BTW play the video
Those tests were in his pre-cancer days. He was a nobody back then and no one would have covered his *ss at that point.
The only thing that amazes me anymore about Lance is how elaborate his doping program was and that he never got caught sooner.
What amazes me is that some people still respect him?
According to rumors on the Cycling News forum, this is the watered-down version. The orginal article was also going to cover the financials of Livestrong... .com vs. .org, plus some stories of "hookers and blow."
Not sure if he'll ever get convicted of any charges, but I'm guessing the myth will, at minimum, get unravelled.
Not much information in this link, and sources a la "someone said" etc are not going to take him down. Yes, there are dozens of people who claim that they know that he doped and some (old) positive A samples, but a positive test is A+B.
While I believe that he doped (much like everyone else), I still admit there is no proof. And I doubt there will ever be.
Nothing new there and certainly nothing tying doping DIRECTLY to Lance. All the connections are to his teammates most of whom have been busted and trying to reduce their sentence. Even the Olympic testing group could not replicate their original tests using the same sample.
I am not sure that there will be witch to place upon that burn pile the French have had reserved for Lance for many many years. The witch hunt will soon be over due to a lack of evidence.
Dogman, sorry to break it to you. But "Santa" was really your mom/dad/wife in a red costume. Can't produce the evidence 'cause they covered it up pretty good... just take my word for it, ok?
Do you believe in Santa Claus? He is more guilty than Marion Jones.
At first glance I thought this article was going to finally provide some strong solid evidence and once again I was disappointed. Why even bring this heresay to publication it really just looks like poor investigating and journalism. And all at the tax payers expense.
Thanks for the enlightening article SI.
I respect the guy. He was the greatest tour rider of his generation. He stood as an American on the podium in Paris. But I also don't harbor illusions that any of the world's top cyclists are clean. Haven't been for decades and that's not really a problem for me. If Lance wants to spend all his money denying that, than it's pretty much his problem. Might as well deny that the sky is blue.
Nike reality check wrote:
What amazes me is that some people still respect him?
I thought Selena was dead? But, she was from Texas.... maybe she knew too much or she faked her own death to avoid Lance's wrath.
Gotta love the fanboys who still think there's "insufficient evidence" linking Lance to doping. It's like- one of the world's leading anti-doping scientists- Dr. Caitlin's opinion means nothing to them. Yup, the same Dr. Caitlin Lance hired to prove he was clean is saying he doped.
Now quick little Lance Elves! Quickly now! Or people will soon catch on that all's not well... why is Santa riding to the South Pole!
There has already been one judicial proceeding in which Armstrong prevailed against doping claims in 2005. Armstrong and his team owner bought a $5,000,000 performance insurance policy from SCA based on his TdF wins, which SCA refused to pay on the grounds that Lance had doped. After a full-blown private judicial proceeding it was held that there was no credible evidence of Lance doping and SCA had to pay the $5,000,000 plus court fees and penalties.
So Lance had a T/E ratio of 6.5/1 in June '96 (1/1 being normal). That's an unusual reading:
- 1 year after he started seeing Dr. Ferrari
- 1 month after he won the '96 Tour du Pont over Tony Rominger (also a Dr. Ferrari client, fresh of the World Hour Record in winter '95)
- 4 months before he received his cancer diagnosis
It's a big myth that '98-'99 was his big year of improvement. That was clearly '95-'96, shortly after he started seeing Ferrari.
Wrong on the SCA case... the SCA case was thrown out based on the grounds that there wasn't a clause in the contract stipulating doping should exclude payment. Not because there was insufficient evidence LA doped. It was a contract law issue.
I am not saying he doped or not, but these revelations are nothing new. After having spent nearing a year investigating Armstrong the case will quietly be closed due to lack of credible evidence. To bring down Armstrong they would have needed much better evidence rather than innuendo and hearsay. This will end up being a big waste of the taxpayers money.
Frankenstrock wrote:
Dogman, sorry to break it to you. But "Santa" was really your mom/dad/wife in a red costume. Can't produce the evidence 'cause they covered it up pretty good... just take my word for it, ok?
Please show me DIRECT Links to Lance. Not his teammates, but LANCE!
None? Oh, well then i would would like a Daisey BB gun for christmas.
Dogman,
This is a good place to start if you would like DIRECT links to Lance:
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2009/11/8-things-on-lance-armstrong-from-other.html
Also, you should research the Greg Strock story.
& Enjoy the SI article, and what the Feds will add in a few months! :)