Armstrong clean at 2009 tour

I wouldn't consider Lance clean in 2009 after years of doping. The effects of doping don't just vanish when you stop doping. Muscle stays for a long time.

jaxduke wrote:

After all his admissions Lance has nothing to gain by lying about 2009. So perhaps the 2009 tour was a race where a clean Armstrong got beat by a dirty rider.

If you knew anything about the law you would understand why he can't admit to doping in 2009 but he can admit to doping in 2005.

Don't be foolish, Lance was very likely lying about not being doped during the 2009 and 2010 Tours.

Please explain.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

jaxduke wrote:

After all his admissions Lance has nothing to gain by lying about 2009. So perhaps the 2009 tour was a race where a clean Armstrong got beat by a dirty rider.

If you knew anything about the law you would understand why he can't admit to doping in 2009 but he can admit to doping in 2005.

This ^

The idea that he was clean in 2009 is beyond laughable. Anyone who holds such a view simply cannot be considered a fully functioning human being.

rAMjAM wrote:

Please explain.

Ummm...ever heard of something called a statute of limitations?

status of limitation?

The USADA reason decision document contains a discussion about how Armstrong's blood parameters (reticulocyte and plasma levels) from the 2009 and 2010 Tour are consistent with autologous blood doping.

This ^ wrote: The idea that he was clean in 2009 is beyond laughable. Anyone who holds such a view simply cannot be considered a fully functioning human being.

Explain. Provide a list of your qualifications.

Armstrong wasn't very well prepared yesterday.

He pointed out that doping became more and more difficult around 2005 because the Bio Passport works so damn well.

And in 2009/2010 his Bio Passport data proves doping with an error of margin of less than 1 in a million, according to the USADA.

There are some good charts on the internet. They had his data from the Giro where his Hct goes down during the 3 weeks and during the tour, there are sudden spikes.

So, in other words, he didn't get any EPO or blood transfusion during his preparation in Italy (GIRO) but during the Tour, he did.

Reason for this may be that Italy has one of the strictest anti doping laws. No kidding.

jaxduke wrote:

After all his admissions Lance has nothing to gain by lying about 2009. So perhaps the 2009 tour was a race where a clean Armstrong got beat by a dirty rider.

Lance has a lot to gain by lying about 2009. He wants people to believe that he was fast without PEDs. If he could come in third in 2009 without PEDs then he could still win a bunch of Tours in his prime even without PEDs.

That >< wrote:

This ^ wrote: The idea that he was clean in 2009 is beyond laughable. Anyone who holds such a view simply cannot be considered a fully functioning human being.

Explain. Provide a list of your qualifications.

Eat me. Please take your sub-human "mind" in for an upgrade.

Justin91 wrote:

If he could come in third in 2009 without PEDs then he could still win a bunch of Tours in his prime even without PEDs.

I wouldn't necessarily come to that conclusion. Because during his prime, everyone else was also drugged up. By 2009, doping was a lot more difficult.

But yeah, he was dirty in 2009, too.

2010 in the preparation, too. Of course. But during the Tour he fell early and lost all his chances early so I am not sure if it was still worth the risk for him...

rAMjAM wrote:

Please explain.

He can't really be prosecuted for things that happened before 2005 but he can be prosecuted for doping in 2009.

Cycling guy wrote:

Justin91 wrote:

If he could come in third in 2009 without PEDs then he could still win a bunch of Tours in his prime even without PEDs.

I wouldn't necessarily come to that conclusion. Because during his prime, everyone else was also drugged up. By 2009, doping was a lot more difficult.

Fair enough, but let me put it this way. If an old clean Lance could come in third, then Lance at his prime could clearly win Tours as long as the playing field is level.

Earth to Justin: Lance was not clean in 2009!

Regarding the "level playing field" argument: do just a wee bit of research and no one, other than Lance or doping apologists, believes PED use levels the playing field.

buy a vowel wrote:

Earth to Justin: Lance was not clean in 2009!

Regarding the "level playing field" argument: do just a wee bit of research and no one, other than Lance or doping apologists, believes PED use levels the playing field.

Read the whole thread. I do not think Lance was clean in 2009. Rather, I was pointing out that Lance has a motive to make people think he was clean in 2009. He's fighting to salvage some of his legacy.

My apologies.