlete could possibly have on their own without the need of a "boost"? A drug readily on the market and accessible to all cyclists?
Maybe that would explain how other riders were able to out distance Armstrong and win many of the TDF stages or at least keep up with him on the stages he did win - which in 2003 and 2005 was only one.
By gosh, that's it - they were ALL doped up!
Now that they've brought down Armstrong, I think it's time they go after Miguel Indurain......
In the years in question, that is absolutely true. Now there are probably some clean guys. The real mess comes in who will they give the 7 wins, another doper?
They have no actual proof but since everyone believes it it must be true. The only witnesses is his ex-wife and people who have a vendetta against him. Pretty weak case.
Pray for America
They are killing their own sport.
If Armstrong was smart enough to avoid getting caught, they all are and they are all dopers.
No one can be trusted and the sport and winning it is null and void.
This is the most stupid thing around , finding a man guilty because they think he was doping, but they cannot prove it.
Blood doping appears to be almost universal among professional cyclists. If one believes USADA. Based on sworn affidavits from cyclists, I could be a believer, but...
What do they propose as a solution? I haven’t seen anything other than a desire to go after US riders, which then leaves the US looking like a bad guy and in racing, at a distinct disadvantage to others.
If indeed they are “all doing it”, then it still comes down to who is the better rider and team tacticians as far as major wins are concerned. So, it appears to me that the rather benign efforts to marginally improve the bodies ability to recover from injury, and improve the oxygen holding capacity of the blood, are just factors of the competition. Not sure how this will all shake out, but it is beginning to look like the fed efforts to control Marijuana, leading to very high cost, and unintended consequences for absolutely no gain.
bikes are not equal, bats are not equal, balls are not equal, cars are not equal, athletes are not equal.
There's explicit mechanics and physics involved in sports....may the best mouse trap win.
And Mohammed Ali won because he could dance....really, really well. :-)
I’m still finding it hard to comprehend how a super doped up cyclist like Armstrong couldn’t have amassed a hundred mile lead over a 21 day, 2200 mile road course (2000,2005 TDF). And to only win one stage in each of those races is an embarrassment to the whole doping world......
Obsessions are like that. Someone selling a book can make an accusation, “How Did Lance Armstrong Avoid a Positive Doping Test?” in a headline and then offer their speculations as if it were “proof” of something.
No way he was using & passed 500+ tests.
Human nature sucks.
The 50 percent hematocrit criteria as indicating EPO use is not always reliable. One can have a >50% hematocrit due to living at altitude, or due to an asthmatic condition. An easy way to get a >50% value is to live an active lifestyle while living in a place like Leadville, CO (over 10,000 feet elevation).
USADA is partially funded by the ONDCP - Office of the National Drug Control Policy. So you're paying - the bill is due next April, on the 15th I think.
ALL of that was done for YEARS and not one positive or misstep?
What about his 30% larger heart? Training?
It is easy to find guilt when a Defendant is prohibited from producing a defense
THEY HAVE NO PROOF! They NEVER have had any. (Roger Clemens).
But sport is merely entertainment. If a 'Professional' athlete wants to increase his RBC count, take iron supplements, inject anabolic steroids, and he understands the risks, then let him. Isn't the goal bigger, faster, stronger?
I understand the inherent risks associated with these practices, and I wouldn't want to see young amateurs subjecting themselves to harm, but if a 'Professional' athlete wants to assume these risks for financial gain and to better entertain the people that like to see 500 foot home runs and 100 yards punts, and 400 yard drives, then let him. It's just entertainment. Don't take it so seriously that your head explodes.
How the witch hunt was conducted.
The entire article is built on “May”, “Could”, “If”, “Might”.
Sounds like they dreamed up ways someone might have beaten the tests then decided Armstrong must have done it.
Because after all, he kept winning, didn’t he?