The plot thickens

[GrumpyGregry]

more likely most of us will shrug and sigh and say "see, it proves they were/are all dopers" which in a way, it will.

as for the long after the event +ve B sample, which was a fairly major 'smoking gun', I think it would be a splendid idea if journalists took over the oversight of drugs testing in sport. Guaranteed to be fair and balanced then.

 

[Chuffy]

Nit picking exactitude that falls short unfortunately. There were B samples. It was the B samples that they retrospectively tested. The A samples had been tested at the time (1999) so were obviously not available. The reason that the tests were not allowed as evidence were technical or procedural errors at the lab (IIRC - not a scientist I'm afraid).

I bow to my colleagues superior nit-pickery!
Basically they only had one lot of wee to conduct the retropective tests on so couldn't conduct a B test.

Wish I hadn't given away my copy of Lance to Landis as it dealt with this in some detail, including the way that the jourmalist managed to connect the samples with the riders they belonged to.

 

[Hont]

I bow to my colleagues superior nit-pickery!

I pride myself on my urine expertise.

 

[Chuffy]

I pride myself on my urine expertise.

And there was me just thinking you were taking the piss.

<exits with coat>

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Wish I hadn't given away my copy of Lance to Landis as it dealt with this in some detail, including the way that the jourmalist managed to connect the samples with the riders they belonged to.

from http://www.ergogenics.org/78.html

"However, L'Equipe said it was able to make the match. It printed photos of what it said were official doping documents. On one side of the page, it showed what it said were the results of EPO tests from anonymous riders used for lab research. On the other, it showed Armstrong's medical certificates, signed by doctors and riders after doping tests -- and bearing the same identifying number printed on the results. The lab statement said it had promised to turn over its results to the World Anti-Doping Agency "on condition that they could not be used in any disciplinary proceeding.""

 

[mangaman]

So, was Indurain a doper? Started as a no hoper, miraculous transformation to GC contender, dominated for years. Sounds like someone else.

If not, how do you build a team around someone so outstanding, capable of sticking with him, to get him onto the podium?

And if you are on a team where people in the teem cheat does that make you a cheat too in what is essentially an individual competition where the teams are subordinate?

They were all iffy from 1st to last.

The EPO era transformed cycling as it actually favoured some riders (those with a naturally low haematocrit will benefit than those with a higher natural haematocrit).

Mercxz / Hinauld et al took drugs that were largely ineffective and just gave a cheap power boost at a critical stage.

Indurain was a decent rider before his TDF winning run - he finished 17th then 10th in the years up to his 1st win - whichseems a natural progression.

He was surely the 1st to have been "done" by the EPO generation. I remember well Riis "cracking "him as well as Ullrich - both confessed dopers. Indurain is the last of the great champions of the sport for me- always the gentleman - amazing athlete - won 2 giros as well as the TDF.

I'd be amazed if he took EPO as it wasn't around at the start of his career, and he didn't have a sudden jump in performance like Riis did. He was just a consistant, superb athlete. And still is allegedly - rides a lot of sportives etc now apparantly.

 

[lukesdad]

Superb athlete my foot . Last time I saw him he was a fat git.

 

[Hont]

He was surely the 1st to have been "done" by the EPO generation. I'd be amazed if he took EPO as it wasn't around at the start of his career

Couldn't disagree more. IMO he was the first guy to really benefit from EPO. Guys as big as Indurain do not go up mountains as well as he did without chemical assistance.

"When I saw riders with fat arses climbing cols like aeroplanes, I understood what was happening."

- Luis Herrera

EPO first became available in 1987. After which time Indurain gradually becomes a tour contender (after abandons in 85 and 86). He beat Riis in 93 and 95 despite the fact that Riis has confessed to using EPO from 93-96. He won the Giro/Tour double twice which, as we see this year, appears to near impossible to do riding clean and I well remember him sprinting away from Lemond at a mountain top finish at Luz Ardiden in 1990. Shades of George Hincapie in 2005.

 

[Chuffy]

Mercxz / Hinauld et al took drugs that were largely ineffective and just gave a cheap power boost at a critical stage.

You're thinking of amphetamines. Riders of the Merckx/Hinault era would have been taking corticosteroids which help recovery. Not in the same league as EPO, but certainly not a one-shot power boost. Bernard Thevenet (TdF winner in 75 and 77) was on cortisone.

 

[User169]

Couldn't disagree more. IMO he was the first guy to really benefit from EPO. Guys as big as Indurain do not go up mountains as well as he did without chemical assistance.

"When I saw riders with fat arses climbing cols like aeroplanes, I understood what was happening."

- Luis Herrera

EPO first became available in 1987. After which time Indurain gradually becomes a tour contender (after abandons in 85 and 86). He beat Riis in 93 and 95 despite the fact that Riis has confessed to using EPO from 93-96. He won the Giro/Tour double twice which, as we see this year, appears to near impossible to do riding clean and I well remember him sprinting away from Lemond at a mountain top finish at Luz Ardiden in 1990. Shades of George Hincapie in 2005.

'87 sounds early to me. Epogen was only approved by the FDA in '89, although I suppose there might have been sources prior to that.

The Herrera quote is interesting - he made it in the context of giving reasons for retiring from pro-cycling. He retired in '92 which suggests that usage had become widespread in the early '90s.

 

[akaAndrew]

I strongly suspect that, even if LA is shown beyond all doubt to have been a doper, and it's surely just a matter of time, the large majority of his fans and general public will still admire him..

That might well be tarnished too, should this be true... he caused his own cancer!!

Not even I (or yello for that matter) could go quite THAT far but it is interesting to read what some people believe.

 

[Chuffy]

That might well be tarnished too, should this be true... he caused his own cancer!!

Not even I (or yello for that matter) could go quite THAT far but it is interesting to read what some people believe.

It's not just a punch drunk fighter's fantasy. There has been concern that there might be a link between PEDs and testicular cancer. Check out this abstract and note that their study started in 1990. Unsurprisingly, when Lance's cancer was diagnosed there were eyebrows raised because of this suspected link.

 

[johnr]

But won't the issues in this investigation be more legal/procedural that scientific/pharmacological? The risk to riders is getting done for perjury, not cheating. Presumably it'll need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but with witnesses piling in describing in detail what went on, LA's 'I was tested' defence will get thinner. I suppose what he has said on oath is the main issue.

 

[akaAndrew]

It's not just a punch drunk fighter's fantasy.

Sorry, yes, I know there's talk of a link and it's been researched etc. Plus, intuitively, one might make the assumption that frequent sticking of testosterone patches to your gnads isn't the best of things to go doing for your long term health BUT... even if LA were doing such things, I'd hardly go suggesting he got what he deserved. That's what I meant by going too far!

My veiled point really was that he'd definitely lose the sympathy and support of many people if it were the case.

Got to say though, it's not looking good for Armstrong at the moment. But I don't reckon he'll be the only one to fall. Just the one that'll make the headlines. To me, it seems the Feds investigation has a broader remit than just 'get LA'. He's just going to be caught in the cross-fire, as it were. A big catch in a related trawl.

Anybody read the forums on Cycling News? Blimey, you don't want to be a 'fanboy' over there! I thought I was a hater but I'm lilly livered compared to many of them!! Good source of info though. Since my recent conversion to the dark side of loving cancer, I've found out a lot of stuff (and read considered opinion) over there.

 

[akaAndrew]

But won't the issues in this investigation be more legal/procedural that scientific/pharmacological?

I've been pondering this very point. There's a great deal of conjecture about the fall of Livestrong/Armstrong etc but I don't really know exactly what the Feds are concentrating on (evidence wise), what they themselves will use in any charges brought and in the following trials etc. Their remit was (I thought) the use/misuse of federal funds within the US Postal Team. That will take them into the 'did USPS dope?' line of investigation but whether they'll really give a damn about exactly who did or didn't dope, or when or how, I just dunno.

It may well just be financial/legal charges filed by the Feds. Obviously, if LA is directly implicated then that will set off a chain of events. It would be interesting, to me at least, to know exactly what the Feds will do with any direct evidence of riders doping; if they'll make it available to UCI etc, or just sit on it.

...but all will be revealed in the fullness of time.