Lance Armstrong admits doping may have caused his testicular canceR

Lab Rate wrote:

Essentially, a hobby cyclist became famous and wealthy for cheating...and he is still making money off of his lie. Imagine a 2:20 guy making tens of millions of dollars off doping.

I think more like a 2:08 guy. Lance really was good. The other dopers lost hard to him.

sensodyne wrote:

Lab Rate wrote:

Essentially, a hobby cyclist became famous and wealthy for cheating...and he is still making money off of his lie. Imagine a 2:20 guy making tens of millions of dollars off doping.

I think more like a 2:08 guy. Lance really was good. The other dopers lost hard to him.

Yes. He was a pro triathlete while still a teenager, so...

casual obsever wrote:

That Lance was a drug cheat, was public knowledge in Europe after his positive tests in 1999. His positive EPO tests continued to be brought up in various newspapers too. Only some die-hard fans were still defending him here over ten years later.

And sadly, neither UCI nor USADA nor WADA ever dared to or could catch and ban him during his active years.

Everything tends to be "public knowledge we all knew" after the fact because everything looks so obvious with the current knowledge, but besides his corticosteroid positives for which there was a (madeup) TUE reason, I think L'Equipe was the first publication to write in 2005 about his EPO-positive A samples of 1999 with no confirmation B samples after he had retired from cycling, therefore there were only a few dubious links to M. Ferrari with no positives (not sure if there was actually one) even in his team between 1999 and 2005.

Historian Paul Dimeo writes that even the anti-doping officials became obsessed with the guy at some point, in 2007 or even earlier, evidently at least some journalists were obsessed also going through the USPS trash etc:

Here is the photo from the link above, LR could delete the clickbaitish link to the Twitter account

There were early indications coming from sports insiders like former US star Greg Lemond, when he learned of Ferrari and Lance, and reporters like David Walsh who expressed doubt as early as Lance's first victory in 1999. Fans might be forgiven though for believing in Lance's story before the 2004 book of Walsh and Ballester, LA Confidential (only published in French) and the 2005 L'Equipe article "Le Mensonge Armstrong".

With respect to the L'Equipe, of course they were the first to report it, with some speculating that L'Equipe had an inside man in the LNDD (French lab). In any case, it was irregular to include the sample IDs in the report, and that L'Equipe could get a copy of the report so quickly. This, coupled with independently getting access to Lance's doping control forms, allowed reporters to match the sample IDs to Lance. At that time, Dick Pound was a vocal critic of cycling and Lance, and would put a lot of public pressure on the UCI to control the doping in cycling, and particularly investigate Lance. WADA was still a young organization, and getting Lance sanctioned would have been a huge boost to their credibility and demonstration of their authority.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Zante wrote:

41:42 in that video is wild. Check out what's written on the road. In chalk you see in huge bold, "EPO LANCE" followed by "LANCE SUCKS" and "F*** LANCE." Wonder how the guy felt when he crossed over those.

Yeah, I saw it. Every year I pay attention to all the road graffiti. Phalluses are usually pretty funny when the race is getting “serious”, and the commentators grave.

EPO LANCE was huge, though. Hilarious that the French cameramen and producers chose an overhead shot in that segment. I was waiting for Basso to make some Italian gesture when Armstrong blew past him, bit he didn’t.

Isn't the big question is why were his drugs so much more effective than his competitors. Pretty much all of them have been implicated in doping scandels. Was he just doing 2x as much? Doing them closer to the event (not sure what the duration of the doses are)? Just had better drugs?

I am naive enough to believe that maybe half the IAAF 1500m field is clean and some EPO blows those guys. away. But you can go through those TDF top 10 lists and everyone was doping. How did Lance get the good stuff?

That's a great question. ? LA has never really said anything about how his program was more effective than any of his competitor's. In terms of drugs, he's admitted using a cocktail of EPO, HGH, testosterone & corticosteroids, but has never specified on any dosages used. The EPO, T & HGH was the popular stack with most of the dopers during that time.

LA has often characterized the T & corticosteroids as "low-octane" doping yielding a "1-2%" boost in performance and EPO as "high-octane" producing a "10%" boost. He implies the game changed when EPO became available in cycling and dopers transitioned from low-octane to high-octane doping. This is where he says he had no choice but to go "high-octane" in order to be competitive with the other dopers.

Here's more on that in an interview he gave to Neil deGrasse Tyson:

https://youtu.be/otO-claeQHQ

Aragon wrote:

Everything tends to be "public knowledge we all knew" after the fact because everything looks so obvious with the current knowledge, but besides his corticosteroid positives for which there was a (madeup) TUE reason,

As I said, it wasn't public knowledge after the fact, it was public knowledge in 1999. I was there. Let's not forget that the TUE reason wasn't just made up, it was also delivered after his positive tests.

So, had the rules been followed, he would've been banned right there in 1999, before ever winning a TdF.

A bit like Farah not opening the door to the tester in 2011, right when his winning streak began.

Tour de Dope wrote:

... when EPO became available in cycling and dopers transitioned from low-octane to high-octane doping. This is where he says he had no choice but to go "high-octane" in order to be competitive with the other dopers.

The problem with this Lance's version of the events is that even when he thinks that in 1993 he competed against "low octane"-peloton, rHuEPO became available in cycling in 1990 if not earlier, and a large portion of his '93 World Championships competitors were "high octane" and he still won despite the c:a 10 % disadvantage.

It follows logically that either he over-estimates the power of the wonderdrug or that he was so good natural talent/high responder to "low octane" products that as a semi-clean guy he was almost as good as the 50-60 % Hct guys if not better (in some races) or a combination of the two.

casual obsever wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Everything tends to be "public knowledge we all knew" after the fact because everything looks so obvious with the current knowledge, but besides his corticosteroid positives for which there was a (madeup) TUE reason,

As I said, it wasn't public knowledge after the fact, it was public knowledge in 1999. I was there. Let's not forget that the TUE reason wasn't just made up, it was also delivered after his positive tests.

So, had the rules been followed, he would've been banned right there in 1999, before ever winning a TdF.

A bit like Farah not opening the door to the tester in 2011, right when his winning streak began.

By "public knowledge" I meant only how widely acknowledged was it that Lance was a serial doper in - say - 1999, 2000, 2003 or 2007? Clearly more evident with each passing year when material about the PED use of cyclists (some of his former teammates) and other material piled up little-by-little.

The 2005 reference is only to you statement that Lance's "positive EPO tests continued to be brought up in various newspapers too" which not accurate at all (until 2005, and one can question how "positive" they were with no B-sample), which is clear if you had quoted the full sentence and I never contested that the 1999 corticosteroid case was public knowledge in 1999, but only what conclusions one should draw from the episode.

Of course the issue is mentioned in books and articles by Walsh and Ballester (with all the other minutiae relating to Lance's possible doping use), but for instance the cycling/doping book "Bad Blood" (2008) by Jeremy Whittle with a critical view of Lance doesn't bother to mention it at all, which is strange if it independently proved that since '99 it has been known that Lance was a PED-junkie.

Yes, even when it turned out to be a 100 % PED-use + a coverup, a valid question is should someone be sanctioned if a group of substances is tested for the first time and if there were dozens of his competitors who took it (26 positives at the '99 Tour)? Lance wasn't even the only one whose real "crime" was to forget to provide a medical certificate to the Medical Committee, because UCI left off the hook two other cyclists also who had the same offence.

EPO doping started in cycling around 1990. Those early to mid 90s Tours were a rolling pharmacy. So not surprising at all.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Wow. Wow. Wow. wrote:

If I ever thought something this stupid I would probably try to keep it to myself.

No this is incorrect, a study about 15 years ago found that elite male mountain bikers reported a way higher incidence of testicular issues.

Don't mind that crybaby, it's just someone who lost an argument with me somewhere else.

Everyone who rides knows no matter how good your saddle fits, you still take a lot of bumps to the nuts. Over the years it adds up.

Aragon wrote:

Yes, even when it turned out to be a 100 % PED-use + a coverup, a valid question is should someone be sanctioned if a group of substances is tested for the first time and if there were dozens of his competitors who took it (26 positives at the '99 Tour)? Lance wasn't even the only one whose real "crime" was to forget to provide a medical certificate to the Medical Committee, because UCI left off the hook two other cyclists also who had the same offence.

If you mean the 1999 corticosteroid testing, the riders and teams were given advance notice of the testing. "At the beginning of the 1999 Tour, UCI advised all teams that they would begin testing for corticosteroids."

In this case, sanctioning the 26 riders seems appropriate, at least by today's WADA standards. But that was 1999, the year after the Festina scandal, and the year before WADA, and the UCI was interested in restoring the image of cycling.

Conversely, I think there is no doubt that attempting to sanction any riders on the basis of the 2004 LNDD testing of 1999 urine samples would have broken several rules, as there was no B-sample (I think these were the leftover B-samples) and as after 5 years, the samples should have been destroyed, with the sole exception of being kept anonymously for research purposes, such as the LNDD retesting.

I know you've seen the CIRC report, and the UCI of 2012 found that the former UCI broke many of its own rules during the pre-WADA and early WADA years, to allow cyclists to continue to ride, with much of the anti-doping enforcement focused on limiting doping for the sake of the health of the athlete rather than preventing doping.

The CIRC report can be found at VeloNews:

rekrunner wrote:

the former UCI broke many of its own rules

Exactly my point. Just like the former IAAF. Both outrageously corrupt.

Aragon wrote:

The 2005 reference is only to you statement that Lance's "positive EPO tests continued to be brought up in various newspapers too" which not accurate at all (until 2005, and one can question how "positive" they were with no B-sample), which is clear if you had quoted the full sentence and I never contested that the 1999 corticosteroid case was public knowledge in 1999, but only what conclusions one should draw from the episode.

Straw man discussion - what for? Of course I didn't write that his positive tests were brought up in 1999.

casual obsever wrote:

That Lance was a drug cheat, was public knowledge in Europe after his positive tests in 1999. His positive EPO tests continued to be brought up in various newspapers too. Only some die-hard fans were still defending him here over ten years later.

1999: tested positive for corticosteroids (and got away with it)

Since 2005: his positive EPO tests from e.g. 1999 kept being discussed (I didn't repeat the timeline, but we all know it)

At least until 2012: some fans here were still defending him as clean (I said "over ten years later", 2012 - 1999 = 13)

In conclusion, there was nothing incorrect in my post, you just still enjoy attacking me.

Should have read: Of course I didn't write that his positive EPO tests were brought up in 1999.

why are you still talking about this past case? You should talk about the current dopers you let roam freely. for example ajee wilson

Bad Wigins wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

No this is incorrect, a study about 15 years ago found that elite male mountain bikers reported a way higher incidence of testicular issues.

Don't mind that crybaby, it's just someone who lost an argument with me somewhere else.

Everyone who rides knows no matter how good your saddle fits, you still take a lot of bumps to the nuts. Over the years it adds up.

Only someone who has ZERO clue about riding a bike would think you sit on your nuts. Your ignorance is eclipsed only by your penchant for sharing it.

Unreal.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

the former UCI broke many of its own rules

Exactly my point. Just like the former IAAF. Both outrageously corrupt.

There are similarities between the UCI's failures and IAAF's failures, but also big differences.

Similarly, the case of Lance is "a bit like Farah", but not more than that.