Lance Armstrong Banned and Stripped of TDF Titles

[philip.maree]

Only 2 guys did when the test was developed, that's the joke....but virtually everyone except your hero did it. There was no test, just a max level.

Not necessarily my hero. It's about being consequent. The whole testing and doping process is a joke.

 

All I am saying is that you can't now test for stuff 10 years ago. If he tested positive then, he should have been banned then.

[TNT1]

EPO. Keep up.

 

I'm sure that letter mentioned olive oil.

 

But, once again, I am distracted.

[philip.maree]

I am answering your question about if it was banned or not.

 

But to answer you, there was a question over the retested '99 samples.

 

The anecdotal evidence quoted in the USADA letter would seem to suggest that they believe he indeed did take - as well as possess, traffick, administer - it in the other six wins.

 

Just asking if he tested positive or not.

 

The possess and traffic is a different matter. If EPO is an illegal substance then he should be prosecuted.

['Dale]

http://inrng.com/2012/06/usada-charges-armstrong/

 

Another perspective.

[bclark]

According to http://www.slowtwitch.com/News/Ban_What_Ban__2850.html . There is no ban. So LA can still compete for IM France.

 

Which is actually interesting. Cause when LA announced that he was doing triathlons, didnt the IM franchise come out, all endorsing the LA Foundation.

 

If im right, IM stands to loose big $$$$$.

[SwissVan]

 

I love cycling, I love watching super fit athletes battle it out on slopes at speeds that we can only dream of achieving, the drama of the drop, the pain, the sprint. So many good things.

 

I also don't care that most of the heros that drew me into the sport long before it was a mainstream television spectacle were dopers as they all doped. And it made for great racing, not the drudge we get today of Evans trying to steal a few seconds here and there.

 

What I do care about is that one guy achieved so much more and beat ALL the dopers and hasn't got the strength to say Yes, I'm guilty, I doped, I misled you. He is a liar and that's why I get excited when, finally, he cannot compete as an athlete due to questions about his record.

 

 

I'm confused about what exactly you want to see, but anyway thats my problem....

 

Interesting that you imply that the dopers who admit their guilt (ONLY AFTER THEY GOT CAUGHT) are better than someone who has not been caught and stands his ground despite all the accusations against him?

 

Yeah in hindsight it would have been easier to say yes i doped, please forgive me I wont do it again....FOOLS*

 

* Quote: BA Baracus

[petatodd]

Just asking if he tested positive or not.

 

The possess and traffic is a different matter. If EPO is an illegal substance then he should be prosecuted.

You don't get it do you? There was no test, just a max limit that all the riders doped to but did not exceed. When a test was developed it was speculated that a sample from 1999 was positive. Bjarn Riis won the tour in '96 fully doped and he did not test positive either....

[philip.maree]

You don't get it do you? There was no test, just a max limit that all the riders doped to but did not exceed. When a test was developed it was speculated that a sample from 1999 was positive. Bjarn Riis won the tour in '96 fully doped and he did not test positive either....

You have just confirmed that you don't get my point. It's not rocket science.

 

Only reason we know Riis doped is cause he admitted it. You cannot find someone guilty of doping if he hasn't tested positive. And by the same account if he hasn't exceeded the maximum level. Then they were within the rules at that time. Not true?

 

I just don't see how this will be good for cycling. I am not a Lance fan boy but Lance has not 1 positive test against his name. And yet he is presumed guilty. Then I stand to say that all cyclists are guilty of doping. There is just nothing to prove it. And the mechanism of disproving it is flawed.

['Dale]

Bruyneel must be losing sleep.

 

His name is in the mix.

His team, RNT, is under big pressure.

 

Eish!

[Christie]

If I am not mistaken, part of the UCI rules and regs say that they may keep and test your samples for up to 10 years from when they were taken. They can only strip away results for using stuff that was banned at the time the samples were taken. However, the UCI rarely does this, because it is in their own financial interest not to have doping scandals in the sport. In this case, the evidence from the federal investigation was handed directly to USADA, so the UCI was not in the picture.

[jmaccelari]

Is it just me, or is the fact that the Tour de France is starting in two weeks time appearing as just too much of a conicidence?

 

Why is it that USADA, WADA, FBI or whoever only lay charges against him in June?

 

Does the head of USADA have an autobiography coming out this month?

[gummibear]

His name is in the mix.

 

Strange how the same names keep coming up when dope is mentioned.

[petatodd]

Strange how the same names keep coming up when dope is mentioned.

I agree, strange coincidences. Unless, as all the believers want to convince us, it's a consiparcy!

 

Ooh, never tested positive so he never doped. Make me laugh.

[Metzet]

USADA - should be renamed to WWFCycling... let go of their small *&^% syndrome and let the millions of hackers like us enjoy the super human performances !!

 

they also need to sell bobble heads of ALL tour winners !

that's what makes you REALLY famous..

[Imploder]

USADA - should be renamed to WWFCycling... let go of their small *&^% syndrome and let the millions of hackers like us enjoy the super human performances !!

 

they also need to sell bobble heads of ALL tour winners !

that's what makes you REALLY famous..

 

ROFL!!! Classic!!! Can't stop laughing!! * Bhwahahahahhaha *

[Velouria]

Will it? Or will it eventually be given to some guy who finished 84th?

 

From Cycling Tips:

 

1999: Alex Zulle? He was caught for doping previously but never tested positive in 1999. If not, then Fernando Escartín?

2000: Jan Ullrich? Well, he’s already admitted his mistakes, but he never tested positive. If not, Fernando Escartín again?

2001: Jan Ullrich again? The German Cycling Federation (BDR) has even banned him from Cyclosportifes. Maybe the deceased Kivilev then?

2002: Beloki maybe? He wasn’t caught for doing anything dodgy at the time. Maybe José Azevedo then?

2003: Maybe Ullrich was clean this year. If not, then Haimar Zubeldia is the new winner.

2004: Andreas Klöden is next in line. Even though guilty by association, you gotta love Klödi. If not, José Azevedo wins again.

2005: Basso? Was he on the gear at this time? Maybe Cadel Evans then. I’ll support that.

 

http://www.cyclingtipsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/armstrong1150px.jpg

 

From Bicycling Magazine, May 2011 (www.bicycling.com), produced by Charlie Layton (www.charlielayton.com)

 

The thing to note from this diagram is that the riders in black: Admitted to doping or were banned or suspended by a sanctioning group for doping; Suspended or fired by their teams or individually withdrew from races for some connection to doping; Were convicted of doping or paid a fine to settle charges related to it. Riders in black did not necessarily test positive in that particular Tour de France.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Velouria