williamric

You're right, there seems to be lots of accidental doping in professional cycling

lol, I was being more tongue in cheek not touchy I did check on that doping and technically he was acquited (and the substance was taken off the banned list) because it was accidental.

Okay so sue me for one rider... He still didn't test positive from 1999 onwards and he admitted taking drugs then.

This line of argument doesn't hold water because his only line of recourse was to oppose the charges. If he had chosen to contest the charges then the case would have gone to an independent adribrator (that is the official process). So the assertion that he was going to be proven guilty no matter what is, at best, a guess / assumption. I am a Lance Armstrong fan (or I was) when he used to race. I have no doubt of his guilt (or rather I am 99.99% sure he is guilty). To me this had nothing to do with being a LA fan. Just about accepting reality.

Great comment, although the denials will still come...

That is incorrect Hincapie, Zabriski, Leipheimer, Andreu etc never ever tested positive for drugs. These are just a few of the names of cyclists who have admitted taking drugs but have never been caught. And guess whose team they were all on?

Yeah that would be such a simple and accurate solution. But I think people would still contest the results either way... someone would claim contamination or something I don't think this can ever be 100% confirmed until Lance just owns up... although I think the USADA report definitely proves it's case beyond a reasonable doubt

Yeah, I think my point was more along the lines that the Feds pulling out didn't really prove anything because their motives were most likely nothing to do with the case (i.e. motives were probably formed by Barry Bonds debacle, and consensus the most juries didn't care about doping in sport). Obviously alot of the evidence would overlap almost completely...

Yeah that would be ideal, but it requires consent (Which I highly doubt is going to come)...

Because you cannot re test samples without the riders consent... They have not officially re tested Lance's samples to test whether or not he doped. All they have done is test old sample for two reasons: 1. To assist with the development of an EPO test 2. To test the effectiveness of the EPO test on previous samples and what % of riders would test positive. This was anonymous (although it has been claimed that Lance's samples were almost entirely postive)

I'm still waiting for evidence of the re tests that were clear. You claim they exist, please substantiate your claim or retract it?

ummm... the attached says that his re-tested samples were positive, not clear? And it doesn't cite any other re-tests its just speculation. Please provide a report on the FBI re test samples?

Great, so please cite any scientific report where it states that Lance Armstrong's blood from 1999-2005 tests has been retested and found to be clear? This is going to be interesting...

Yeah and have they re-tested his blood and released the results? Again the misinformation is staggering, has anyone on this site actually read the USADA report? He only had like 200 tests not "thousands". The UCI was never part of the FBI case, and the FBI case was dropped for uncited reasons. If you read my previous posts you will see that the federal case was vastly different to the USADA case.

And some people refuse to accept the obvious... How many times do I have to reiterate that LOTS of people never tested positive but have later admitted doping? What about that do you not understand? "His performance never suddenly peaked or changed" ??? You joking right? Tour De France Results: 1993: Withdrew 1994: Withdrew 1995: 36th 1996: Withdrew Near death Cancer 1999-2005: First! Yeah, no major improvement...

Well first you have to seperate the different purposes of the USADA and the Federal courts. The charges in the Federal case against Lance Armstrong were criminal charges relating to defrauding the government. This was specifically in relation to whether or not he used US Postal money to purchase the drugs. The Feds dropped the case without pressing charges but this was largely in relation to the embarrassing defeat the Feds took in the Barry Bonds case (Barry Bonds has admitted using steriods, yet the Feds lost there case against him). So to put the Fed case in context it is important to note that most people believe the primary reason for the Feds dropping the case was nothing to do with Lance's guilt but more to do with the juries general lack of concern for doping. (You can check this out if you want)... Either way your reference to the Feds case is pretty empty since Barry Bonds wasn't convicted but later admitted to using drugs. The purpose of the USADA on the other hand was not to prove a criminal charge (i.e. they were not looking at whether or not LA used US Postal money to actually buy the drugs which is a hell of a difficult thing to prove) but just whether or not he doped. Therefore you cannot use the fact that the Fed threw out the case for the following 2 reasons: 1. The charges brought against LA by the two bodies were different and required vastly different types of evidence. 2. The Fed had recently come off an embarrasing case with Barry Bonds (who admitted guilt) which most people believe is the main reason they dropped the case.

What do Elton John and Lance Armstrong have in common? They both took regular shots to butt and deny they ever tested positive...

As I said, lots of cyclists never failed dope tests and later confessed to taking drugs. Further the UCI and WADA has admitted that testing up to 2006 had very limited success. Therefore, the fact that he never failed a drug test is not proof he never doped. Just proof he never got caught. However the testimony of 26 people (who were under subpeona, i.e. they didn't volunteer, they were legally obliged to testify) is real, and is more than sufficient to imply (read "prove") guilt. You cannot assert with any confidence that he was the best cyclist in the world at the time. Numerous tests have been done on the effect of doping on the human body and proven that the effect of drugs varies from person to person. In certain case studies the variation of the improvement experienced by cyclists was between 2% and 20%. Therefore some cyclists gained alot more from drug usage and others gained very little. This dispells the "they were all on drugs and therefore the playing fields were equal" argument. So in fact you cannot assert he was the best cyclist, only that he was the best doper, or that his body reacted best to the drugs. Lots of people have survived cancer. It doesn't mean they deserve special treatment.

Because the testing has improved dramatically in the last 6 years...

No but that's because speeding fines work differently... However it 26 people testified that you had murdered someone, then guess what? You going to prison buddy... The fact that he never tested positive is completely irrelevant, other cyclists who never never tested positive (including some of Lance's teammates) have admitted that they used drugs during the same period. So unless you can prove that the tests were effective (which you can't because hundreds of negative tests came up on doping cyclists) then the testimony of 26 people (all under subpeona) is more than sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Armstrong was guilty. It's unfortunate, as I was an Armstrong fan, but sometimes reality sucks...

Email sent

Hi All, I have an entry for 2, including all fees, rider transfer fee, and tented accomodation. R4,500 neg. Please let me know if you're interested or know someone who might be interested. Thanks

Hey All, Have an entry for a team in the 2 day race (3-4 Nov) which I can't use. R4500 neg (including tented accomodation), rider transfer fee and race fee (obviously). If anyone (and a friend) wants to take part please let me know asap, or if you know someone who might be interested? Thanks,