Doping charges unconfirmed?

"Man o' Tea" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"No official source would confirm medical
identification of Armstrong as provider
of the anonymously tested urine, and to
do so would be a violation of World Anti-
doping Agency (WADA) regulations."

Nothing new in this article...

Except that the people who created the accusation now appear to be in
full retreat. The sprurious charges are collapsing under their own
weight. The lab has soiled its reputation by getting involved, knowing
full well that none of the traditional protocols were being followed.

Eric

I've temporarily dropped out of the discussion (having pretty much
beaten the horse dead to this point). I'm awaiting the publication of
more definitive reports concerning such things as the actual protocol
followed (including a detailed description of the measures taken to
ensure the security of the specimens), the actual number of specimens
tested in the various cohorts of testing, the source of the leaks in
both the lab and the UCI as to the identity codes and names, the
results of the UCI's internal probe, etc.

I will say that I enjoyed the news story today that Lance is so ticked
that he's already considering a comeback.

Carlos Lopes won the Gold Medal in the Olympic Marathon at age 36, and
I think that Lance could well win one or more TdFs to come, should he
elect to do this.

I'd love to see the apoplectic look on the face of the TdF race
director as he presented Lance with yet another trophy.

- Larry W

Here is an interesting article:
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/09/04/news/epo.php

Quoted message said:

I will say that I enjoyed the news story
today that Lance is so ticked that he's
already considering a comeback.

Which news story is this?

[email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
.........

Quoted message said:

I will say that I enjoyed the news story today that Lance is so ticked
that he's already considering a comeback.

.........

Quoted message said:

I'd love to see the apoplectic look on the face of the TdF race
director as he presented Lance with yet another trophy.

- Larry W

Yes, I heard that, too, and loved it. If they really want to keep the
trophy within their borders, they're going to have to bike faster rather
than swipe it. Good for Lance. Nothing he said could have been more
infuriating for them.

ruth kazez

Quoted message said:

I will say that I enjoyed the news story
today that Lance is so ticked that he's
already considering a comeback.

Quoted message said:

Which news story is this? <

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090600840.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While his standard defense - that he is the most frequently tested athlete in the world - is true, the fact that he has never failed a drug test is irrelevant. Richard Virenque, the French king of the Tour de France's mountains, never failed a drug test but finally admitted in court that he had long used illegal performance-enhancing drugs. David Millar, the Briton who won the world time trial championship in 2003 and passed a drug test immediately afterward, later admitted that he had used EPO before that race.<<

The fact that he has never failed a drug test is certainly not proof
that he never doped, but it's hardly "irrelevant!" With all due
respect to Millar, Lance has probably been tested twenty times (2 x
10E2) times more often than Millar and Lance has been stalked and
targeted by a legion of vengeful inquisitors, bent on bringing him
down. Neither Virenque nor Millar nor anyone else in the history of
sport has been so singularly targeted as Lance.

As I keep saying, what on earth did he gain by competing in a 7th Tour
which would have made it worthwhile to risk absolutely everything he
had achieved, if he needed to dope to win? And still he proved, beyond
all doubt, that he is the dominant, best rider in the world. At an age
when no one else had ever won a TdF.

If there is to be doubt...and there certainly is doubt that the "B"
specimens were secured over 5 years of storage and secured during
testing, absent any proof of secure custody...then Armstrong's
performance over the past several years, when he has been the target of
an omnipresent witch hunt...has earned Lance Armstrong the benefit of
the doubt, and not L'Equipe.

- Larry W

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While his standard defense - that he is the most frequently tested athlete in the world - is true, the fact that he has never failed a drug test is irrelevant. Richard Virenque, the French king of the Tour de France's mountains, never failed a drug test but finally admitted in court that he had long used illegal performance-enhancing drugs. David Millar, the Briton who won the world time trial championship in 2003 and passed a drug test immediately afterward, later admitted that he had used EPO before that race.<<

The fact that he has never failed a drug test is certainly not proof
that he never doped, but it's hardly "irrelevant!" With all due
respect to Millar, Lance has probably been tested twenty times (2 x
10E2) times more often than Millar and Lance has been stalked and
targeted by a legion of vengeful inquisitors, bent on bringing him
down. Neither Virenque nor Millar nor anyone else in the history of
sport has been so singularly targeted as Lance.

I've never seen this legion of vengeful inquisitors, bent on bringing
him down, unless you mean the whole drug testing system, in which case
I agree it should be eliminated. If it didn't exist, none of this
would have happened.

Quoted message said:

As I keep saying, what on earth did he gain by competing in a 7th Tour
which would have made it worthwhile to risk absolutely everything he
had achieved, if he needed to dope to win? And still he proved, beyond
all doubt, that he is the dominant, best rider in the world. At an age
when no one else had ever won a TdF.

I would say, after the third or fourth win, he had nothing to gain,
except maybe money and fame, and who wants those? But, clearly, he has
an obsessive compulsive personality, or he wouldn't have stuck with it
this long. That isn't surprising because most single minded people who
achieve great success in a chosen field have some obsessive compulsive
traits. So the what-did-he-have-to-gain argument is a non-starter.
Driven people do these things.

Quoted message said:

If there is to be doubt...and there certainly is doubt that the "B"
specimens were secured over 5 years of storage and secured during
testing, absent any proof of secure custody...then Armstrong's
performance over the past several years, when he has been the target of
an omnipresent witch hunt...has earned Lance Armstrong the benefit of
the doubt, and not L'Equipe.

You keep referring to this witch hunt. I've never seen any evidence of
it except for the occassional "Armstrong Again" type piece. That's not
a witch hunt. There is an eagerness to catch drug users, which I have
always maintained is unhealthy for all the sports, so if that is what
you mean by witch hunt, then it is the price you pay for the perceived
purity you seek.

Larry,

You are too emotionnal here...

Quoted message said:

The fact that he has never failed a drug test is certainly not proof
that he never doped, but it's hardly "irrelevant!" With all due
respect to Millar, Lance has probably been tested twenty times (2 x
10E2) times more often than Millar and Lance has been stalked and
targeted by a legion of vengeful inquisitors, bent on bringing him
down. Neither Virenque nor Millar nor anyone else in the history of
sport has been so singularly targeted as Lance.

If you knew a bit about cycling, you would know that Lance has been one of
the less controled champ.

Not because of some special attention but just because he decided to focus
on only one race, the TdF, whereas his competitors do much more competitions
in Europe during the season.

So if he wants, he has much more possibilities to do a doping cure than any
of his competitors.

Quoted message said:

As I keep saying, what on earth did he gain by competing in a 7th Tour
which would have made it worthwhile to risk absolutely everything he
had achieved, if he needed to dope to win? And still he proved, beyond
all doubt, that he is the dominant, best rider in the world. At an age
when no one else had ever won a TdF.

What did he gain by winning so many Tours?
1) enter History
2) win 10 million $ from SCA

And false about "an age when no one else had ever won a TdF". Firmin Lambot
won in 1922 at age 36.

Quoted message said:

If there is to be doubt...and there certainly is doubt that the "B"
specimens were secured over 5 years of storage and secured during
testing, absent any proof of secure custody...then Armstrong's
performance over the past several years, when he has been the target of
an omnipresent witch hunt...has earned Lance Armstrong the benefit of
the doubt, and not L'Equipe.

You are inventing this witch hunt.
Simply: we must be tough on doping, wherever it comes from, even if this is
a cancer survivor icon, even if it is a national hero...

-- Olivier

"rtk" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Yes, I heard that, too, and loved it. If they really want to keep the
trophy within their borders, they're going to have to bike faster rather
than swipe it. Good for Lance. Nothing he said could have been more
infuriating for them.

If we want to keep the trophy "within our borders", we would have some
serious work to do. Even without Lance.
The first french competitor, C. Moreau, was ranked 11th.
French nationalism certainly cannot be blamed for this story about Lance.

-- Olivier

Silver0l said:

French nationalism certainly cannot
be blamed for this story about Lance.

Follow the money.

You know in the end, sometimes all you have his humor.

"Armstrong again refused to rule out legal action against L'Equipe. And
while he said again he wouldn't make a comeback next summer, it's not
because of a lack of competitive desire.

Asked whether rumors that President Bush beat him in a bike race during
a visit to Crawford, Texas, several weeks ago, Armstrong replied,
``no,'' but insisted the president was a strong rider.

``But we didn't subject him to any medical controls, so we don't know
if his performance was enhanced. In my opinion,'' he added, laughing,
``it was suspicious.'' "