Geez, I thought MSNBC was your primary source of info.
Geez, I thought MSNBC was your primary source of info.
Alberto Contadoro wrote:
But, remember, he was the best among the dopers, the same is true among runners. The timespan 1990-2008 will be remembered as the blood doping era,
Blood doping is alive and well in distance running.
The fact that "friends" of Lance are coming forward to say that Lance showed them the correct ways to dope, begs the question. Does Lance have any "friends" that are involved in distance running? Is there any company that has remained loyal to Lance?
The key word in circumstantial evidence is EVIDENCE. Yes you can be convicted with any type of EVIDENCE.
There is a dangerous caveat about this case the
keyword 'evidence' we/public know that Lance
battled cancer how does the public know that his
medical condition was contributory to the 'doping
allegations'?
The drug accusation go back to before the cancer. Many believe that the drug use was the cause.
They go after Lance but let Lagat go. Why?
Is this why the USPS is broke?
Alberto Contadoro wrote:
The timespan 1990-2008 will be remembered as the blood doping era, but dont take anything away from the winners, except keep doping in mind when you compare times and world records.
If you don't think blood doping goes back a LONG time before 1990, you are naive. Maybe you were just talking about synthetic EPO?
Of course im not naive.
I know blood doping and also epo is widely used today.
And also blood doping before the 90s, but remember many also got sick from the transfusion, the technology is much better now when you can dilute already cleaned packed red cells.
With epo in the 90s things exploded. I witnessed it first hand.
Now in cycling the 50% crit limit and very frequent testing limits how far you can push it.
Even with expanders its hard to test below 50% if you race at 60.
I can mention from credible sources stories from the armstrong bus, he refuses to take the tests immediatly after finish stating dehydration, immediatly he goes to the trailer and infuse 1 liter of dextran solution to thin his blood before the test.
This kind of organization is hard to believe exist in running, the money is too little (unless you have nike sponsorship).
Now the blood passports limits what you can do, but it is only used with the top dogs.
If they also implement the 50% limit, the sport would be reasonably fair (not clean) at the very top.
Running lack the 50% limit, because they are afraid to loose interest if times drop.
In the 90s you could get a big edge by drugs, right now the edge is somewhat smaller.
J.R. wrote:
Well it's definitely a witch hunt isn't it, not surprising the brojos would jump all over it.
The fact that it's big news in the sporting world couldn't have anything to do with it, could it? Seems that NOT mentioning it would be amiss.
But not if the USADA was after them.
Moot point. There's zero hearsay they ever doped, so USADA would never be after them.
Alberto Contadoro wrote: I can mention from credible sources stories from the armstrong bus, he refuses to take the tests immediatly after finish stating dehydration, immediatly he goes to the trailer and infuse 1 liter of dextran solution to thin his blood before the test.
In a legal situation credible sources can easily be refuted by other more credible sources. The USADA knows they have no chance at a hard conviction but they persist. Either they know or they are incredibly poor attorneys.
Its All In the Game Yo wrote:
...Armstrong seems to have beaten the tests hundreds of times, and admitted dopers have also beaten numerous tests. So what kind of improvements might be made to the testing approach? I mean, fool me once, shame on you, fool me 500 times and maybe we should rethink things, no?
Bottom line: As this case proceeds, I think we should be watching it with a focus on the question of What can we learn from this that will help us do a better and fairer job going forward?
I think it's pretty clear they have learned things. Most convictions are not based on positive tests, since there is reportedly a whole cottage industry built around designing undetectable drugs, more rapidly clearing drugs, etc. Instead, they're doing it by receipts, testimony, and biologic profiles that are consistent with (but don't prove) doping. One of those alone, not much of a case. But you start having multiple people saying you did it, financial records, and abnormal blood work, that's a pretty strong case.
Having just done my grand jury duty, I can echo what someone else said about circumstantial evidence- it' still evidence, and isn't considered "2nd class" in the eyes of the law. The standard example the gave before considering cases was that if you see rain coming from the sky, that's direct evidence that it's raining. But if you come outside, the ground is soaked, and storm clouds are receding in the distance, that's circumstantial evidence that it rained. But both are quite compelling evidence that it rained.
snadybeaver wrote:
Alberto Contadoro wrote:The timespan 1990-2008 will be remembered as the blood doping era, but dont take anything away from the winners, except keep doping in mind when you compare times and world records.
If you don't think blood doping goes back a LONG time before 1990, you are naive. Maybe you were just talking about synthetic EPO?
Yeah...after all, Lasse Viren didn't become sick with all that blood manipularions. And that happened in the 70s
dd wrote:
I think it's pretty clear they have learned things. Most convictions are not based on positive tests, since there is reportedly a whole cottage industry built around designing undetectable drugs, more rapidly clearing drugs, etc. Instead, they're doing it by receipts, testimony, and biologic profiles that are consistent with (but don't prove) doping. One of those alone, not much of a case. But you start having multiple people saying you did it, financial records, and abnormal blood work, that's a pretty strong case.
Most convictions are based on positive tests. "Non Analytical positives" are both more difficult to prove and also more costly to prosecute. I do not consider it an accident that most of the non-analytical positives have been associated with government investigations (first BALCO, now Lance charges, some cases in Europe as well). Anti-doping agencies do not have the powers (subpoena powers, investigatory powers) nor the budget to pursue non-analytical positives on their own.
CliffsNotes
Vicki Huber should have an Olympic medal too when you remove the drug cheats.
Should one even trust these drug testers any longer? They make it hard to trust them.
dd wrote:I think it's pretty clear they have learned things. Most convictions are not based on positive tests, since there is reportedly a whole cottage industry built around designing undetectable drugs, more rapidly clearing drugs, etc. Instead, they're doing it by receipts, testimony, and biologic profiles that are consistent with (but don't prove) doping. One of those alone, not much of a case. But you start having multiple people saying you did it, financial records, and abnormal blood work, that's a pretty strong case.
Mr. Obvious wrote:Most convictions are based on positive tests. "Non Analytical positives" are both more difficult to prove and also more costly to prosecute. I do not consider it an accident that most of the non-analytical positives have been associated with government investigations (first BALCO, now Lance charges, some cases in Europe as well). Anti-doping agencies do not have the powers (subpoena powers, investigatory powers) nor the budget to pursue non-analytical positives on their own.
All I know is that without a 100% positive I don't think it would be right to strip Lance. Put an asterisk next to his name or watch his whole empire crumble on its own, but to convict without actual physical evidence (or an admission) seems a bit vindictive. If he actually has demons to live with then let him deal with them on his own. That can be as painful as anything else if he has actually been deceitful.
MarathonMind wrote:
All I know is that without a 100% positive I don't think it would be right to strip Lance. Put an asterisk next to his name or watch his whole empire crumble on its own, but to convict without actual physical evidence (or an admission) seems a bit vindictive. If he actually has demons to live with then let him deal with them on his own. That can be as painful as anything else if he has actually been deceitful.
So you don't think any non-analytical positives should ever be allowed or prosecuted? You do realize that would mean your favorite to represent the USA in London could include Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, Kelli White, and Christie Gaines.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Most convictions are based on positive tests.
Not sure that's true. I don't follow every case, but certainly a lot of high-profile cases that led to bans, admissions, or convictions, occurred without positive tests. I think the positive tests are often the small-fry that don't have the infrastructure/connections to help them evade positives. Confessions/bans/convictions that happened without positives that I can think of off hand are:
-1998 TDF, when the Festina team was caught with drugs in the team car. Richard Virenque ended up admitting guilt, multiple others left the tour, no positive tests.
-Marion Jones, never a positive test, but admitted to taking PEDs for years.
-Bjarn (sp?) Riis admitted EPO use years after his TDF win, and had his title stripped (although later added back, with an asterisk. Nice.
-David millar, sprinter in TDF, confessed to EPO use after used syringes were found in his place.
-Jan Ulrich, never a positive test, but bags of blood that matched his DNA were found in the big spanish doping case.
Bottom line, you don't need positive tests to get a ban/admission/conviction, but yes, it's harder to get some of the evidence unless you have investigatory/subpoena powers, so likely only the big-names will be targeted like this.
I think you need one of these:
