Doping and Lance

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't understand why you are so upset about this. What were you

thinking? <<

I'm upset because I want to believe still that sporting achievement can
be a source of human inspiration.

It still is. Why do you let TdF and IOC officials destroy your belief?
The Olympics and the TdF no longer represent sporting achievement.
They represent big business, big entertainment. The sporting
achievment is in the individual effort. Major League Baseball is no
longer representative of baseball. The NFL and NBA are no longer
representative of those sports. The stories of individual athletes
reprent sport. Why shouldn't Lance Armstrong finish the race?

Quoted message said:

When my brother was running uphill in the 20th mile of the Catalina
Marathon a bit more than 10 years ago, he developed chest pain. He
went to see a physician after the race, who gave him a requisition for
a chest x-ray. He stuck it in his wallet. A month or so later, he was
rear-ended in a parking garage at LAX. This caused him to again be in
the vicinity of a hospital (had some sort of minor injury). As an
afterthought, he pulled out the crumpled requisition and had the chest
xray. It showed a nearly soccer ball size mass in the space between
his two lungs. He was treated with aggressive (laboratory
assay-directed) chemotherapy and then radiation therapy at Stanford for
Hodgkin's Disease. We talked at the time about how Mario Lemieux
survived Hodgkin's disease to return to be a hockey All Star. I believe
that this offered him both hope and comfort. A year after completing
his treatment, he completed the Hawaii Ironman (despite suffering from
at the time undiagnosed, radiation-induced hypothyroidism). But he was
frustrated that he wasn't returning to his prior performance levels.
Several years later, Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France.

You have to either work in the cancer field or know cancer patients
personally (in my case, both) to understand the inspiration and hope
which is embodied in the phenomenon which we know as Lance Armstrong.

No, I don't. There are lots of other human conditions just as serious
as the ones your brother and Armstrong survived. Your example isn't
any more harrowing than the examples the rest of us survive. Of course
Armstrong is an inspiring person. He should continue being an
inspiring person, and now he has another opportunity whether he wants
it or not. That's life.

I haven't heard much of what he has done since being accused, but what
I have heard and seen indicate he is trying to play the PR game
instead of putting his head down and remaining Lance Armstrong. He
should sue the people who slandered him the way he reels in the
opposition in the TdF. It is just a different kind of race.

Quoted message said:

I won't willingly suffer the demise of this phenomenon on the basis of
shoddy journalism and slime.

You *are* suffering it. You're doing it to yourself in your own mind.

Here's another thing: There wasn't just one "leak," but two. Someone
from the UCI leaked the code to the reporter. Someone from this world
renowned ivory tower lab leaked the test results to the reporter. It
is a virtual certainty that people at the the UCI have been in
communication with people at the lab for a period of years (see below).

If someone at the UCI would leak confidential information to a reporter
and if someone at the lab would leak confidential information to the
reporter and if it is a certainty that people at the UCI have been in
communication with people at the lab, then there is, to me, an
inescapable conclusion. Someone at (1) the lab and someone else at (2)
the UCI WANTED the reporter to publish the story. This has to be fact.
And I am "99% certain" that people at the lab have been in regular
communication with people at the UCI (who need to understand the lab's
procedures and quality control standards, etc., if they themselves are
going to be legally responsible for imposing sanctions, etc. and
defending the decisions to impose sanctions).

What we don't know are the motives of those involved. Were they
outraged that a cheater was getting away with it and decided that the
only course of action was to have it revealed in the press? Or were
they people who only suspected Armstrong of being a cheater (on the
basis of the circumstantial evidence cited by Olivier) and thought that
it was justifiable to nail him by fabricating evidence (the way that
the Los Angeles police department was proven to have done in perhaps
thousands of cases). Or were they just bad people who didn't like
Armstrong and wanted to bring him down?

We don't know. But we do know the someone from the UCI wanted the
reporter to have the information and someone from the lab wanted the
reporter to have the information and there is a very good possibility
that both the UCI employee and the lab employee had been in prior
communication with each other.

You just don't go destroying an incredible and positive legacy on the
basis of such a situation.

Martin says that Lance is playing a "PR game." That if he were really
innocent, he would sue the paper. Lance isn't playing a "PR game."
He's denying the charges against him. If I were him, I wouldn't sue
the paper, either. The paper is guilty of tabloid sensationalism and
shoddy, incomplete reporting. It is probably not guilty of intentional
publication of facts it knew to be false. So Armstrong sues and loses.
Then the public thinks he's guilty for sure.

He shouldn't do anything except to deny the charges. It is up to
others to prove him guilty, which they have not begun to do. It is up
to those of us who believe in rule of law and fair play to defend him
against Karl Rove-style slime.

- Larry W

Silver0l said:

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

Quoted message said:

Seems very UNLIKELY he doped.

If he did dope in 1999, he would certainly feel complelled to dope
later to keep winning. Yet as tests for EPO were developed, and became
more sophisticated, no positive ever came back. So what you're saying
is that his dominance in the sport continued, or even grew, while at
the same time he was forced to stop taking performance enhancing drugs
because of more stringent testing. Please take us through the logical
thought process there.

It's quite simple.

If you take it purely rationnaly, your only goal is to maximise performance
without ever being caught. To "keep winning" as you say, you need to avoid
being caught.

In this case, it is enough to have the smart advices of a good drug
specialist (Dr Ferrari comes to mind...) to take exactly what is the most
efficient and undetectable drug of the moment (undectable under the
stringent official doping control rules, that is).

For example, you can take as much EPO as you want before 99, and then take
EPO at least 3 days before a control can occur, and now take any new
molecule that cannot be detected today (you can do some google search to
find a list of that).

You just have to be a bit smarter than the anti-doping protocols, which is
not that difficult, because anti-doping tests and controls are well known
and officially published, whereas doping technology remains largely secret.

-- Olivier

The unspoken truth here is that patriotism plays a big part in any
discussion like this. Robert Scheer recently wrote for the Los Angeles
Times, "WE DON'T respect or understand any religious or nationalist
fervor other than our own".

This is true of most peoples, Americans in particular. I believe Pedro
Delgado doped because he tested positive for a steroid masking agent.
I believe Gianni Bugno doped based on how poorly he rode as an amateur
and yet how well he did as a pro. I believe Marco Pantani probably
doped simply because a man who dies of cocaine overdose in a hotel room
in his 30's is probably willing to put anything into his body. I
believe Eddy Merxyx may have taken the "drugs du jour" based on his
comments that the biggest issue with cycling was the endless testing of
the atheletes for stuff they take.

I don't think Greg LeMond or Lance Armstrong doped. That's just the
way it is. So if I'm going to hold that position, I should be less
cavalier about casting aspersions on the other members of the peloton.
And I'm working on that.

Eric

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

Martin says that Lance is playing a "PR game." That if he were really
innocent, he would sue the paper.

I said he should *not* sue the paper. I said he should sue the
individuals who slandered him. In particular, the one from the TdF and
the one from the IOC.

Quoted message said:

Lance isn't playing a "PR game."
He's denying the charges against him. If I were him, I wouldn't sue
the paper, either. The paper is guilty of tabloid sensationalism and
shoddy, incomplete reporting. It is probably not guilty of intentional
publication of facts it knew to be false. So Armstrong sues and loses.
Then the public thinks he's guilty for sure.

The paper hasn't done anything wrong.

Quoted message said:

He shouldn't do anything except to deny the charges. It is up to
others to prove him guilty, which they have not begun to do. It is up
to those of us who believe in rule of law and fair play to defend him
against Karl Rove-style slime.

I deny the charges Larry has made against me.

Nobody who believes in the rule of law and fair play is coming to my
defense. Well... I'm not rich; I'm not a winner.... I coulda been a
contenda... I coulda been a SOMEbody... instead of a NObody... which is
what I am.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

You just don't go destroying an incredible and positive legacy on the
basis of such a situation.

It isn't destroyed.

Martin Smith wrote:
.... I coulda been a

Quoted message said:

contenda... I coulda been a SOMEbody... instead of a NObody... which is
what I am.

I can't imagine life without that movie and that great line.

ruth kazez

[email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal) a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In this case, it is enough to have the smart advices of a good drug

specialist (Dr Ferrari comes to mind...) to take exactly what is the
most
efficient and undetectable drug of the moment (undectable under the
stringent official doping control rules, that is).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For example, you can take as much EPO as you want before 99, and then take

EPO at least 3 days before a control can occur, and now take any new
molecule that cannot be detected today (you can do some google search
to
find a list of that).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You just have to be a bit smarter than the anti-doping protocols, whichis

not that difficult, because anti-doping tests and controls are well
known
and officially published, whereas doping technology remains largely
secret. <<

Now Olivier is claiming that Armstrong doped with rEPO in 1999 and has
continued to dope ever since, always staying just ahead of the
detection methods. This is beginning to remind me of George W Bush's
assertions regarding Saddam Hussein.

No, read carefully what I wrote. I was not talking about LA. I was just
answering to the argument that if one cheats, he will cheat again and
be necessarily detected.

I just answered that one (not necesseraly LA) can always cheat,
provided he is well informed. The fact that LA wasn't caught after 99
doesn't prove anything. It just proves that:

- either he stopped cheating (and he could continue to dominate because
other competitors stopped, too (because of more stringent controls), or
because he had a better preparation, or because he had better genes),

- or that he could adapt its doping protocol to the new anti-doping
controls.

It's perfectly possible to take EPO and never be caught. David Millar
admitted taking EPO, and he never tested positive.

At the end of the day, every body can form its own judgement.

I suspect, it all depends on the viewer's eye.

Maybe you saw him as a heroic cancer survivor (which I could understand
given your job!), other see him as a kind of national hero, other as a
future politician... I saw him as the "ultimate aerobic athlete", the
most professionnal athlete we ever saw, the most intelligent, with the
most dedication and focussed training. And I still consider him so! I
was more than willing to consider him clean, despite all previous
allegations, because one has to be considered innocent unless seriously
proven guilty. But with the new evidences, I'm convinced that he doped
in 99. I just can't find a plausible way things could have been
manipulated.

And my disappointment is only as high as my opinion on him was
before...

-- Olivier

[email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal) a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Olivier, with all due respect:

The reporter was able to get the codes from the UCI. If the reporter
could access the codes, then other people could, as well.

There were clearly people in France who were very biased against
Armstrong. The newspaper (L'Equipe) stated following Lance's 7th
victory that never was the retirement of a champion a cause for such
celebration (or similar words). The newspaper had a long history of
accusing Armstrong of doping. They were clearly biased, and I'm sure
that a lot of other people in France were biased also.

No, the paper didn't have a long history of accusing Armstrong of
doping.

Only this year, you could read between the lines some suspicion after
Lance's 7th victory, end of July.

The reason of it is that the investigation was under way at this time.
The investigation of Damien Ressiot took months.

They already had some strong suspicion in July, but no firm evidence.
They got the final evidence by mid-august and then decided to publish
the story.

So they didn't want to sound too enthousiastic in July, when they were
finalizing their investigation, with good chances that they would
publish doping evidence in August.

-- Olivier

[email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal) a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Armstrong is completely different than anyone else who has ever been
"convicted" of doping. Someone else mentioned Virenque and stated that
Virenque was more honorable, as Virenque admitted his guilt. But
Virenque was never again a champion after it was revealed that he was a
doper.

No.

Virenque had as good results after he admitted taking EPO in 99. He won
the polka dot jersey last year. And retired, still popular (which I
cannot understand).

For me, there is a 100% probability that he doped in 99, and a 20%
probability he doped last year (without being detected).

-- Olivier

"Martin Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That is why Armstrong should sue. He should do it in the European
Court of Human Rights.

This would be difficult:

a) he would have to name as the object of his action a State or a public
authority in that state;

b) he would have to construct a claim that the actions of that state (or
public authority) violated the European Convention on Human Rights;

c) he would have to have previously exhausted all possible remedies
available in the State against which he would lodge this complaint;

d) the complaints must have been (part of) the substance of his actions in
the courts of that State;

e) the complaint to the Court would have to be lodged within six months of
c);

f) The Court is specifically _not_ empowered to deal with complaints against
individuals or private institutions.

g) the Court has an annual application load in the tens of thousands - even
if a complaint could pass a) through f), above, it is quite possible the
Court could dismiss it due to lack of import.

Another court then.

In article <[email hidden]!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,

jtaylor said:

"Martin Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That is why Armstrong should sue. He should do it in the European
Court of Human Rights.

This would be difficult:

a) he would have to name as the object of his action a State or a public
authority in that state;

b) he would have to construct a claim that the actions of that state (or
public authority) violated the European Convention on Human Rights;

c) he would have to have previously exhausted all possible remedies
available in the State against which he would lodge this complaint;

d) the complaints must have been (part of) the substance of his actions in
the courts of that State;

e) the complaint to the Court would have to be lodged within six months of
c);

f) The Court is specifically _not_ empowered to deal with complaints against
individuals or private institutions.

g) the Court has an annual application load in the tens of thousands - even
if a complaint could pass a) through f), above, it is quite possible the
Court could dismiss it due to lack of import.