stringbean Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) All is not pointless,remember 10 years ago there was no test for epo ,if you were above 50% you were presumed to be on something.3 years ago there was no test for cera and they also only now have a way of testing for actovegin.With all these new test it makes me wonder why LA is soooo opposed to them retesting his blood and urine from 10 years ago. Edited June 14, 2012 by stringbean
petatodd Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Because he cheated and lied about it. SwissVan must be feeling a real idiot this morning having believed and defended these lies for so long...
Mackie Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Like EPO through the bloodstream, these are the days of our lives...
SwissVan Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Because he cheated and lied about it. SwissVan must be feeling a real idiot this morning having believed and defended these lies for so long... What the matter?Cant u read??
Mackie Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 All is not pointless,remember 10 years ago there was no test for epo ,if you were above 50% you were presumed to be on something.3 years ago there was no test for cera and they also only now have a way of testing for actovegin.With all these new test it makes me wonder why LA is soooo opposed to them retesting his blood and urine from 10 years ago.How long can you keep blood and piss for?
Cyclewizz Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 The "pharmacists" are way ahead of the testing authorities - way ahead.They also know how to beat the tests and what to take to hide certain chemicals. The testing authorities are always on the back foot.
Tubehunter Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) All is not pointless,remember 10 years ago there was no test for epo ,if you were above 50% you were presumed to be on something.3 years ago there was no test for cera and they also only now have a way of testing for actovegin.With all these new test it makes me wonder why LA is soooo opposed to them retesting his blood and urine from 10 years ago. Because his samples passed the testing protocol then! Again as mentioned, most know that ALL of the riders in the TdF will be on some cocktail, but the testing protocol is about 7 to 8 years behind in tracking the way the riders are elevating their levels of various substances within their bodies to the allowed limit rather than whatever their own natural and clean levels are. This is what this hunt is all about. Was LA over the limits at any time? No, or he would've been bust years ago if this was the case. Was he on stuff and likely still is. For sure. Are all the other competitors too. Yep. Are some of them not meticulous in how they do it and get bust. Yep. Why can't he come out and just claim this? The fragile relationship between all the sporting codes and WADA would crumble if this well known practise was open in the public domain from big event champions beating their arcaic 'one size fits all' system. What is the real problem here actually? WADA's testing protocol and the way they have a uniform baseline for various substances that is elevated from almost everyone's natural quantities, so that they can check when these are beyond their limits and make sure they have not just crucified someone with a genetic disposition towards a natural elevation in some substances. What has this done? It's put every pro athlete in a position where they have to get on something that takes their own natural to just under the WADA limits. What is the best way for WADA and USADA to attempt to get some credibility? You guessed it! Nail LA and strip him of his titles! Which is why this wont ever go to sleep until they have him.... Parting thought. Why only him though? If they charge the whole peloton and find them all guilty they'll only prove how ineffective they are at actually doing their job! Edited June 14, 2012 by Tubehunter
TNT1 Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Most interesting story about Lance I read today: Armstrong says that in 2005 he and about a dozen of his team's backers discussed buying the Tour while meeting in a private room at Spago restaurant in Palo Alto, Calif.He says he raised the subject again in March 2010 in Murcia, Spain, with Arnaud Lagardere, chief executive officer of the media company Lagardere SCA, which owns 25 percent of Editions. Armstrong says the talks went nowhere because of the cost of a controlling stake in Editions, which he estimated at up to $1 billion."It would need a big number for the Amaury family to be interested in selling," Armstrong says.Armstrong says that in 2005 he and about a dozen of his team's backers discussed buying the Tour while meeting in a private room at Spago restaurant in Palo Alto, Calif.He says he raised the subject again in March 2010 in Murcia, Spain, with Arnaud Lagardere, chief executive officer of the media company Lagardere SCA, which owns 25 percent of Editions. Armstrong says the talks went nowhere because of the cost of a controlling stake in Editions, which he estimated at up to $1 billion."It would need a big number for the Amaury family to be interested in selling," Armstrong says.
scotty Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) Most interesting story about Lance I read today: Armstrong says that in 2005 he and about a dozen of his team's backers discussed buying the Tour while meeting in a private room at Spago restaurant in Palo Alto, Calif.He says he raised the subject again in March 2010 in Murcia, Spain, with Arnaud Lagardere, chief executive officer of the media company Lagardere SCA, which owns 25 percent of Editions. Armstrong says the talks went nowhere because of the cost of a controlling stake in Editions, which he estimated at up to $1 billion."It would need a big number for the Amaury family to be interested in selling," Armstrong says. Armstrong says that in 2005 he and about a dozen of his team's backers discussed buying the Tour while meeting in a private room at Spago restaurant in Palo Alto, Calif.He says he raised the subject again in March 2010 in Murcia, Spain, with Arnaud Lagardere, chief executive officer of the media company Lagardere SCA, which owns 25 percent of Editions. Armstrong says the talks went nowhere because of the cost of a controlling stake in Editions, which he estimated at up to $1 billion."It would need a big number for the Amaury family to be interested in selling," Armstrong says.So he repeated himself Edited June 14, 2012 by scotty petatodd 1
gtr1 Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 I suppose the question to ask is, if an item is not on the banned list at the time, and you took it, were you doping ? Until they bring in a law about being allowed to store samples and test at a later date, it's irrelevant. I do think Lance "doped" as did almost everyone else. His chemists are just way ahead of the game. Another question, who was actually the winner of the TDF when Bjarne Riis "won". And does anyone care ???? I think it was Ullrich, I'm sure he was 2nd. But then again. If his leader was on EPO, for which there was no test at the time, he admiited to using it, then you could assume that Ullrich was also using it. Let them all dope, and lets enjoy awsome racing. Live (race) fast and Die young !!!! jannosmit 1
Tumbleweed Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Most interesting story about Lance I read today: Armstrong says that in 2005 he and about a dozen of his team's backers discussed buying the Tour while meeting in a private room at Spago restaurant in Palo Alto, Calif.He says he raised the subject again in March 2010 in Murcia, Spain, with Arnaud Lagardere, chief executive officer of the media company Lagardere SCA, which owns 25 percent of Editions. Armstrong says the talks went nowhere because of the cost of a controlling stake in Editions, which he estimated at up to $1 billion."It would need a big number for the Amaury family to be interested in selling," Armstrong says.Armstrong says that in 2005 he and about a dozen of his team's backers discussed buying the Tour while meeting in a private room at Spago restaurant in Palo Alto, Calif.He says he raised the subject again in March 2010 in Murcia, Spain, with Arnaud Lagardere, chief executive officer of the media company Lagardere SCA, which owns 25 percent of Editions. Armstrong says the talks went nowhere because of the cost of a controlling stake in Editions, which he estimated at up to $1 billion."It would need a big number for the Amaury family to be interested in selling," Armstrong says. More on the Amaury family: https://community.bikehub.co.za/topic/117308-tour-de-france-family-control-under-assault-as-race-teams-rebel/ But, back to Lance, this case isn't just about taking dope. It's about trafficking, administering. possession, etc, etc…
Metzet Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Most interesting story about Lance I read today: Armstrong says that in 2005 he and about a dozen of his team's backers discussed buying the Tour while meeting in a private room at Spago restaurant in Palo Alto, Calif.He says he raised the subject again in March 2010 in Murcia, Spain, with Arnaud Lagardere, chief executive officer of the media company Lagardere SCA, which owns 25 percent of Editions. Armstrong says the talks went nowhere because of the cost of a controlling stake in Editions, which he estimated at up to $1 billion."It would need a big number for the Amaury family to be interested in selling," Armstrong says.Armstrong says that in 2005 he and about a dozen of his team's backers discussed buying the Tour while meeting in a private room at Spago restaurant in Palo Alto, Calif.He says he raised the subject again in March 2010 in Murcia, Spain, with Arnaud Lagardere, chief executive officer of the media company Lagardere SCA, which owns 25 percent of Editions. Armstrong says the talks went nowhere because of the cost of a controlling stake in Editions, which he estimated at up to $1 billion."It would need a big number for the Amaury family to be interested in selling," Armstrong says. So he repeated himself a glitch in the Matrix ?
philip.maree Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 I suppose the question to ask is, if an item is not on the banned list at the time, and you took it, were you doping ? Until they bring in a law about being allowed to store samples and test at a later date, it's irrelevant. I do think Lance "doped" as did almost everyone else. His chemists are just way ahead of the game. Another question, who was actually the winner of the TDF when Bjarne Riis "won". And does anyone care ???? I think it was Ullrich, I'm sure he was 2nd. But then again. If his leader was on EPO, for which there was no test at the time, he admiited to using it, then you could assume that Ullrich was also using it. Let them all dope, and lets enjoy awsome racing. Live (race) fast and Die young !!!! Well said. You cannot be retrospectively fined or banned for substances that was not on the banned list or for which no test existed at that point in time. You can use that knowledge gained to update the current list of substances and tests. If they change the speed limit today on the N1 to 100km/h will everyone be fined that drove 120km/h yesterday? Pointless.
TNT1 Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 a glitch in the Matrix ?Took the wrong colour pill this morning...
Cyclewizz Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Took the wrong colour pill this morning... Hope it wasn't a blue one otherwise you could also be banned !!!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now