Lance Armstrong?

Discussion in 'Pro Cycling (Road and Track Racing)' started by Kovu, 27 Aug 2007.

  1. Kovu

    Kovu Über Member

    I'm sure this might have been a topic before, but I have never seen it so I thought i might bring it up. I recently read Lance Armstrong's book 'Its not about the Bike' and it brought up many relations about when he was accussed of taking drugs. I researched it a little more and found quite a few intersting things about it. I personally don't think he took them, but what do you guys think about it?
  2. Will1985

    Will1985 Über Member

    South Norfolk
    I don't think that he doped at all. His cancer obviously had a positive effect on his physique and mental attitude.
    Also, you can look at Tiger Woods with his different attitude towards training for golf as a reason for his massive success - there is no reason why it cannot be the same for Armstrong with his attitude towards training and the team which was built up around him (I would use this argument to defend his first couple of wins, but once other teams caught up he must have had to pull something new out of the hat).
    The same can be said for England's 2003 Rugby WC success - they employed sports science techniques and sports psychologists when the other teams didn't; having the mental edge is often touted as the difference between winning and losing.

    Recently I have been thinking about something - Armstrong and Contador have both had brain surgery, and I wonder if that may have had any influence on other things. (Don't attack me on this, because it is just a question and I doubt any amount of current medical expertise could ratify or reject it.)
  3. Smokin Joe

    Smokin Joe Legendary Member

    Recent tests on Armstrong's blood samples from the 1999 tour using modern methods showed evidence of EPO. As there is an eight year statue of limitations on doping offences it was not investigated further. Several people have made statements claiming that Armstrong privately admitted to doping, how true that is no one knows.

    If he was, he wasn't doing anything all his rivals weren't doing too. We are talking about an era when doping was the norm rather than the exception, and taking them merely meant you stayed on a level playing field.
  4. Jonathan M

    Jonathan M New Member

    I read an interview with him in a freebie gym magazine, probably lifted from a US equivalent. He refused to be drawn on any questions about doping, but then unless he does a Riis in the future, he can't, can he? And that isn't saying that I think he has doped, but I'm open to the idea of any pro cyclist doping.
  5. yello

    yello Legendary Member

    Whether he did or he didn't is not important to me now. He's SO last year darling.
  6. MichaelM

    MichaelM Veteran

    Just off the top of my head....

    He consistently beat Ulrich, Pantani, Basso, Mayo, Vinokourov, (possibly Millar in the TT's too?).

    Team members included Landis, Hamilton, Heras.

    Must have been bloody good to beat that lot every year for seven years.
  7. OP

    Kovu Über Member

    I think that is irrelavant to the whole topic there. I am not discussing that in way or form. I am merely inquiring what the seven winner of the Tour (without doubt has been said as one of the greatest) did drugs or not. I talked with some friends of mien about Tom Simpson the other day, his death was 40 years ago, and that was about drugs.
  8. ufkacbln

    ufkacbln Guest


    The interesting claim that the samples were positive is unsound to say the least.

    The tests were carried out on anonymous samples independent of the LAb's normal practice to "validate a test". Leaving aside the possibility of fale positives that can occur in these validations, someone from the UCI "just happened" to have a list of names that showed these samples were Armstrong's, and of course there is no "B sample" testing to prove the positive result.

    Using this report to suggest something that fails to meet any professional standard and shows a complicity between the Lab, the UCI and the press is unacceptable.

    One could even question the motives of each of these participants, and what they gained from this debacle.

    If he doped, then let's prove it legally and with good professionally obtained evidence, not this unsound, devious, machiavellian tripe.
  9. starseven

    starseven Guest

    Quite, and you can bet they all shared the same diet etc.

    He could only compete in the sport as it was, what more could he have done?
  10. Dave_1

    Dave_1 Senior Member

    In August 2005 the LNDD WADA approved Lab did a study of 40 or so urine samples left over from the 1998 and 1999 Tour De France and a clever journalist managed to get the dope control forms from the UCI for the 1999 TDF by asking for Lance´s persmission to go to the UCI HQ to a D Zorzoli and get the control forms to check Lance TUEs-theraputic use exemptions from 1999. Lance gave his permission and Zorzoli was tricked by the journo who then was able to compare the numbers on all of Lances control forms with the samples that LNDD tested...and Armstrong came up positive 6 times out of 14 days...5 were mountain stages and one was the prologue time trial, though there was a negative on the Besancon TT he some it looked like EPO micro dosing as Lance was under the limits of isoforms-electrical charge% in urine I think- on the other days and over the limits on 6 days. The problem was that only Lance´s B samples were tested as the A samples had been used up in the year 1999...LNDD was only supposed to be doing a blind test of its new EPO urine test for WADA, who had commissioned LNDD to do this work in refining their own EPO urine test...the question was how did a Lequipe journo get the bacode numbers from Lance samples to match with the control forms? It looked like WADA did a number on Lance, or LNDD working with Lequipe. The cred of all was damaged. I am not hugely confident in Armstrong but there is no proof he doped
  11. yello

    yello Legendary Member

    Chill Kovu. You asked "what do you guys think about it?" I gave my opinion.
  12. Tetedelacourse

    Tetedelacourse New Member

    Aye calm yer breeks Kovu.

    I would like to believe that Uncle Lance was clean, but I simply cannot believe that any more. Seven consecutive victories in the world's greatest bike race, which is known to have huge associations with drugs, and those seven wins sandwiched in between Festina and OP. Plus as Joe pointed out almost every single one of his major rivals AND main team mates has been exposed.

    I'm not sure how much I believe about the retrospective testing, but the above makes it impossible for me to believe he was clean.

    That said I acknowledge that there is no actual evidence that he did, only circumstantial, but in pro cycling, for me that's enough these days.

    One of the greatest bike riders in history? Yes, absolutely. But not clean. Just like, IMO, Merckxx, Anquetil, Hinault and Indurain.
  13. steviesch

    steviesch Senior Member

    no one has mentioned Dr Ferrari...and why should they?!
  14. niedermeyer

    niedermeyer New Member

    I'm sure you're being 'ironic' but in case the OP isn't aware .......
    Because anyone (like Lance) who places his medical programme in the hands of Dr Ferrari has to automatically become suspect, given the man's almost open advocacy of supervised doping programmes. Armstrong's shameful bullying of Simeoni when the latter dared to testify against Dr F is further circumstantial evidence. Armstrong sticking the knife into Bassens in 99 when he was trying to expose systematic doping is another black mark. We also have the testimonies of former team-mates Vaughters and Andreu, the team soigneuse and others that Lance was less than clean. Andreu has admitted doping himself during his time on USP, and as GT racing is essentially a team event, then even if he did not use himself (and I think it takes a very stubborn refusal to see the truth to believe that in light of the tests on the 99 B samples) then Armstrong certainly benefited from others' use.
  15. niedermeyer

    niedermeyer New Member

    Well, unless he comes clean, there's about as much chance of that as legally proving OJ Simpson guilty. But I know what I think about OJ, and the weight of circumstantial evidence against LA certainly influences my thoughts regarding his bona fides.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice