Lou Zealand Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 Lance Armstrong, who is the focus of a federal grand jury probe, encouraged members of his former Team Motorola to use the banned boosting agent EPO, Sports Illustrated reported. New Zealand rider Stephen Swart, a teammate in 1995, told the magazine the American cyclist urged fellow members of the team to take performance-enhancing drugs, convincing them it was the way to go if they were to become successful, AFP reported. "He was the instigator. It was his words that pushed us toward doing it," Sports Illustrated quoted Swart as saying on its website, publishing the results of a long investigation by two of its reporters. Swart was one of dozens of people interviewed in different countries by the pair of Sports Illustrated reporters who reviewed hundreds of pages of official documents over the past few months, AFP reported. Sports Illustrated posted some of its findings on its website today and said it expects to include a longer version of the story in the January 24 issue of the magazine. Seven-time Tour de France winner Armstrong has vehemently denied using performance-enhancing drugs. Swart is not the only former Armstrong teammate to admit using performance-enhancing drugs and made similar accusations against Armstrong in a 2004 book L.A. Confidentiel - Les secrets de Lance Armstrong. He described to Sports Illustrated a regular hotel-room scene where riders pricked their fingers to draw blood and then tested it for hematocrit levels. Riders were given a 15-day ban if their hematocrit level surpassed a reading of 50. On one occasion his reading came back at 48 and Armstrong's was "54 or 56", he said. Armstrong is the focus of a criminal probe headed by Jeff Novitzky of the US government's The Food and Drug Administration which is looking into whether Armstrong was involved in an organised effort to illegally use performance-enhancing drugs. Among the others issues raised by Sports Illustrated on Tuesday is the credibility of a drug-testing lab at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) run by anti-doping guru Don Catlin. In 1999, USA Cycling asked Catlin to retest some of Armstrong's alleged samples. The samples were stored, not by name, but with a drug-testing code number on them. Sports Illustrated says one of its sources told them the samples belonged to Armstrong. The lab could not find five of the testosterone-epitestosterone test results USA Cycling had asked for but three others did "stand out", Sports Illustrated reported. One of the results had a ratio of 9.0-to-1 and another was 7.6-to-1. Anything above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormal at the time. A normal person has a ratio of 1-to-1. Sports Illustrated reported that after retesting the samples, Catlin wrote back "the confirmation was unsuccessful and the samples were reported negative." Sports Illustrated did not say whether it contacted Catlin for a reaction. Another former teammate and Armstrong critic, Floyd Landis, also claims in the article that they were once stopped in 2003 at an airport in Saint Moritz, Switzerland where customs officials searched one of Armstrong's bags and discovered syringes and drugs used for doping. Landis, who has also admitted using performance-enhancing drugs, said Armstrong was let go after a teammate convinced officers the items in the bag were vitamins and the syringes were used to inject the vitamins. Frankie Andreu, who rode on the United States Postal Service team with Armstrong, has also admitted using performance-enhancing drugs.
Tumbleweed Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 does anyone care anymore? I'm getting a tad bored with it, but here's a good read: tainted heroes
Lucky Luke. Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 I'm getting a tad bored with it, but here's a good read: tainted heroes Great site! I thought this article was very well put together too: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/576796-the-25-hottest-extreme-sport-athletes
fandacious Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 Great site! I thought this article was very well put together too: http://bleacherrepor...-sport-athletes yeah - your link is way better than that other one
fandacious Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 same old, same old yeah, except not really - theres a bunch of new allegations. SI would have made damn sure their side was clean before publishing such a damaging article. Lemme guess - you didn't actually read anything?
fandacious Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 fand, my comment was aimed at the fact that he IS a doper and not the allegations Like someone said yesterday, UCI prolly wont remove him from the records, even if he is found guilty. If they do remove him, who will they appoint the winner? Lantern Rouge? I wonder if they'll reinstate floyd
Tumbleweed Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 yeah, except not really - theres a bunch of new allegations. SI would have made damn sure their side was clean before publishing such a damaging article. I don't know so much. Although he regularly backtracks, he hasn't sued anyone for defamation or libel since he declared a few years back that he wouldn't. The L.A. Confidentiel case dealt him a bit of a blow.
Lucky Luke. Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 I don't know so much. Although he regularly backtracks, he hasn't sued anyone for defamation or libel since he declared a few years back that he wouldn't. The L.A. Confidentiel case dealt him a bit of a blow. could be a bit expensive suing the burgeoning crowd of accusers, but SI is not an individual of limited means like David Walsh, Betsy Andreu etc etc etc, it is owned by Time Warner, they have big loot and if they were inventing this stuff LA could totally hammer them for massive damages no?
Tumbleweed Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 could be a bit expensive suing the burgeoning crowd of accusers, but SI is not an individual of limited means like David Walsh, Betsy Andreu etc etc etc, it is owned by Time Warner, they have big loot and if they were inventing this stuff LA could totally hammer them for massive damages no? True. But wouldn't the onus be on him to prove they are lying? Besides, Armstrong will have his hands full if/when he is indicted by the grand jury. And wouldn't the LA camp have sought an interdict by now to have the damaging material removed?
fandacious Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 True. But wouldn't the onus be on him to prove they are lying? Besides, Armstrong will have his hands full if/when he is indicted by the grand jury. And wouldn't the LA camp have sought an interdict by now to have the damaging material removed? I think there was some legal wrangling before the article came out. There was a number yes, its being printed, no wait, its not, oh yes, it is for a few weeks leading up to the article
Lucky Luke. Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 I think there was some legal wrangling before the article came out. There was a number yes, its being printed, no wait, its not, oh yes, it is for a few weeks leading up to the article Yep, I agree, I reckon the Time Warner brass and legal guys gave it a thorough going over before it made it into the public eye. I also read certain parts were removed for fear of litigation.
fandacious Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 Yep, I agree, I reckon the Time Warner brass and legal guys gave it a thorough going over before it made it into the public eye. I also read certain parts were removed for fear of litigation. Yeah, everything that was printed is hard evidence. The possible "he said, she said" stuff has been removed
Tumbleweed Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 I think there was some legal wrangling before the article came out. There was a number yes, its being printed, no wait, its not, oh yes, it is for a few weeks leading up to the article For sure, but it would seem that everything that is in the article has been put to Armstrong or his legal team for commment (the usual response being: "it's nothing new"). I think the delays in stories like these is that the publications' legal teams faf over every single detail, and seek extra verification of the "facts".
Tumbleweed Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 This from Twitter: @lancearmstrong: Great to hear that @usada is investigating some of @si's claims. I look forward to being vindicated.…to which someone responded…Er, not to @lancearmstrong Uh . . . I don't think @usada (someone in Tokyo with 3 followers) is investigating @si (Si Jobing in the UK). Just FYI.
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