Cliff notes version of what USADA has on Lance Armstrong

In my opinion, not thoroughly researched, the non-analytical positives have primarily been in Europe, where they apparently have a more active police presence investigating doping in sports. In addition to the cycling ones you mention there was also at least one case in Cross Country skiing. In the USA I am only aware of non-analytical positives associated with the BALCO case, no others. When I look at the list of doping cases

and

it appears the positives tests vastly outweigh the other cases.

Citizen Runner wrote:

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.

This kind of organization is hard to believe exist in running, the money is too little (unless you have nike sponsorship).

. . .

Standard WADA/UCI/IAAF protocol states that the athlete must be 100% chaperoned between the time a test sample is requested and the time the sample is collected.

I was always of the opinion that Lance got some help in the late 90s following his cancer treatment. Whether advertantly or inadvertantly, the treatment itself involved procedures that increased red blood cells and muscle recovery. I was also of the opinion that virtully all of the top riders were doping at that time. It is difficult to impossible to believe Lance doped his way to 7 TDFs, especially when the last couple of victories involved an all of effort to catch him. At one point, Lance was the most tested athlete in the world, he was under constant surveillance, plants in his training group, people searching through his trash, etc., and he was constantly fighting off acusations. During that time, Lance would have to have been the most arrogant, stupid or intelligent athlete on the planet if he was doping.

Contary to what some people believe, Lance did not dope his way to an incredibly successful career, biomedical tests have pointed out that he was blessed with an almost perfect physiology for cycling and he trained like an animal. I seriously doubt -or better stated, Lance would have to have been crazy if he was doping in 2009/2010 as the repost suggests. At that time he was under investigation, he had the full weight of Nike, NCF and his LiveStrong brand behind him; the risk fa outweighed the rewards. A couple of years ago, I watched Lance run a 2:46 marathon about 20 lbs overweight, a horrible gait and with the training of a hobby jogger...perhaps he was doping then perhaps Lance is a very unique individual.

I suspect Lance did dope at some, pehaps over a decade ago. They should have caught him then; USADA can't make up for past mistakes by coming up with degress of separation and guilt by association...you can't use a tiny hook to catch a big fish.

Don't agree with your reasoning. Sounds naive. Frequent testing only increases chance of catching the unlucky cheaters doesn't guarantee of catching one. But can you provide the source that says "biomedical tests have pointed out that he was blessed with an almost perfect physiology for cycling"?

It's going to be really interesting who the other riders testifying are. Hamilton and Landis have obvious credibility issues, but if one of the other riders testifying against hime is Hincapie or Leipheimer, it's game over for Lance.

TrackCoach wrote:

Contary to what some people believe, Lance did not dope his way to an incredibly successful career, biomedical tests have pointed out that he was blessed with an almost perfect physiology for cycling and he trained like an animal.

Which biomedical tests pointed this out? I assume you are referring to the Coyle tests? Do you realize those have been thoroughly debunked? You might read this series of posts:

Dingler wrote:

It's going to be really interesting who the other riders testifying are. Hamilton and Landis have obvious credibility issues, but if one of the other riders testifying against hime is Hincapie or Leipheimer, it's game over for Lance.

Hincapie announced his retirement on Monday. I don't think it is a coincidence.

Someone else might have said this but USADA is playing a little fast and lose with words.

interviewed Dr. Martial Saugy, Director of the Lausanne Anti-Doping Laboratory which analyzed the urine samples from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. Dr. Saugy stated that Lance Armstrong's urine sample results from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland were indicative of EPO use.

Dr. Saugy says that this is not what he said, and while there are subtleties in the differences, USADA understands those differences completely. Yet, this is the document and the wording that they chose to use. The inference I draw is that I cannot take at complete face value anything that USADA says in their material. Rather, each piece of it needs to be verified and broken down in the administrative process. If the USADA continues to want to present their material as saying what they want rather than what it does say, the legal people involved will penalize them to a degree by discounting what they assert.

So, that raises the question, why are they presenting a marketing document and not a fully legal one? This is at least partially PR. They are entitled to their opinions and their are entitled to their interpretations, but they are not entitled to the facts.

Personally, I think Lance has probably used stuff. Personally, I do not think anyone has yet presented a case that is convincing within the administrative structure of the WADA code, although USADA seems likely (but not highly likely?) to change that.

26mi235 wrote:

Someone else might have said this but USADA is playing a little fast and lose with words.

interviewed Dr. Martial Saugy, Director of the Lausanne Anti-Doping Laboratory which analyzed the urine samples from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. Dr. Saugy stated that Lance Armstrong's urine sample results from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland were indicative of EPO use.

I agree that they are playing a little bit sloppy. I did not like the inclusion of the TdS samples. Without further explanation the "“fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions” in 2009-10 may also not be relevant. Sounds like they are suspicious but not enough for an actual analytical charge (although that is me reading into the statement).

A lot of this doesn't add up. Let me show my own stupidity.

It is well known that Lance is very intense and probably not all that well-liked by his fellow cyclists. I don't put a lot of credibility in these people accusing him - I mean is there any reason to believe anything Tyler Hamilton has to say?

He did pass 500 tests. You would think something would have had to come up.

Why only go after him?

And, I am probably a bit of a dunce on this, but whenever I think about this, I just don't see why he would have any reason to cheat, beyond maybe his first victory or two. Think about it, you have become an unbelievable story to come back from cancer and win the tour. What you have to gain from winning more and more tours is fairly small compared to the risk of getting caught and bringing your whole world down. I just don't see how it would have been in his self interest to cheat beyond maybe the first couple of wins.

And, it seems like they are accusing him of cheating during his comeback tries. To cheat then and get caught would have been so stupid... and I don't think anyone has every accused him of being stupid.

Finally, what right do they have to ban him from triathlons? This is an accusal, right? Shouldn't he have a presumption of innocence?

I don't know, I don't know who the witnesses against him are, so I am refraining from making assumptions about their credibility.

Well, at the very least a few suspicious tests have come up. Not enough to charge him with a positive test. Personally I don't think passing tests mean very much. Lots of people have passed lots of tests while doing lots of drugs.

They are not only going after him. They have named four other people as well. These people are either recently or currently active in cycling as team managers/consultants/doctors.

While I agree it does not make much sense for Lance to cheat, especially in his comeback, when you apply a rational plus/minus calculation to it, I do believe that he is very arrogant. We have seen other athletes show an extraordinary amount of arrogance in similar situations (Bonds, Clemons, Palmeiro, Jones), so I don't think that is a heavy factor one way or the other.

Just to be clear, USADA cannot ban him from Triathlon. Triathlon, both WTC and ITU, are signatories to the WADA code. Their athletes sign, as a condition of participation, acknowledgments that allow such provisional suspensions. WTC, as a signatory to the WADA code, is obligated to suspend in such circumstances. Other sports, such as NFL, which choose not to sign the WADA code can design their own testing protocols, rights guarantees and procedures, and penalties.

I am going to get 10 of my friends to say we never saw Lance dope to balance the investigation. And we could pass lie detectors too!

If they didnt find anything in his samples then this is just a witch hunt.

Anti dopers are turning into a Grand Inquisition.

When will they start water boarding people for confessions lol.

The evidence against Armstrong was too weak in court, so the Feds gave the 'evidence' to USADA to try its own case with lower standards for evidence and decision. The only thing this will succeed in doing is preventing us from taking some interest in the triathlon season this year. Why persecute the man further when even the Feds could prove nothing in court?

wha huh? wrote:

I am going to get 10 of my friends to say we never saw Lance dope to balance the investigation. And we could pass lie detectors too!

You could say that for any legal or doping case ever.

You certainly could...hence someone saying someone did something isn't anymore proof than someone saying they didn't.

in the heat of the morning wrote:

wha huh? wrote:

I am going to get 10 of my friends to say we never saw Lance dope to balance the investigation. And we could pass lie detectors too!

You could say that for any legal or doping case ever.

insiders info wrote:

Many believe that the drug use was the cause.

care to mention any of those "many" who believe that besides yourself?

In high school I learned that you shouldn't be an a**hole on anonymous message boards.

You are correct on all counts. Lance is also not the type of athlete the powers that be want to promote, he's not PC enough. Similar to the media lambasting Tebow. Who cares if he's a Christian or whatever? The same folks. I'm an atheist but I realize that anything Christian (especially Catholic) isn't PC. No siree. That's as un PC as having a super athlete that looks like Armstrong. It ain't Kosher these days.

testing results from 200fricking1?!?!? They are clearly grasping at straws.