If Lance really is doping....

In article <[email hidden]>, Pistof

Quoted message said:

Then why hasn't he tested positive for it? Just like Meirhaeghe was
recently surprised with an out of competition test, are the top ranked
cyclists not of greater focus?

If Lance was doping, why was his performance so relatively poor in 2003?
Did he forget his dope that year, or what?

Or simply, is the UCI in cahoots with Lance??? A lot of things don't add
up.

You do understand that some of the drugs being taken can't be tested
for yet. Other drugs can be covered up or masked using other
substances. The drug takers are always ahead of the drug testers.
Look at some of the other now admitted drug taker who managed to always
pass their drug tests.

The sad thing in this whole drug mess is that testing clean doesn't
offer any assurance that the athlete really is clean.

Pistof said:

Then why hasn't he tested positive for it? Just like Meirhaeghe was
recently surprised with an out of competition test, are the top ranked
cyclists not of greater focus?

If Lance was doping, why was his performance so relatively poor in 2003?
Did he forget his dope that year, or what?

Or simply, is the UCI in cahoots with Lance??? A lot of things don't add
up.

A. A positive test implies doping, but the lack of a positive test does
not imply the absence of doping. Thus, statements like "... has never
failed a drug test..." do not imply that someone is clean, but only that
they are, at a minimum, clever enough to avoid triggering a positive
result.

B. There are other things besides doping that affect performance. Who
knows what happened in 2003? But it does seem that LA was not in top form
then.

C. If, as has been suggested, 90% of the peloton is doping, then the Tour
would obviously have a very strong interest in NOT discovering it -- just
like the USDA has a strong interest in not discovering any more cases of
mad cow disease. Otherwise there would be no tour. However, it is also in
the Tour's interest to appear to be policing things -- thus the occasional
bust.

It all adds up perfectly, IMHO.

-AMG

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

Quoted message said:

Then why hasn't he tested positive for it? Just like Meirhaeghe was
recently surprised with an out of competition test, are the top ranked
cyclists not of greater focus?

If Lance was doping, why was his performance so relatively poor in 2003?
Did he forget his dope that year, or what?

Or simply, is the UCI in cahoots with Lance??? A lot of things don't add
up.

You are focusing wrongly. It's not whether Lance tests clean or not. It's
the rest of the guys.

We read here enough claims that (recently written) 30-95% are doping. Even
if it's only the smaller figure, how is it that they all tested clean ? Or
are you saying that everyone who did not test positive in the TdF is clean.
I'd like to believe that, too.

That said, I imagine it is QED that all the riders in the TdF who tested as
clean as Armstrong are just as clean as Armstrong. And that they are all as
clean as their tests show. Clean. So we can all now retire from these
sordid exchanges, until and unless a variance comes up.

You get just one shot at the logic tree. You have to make your choices.
--
Sandy
Paris FR

*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

"Casey Kerrigan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You do understand that some of the drugs being taken can't be tested
for yet.

And what drugs would those be Casey? As far as I know the only drugs that
can't be tested for are naturally occurring hormones and aside from EPO and
Testosterone there aren't any that are of benefit to an endurance athlete.

Quoted message said:

Other drugs can be covered up or masked using other
substances. The drug takers are always ahead of the drug testers.

Well, it is possible to mask some drugs but most of the masking agents are
also illegal. And believe me, drug takers are NOT ahead of drug testers.
Present day liquid and gas chromotography methods can find EVERYTHING. It
isn't a case of being able to find something, it's a case of how much it
costs to perform such a complete screening.

Quoted message said:

Look at some of the other now admitted drug taker who managed to always
pass their drug tests.

Most drug takers are never tested. Remember that you are only tested if you
are one of the podium or a couple of others. Most are missed by pure
statistical chance. Also because of the cost of tests they don't look for
everything and identify it. They look for a list of drugs and see if one on
that list is there.

And as was demonstrated in several confessions there are other ways. You can
use steroids out of competition and hope you aren't caught in an OOC test.
Then since these steroids stay in your system for a long while you can have
a prescription for some legitamate reason and simply use that to "mask" the
presence of some small amount still in your system. This isn't a perfect way
either because the tests are quantitative as well as qualitative. In other
words they can tell the difference between the amount you would inhale in an
asthma drug and the amount you'd inject.

Quoted message said:

The sad thing in this whole drug mess is that testing clean doesn't
offer any assurance that the athlete really is clean.

The sad truth is that most athletes have gotten away with drugs simply
because of luck. They then tell other athletes that everyone is doing it
because you can't get caught (which is what Dr. Ferrari stated to the UCI -
if you make an undetectable drug illegal you've just guaranteed it's
spread.) Other athletes who might never have used drugs come to believe that
they are at a disadvantage and turn to drugs to "stay even".

Worst of all, most of these drugs do nothing at all or no more than
intelligent training would give them.

Casey Kerrigan said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Pistof

Quoted message said:

Then why hasn't he tested positive for it? Just like Meirhaeghe was
recently surprised with an out of competition test, are the top ranked
cyclists not of greater focus?

If Lance was doping, why was his performance so relatively poor in 2003?
Did he forget his dope that year, or what?

Or simply, is the UCI in cahoots with Lance??? A lot of things don't add
up.

You do understand that some of the drugs being taken can't be tested
for yet. Other drugs can be covered up or masked using other
substances. The drug takers are always ahead of the drug testers.
Look at some of the other now admitted drug taker who managed to always
pass their drug tests.

The sad thing in this whole drug mess is that testing clean doesn't
offer any assurance that the athlete really is clean.

There's also "non-drug" ways to dope, such as transfusions.

Dan

Tom Kunich said:

And what drugs would those be Casey? As far as I know the only drugs that
can't be tested for are naturally occurring hormones and aside from EPO and
Testosterone there aren't any that are of benefit to an endurance athlete.

what about the so called "micro-dosing" of epo?

Quoted message said:

Well, it is possible to mask some drugs but most of the masking agents are
also illegal. And believe me, drug takers are NOT ahead of drug testers.
Present day liquid and gas chromotography methods can find EVERYTHING. It
isn't a case of being able to find something, it's a case of how much it
costs to perform such a complete screening.

They can find EVERYTHING they are LOOKING for.

Quoted message said:

And as was demonstrated in several confessions there are other ways. You can
use steroids out of competition and hope you aren't caught in an OOC test.

Out of competition tests work. If they are in fact, suprise tests.

I agree with this. It's similar to sprinters and other non-climbers forming
the autobus to avoid being eliminated due to the time cut. Collective
action can overpower rules and regulations.

--
--------------------------
Andre Charlebois
AGC-PC support
http://agc-pc.tripod.com
BPE, MCSE4.0, CNA, A+

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

Quoted message said:

Pistof said:

Then why hasn't he tested positive for it? Just like Meirhaeghe was
recently surprised with an out of competition test, are the top ranked
cyclists not of greater focus?

If Lance was doping, why was his performance so relatively poor in 2003?
Did he forget his dope that year, or what?

Or simply, is the UCI in cahoots with Lance??? A lot of things don't

add

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up.

A. A positive test implies doping, but the lack of a positive test does
not imply the absence of doping. Thus, statements like "... has never
failed a drug test..." do not imply that someone is clean, but only that
they are, at a minimum, clever enough to avoid triggering a positive
result.

B. There are other things besides doping that affect performance. Who
knows what happened in 2003? But it does seem that LA was not in top form
then.

C. If, as has been suggested, 90% of the peloton is doping, then the Tour
would obviously have a very strong interest in NOT discovering it -- just
like the USDA has a strong interest in not discovering any more cases of
mad cow disease. Otherwise there would be no tour. However, it is also in
the Tour's interest to appear to be policing things -- thus the occasional
bust.

It all adds up perfectly, IMHO.

-AMG

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Then why hasn't he tested positive for it? Just like Meirhaeghe was
recently surprised with an out of competition test, are the top ranked
cyclists not of greater focus?

If Lance was doping, why was his performance so relatively poor in 2003?
Did he forget his dope that year, or what?

Or simply, is the UCI in cahoots with Lance??? A lot of things don't

add

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up.

You are focusing wrongly. It's not whether Lance tests clean or not.

It's

Quoted message said:

the rest of the guys.

We read here enough claims that (recently written) 30-95% are doping.

Even

Quoted message said:

if it's only the smaller figure, how is it that they all tested clean ?

Or

Quoted message said:

are you saying that everyone who did not test positive in the TdF is

clean.

Quoted message said:

I'd like to believe that, too.

That said, I imagine it is QED that all the riders in the TdF who tested

as

Quoted message said:

clean as Armstrong are just as clean as Armstrong. And that they are all

as

Quoted message said:

clean as their tests show. Clean. So we can all now retire from these
sordid exchanges, until and unless a variance comes up.

You get just one shot at the logic tree. You have to make your choices.

If everyone would see this point, there would be nobody interested in the
books, articles and other accusations about who is or is not doping. I will
say this though, and that is that there is logic in what the reporters are
doing. They assume the worst (that 90% are on dope) and their claim is not
necessarily that Lance has an advantage over the competition but that he is
a liar and a hypocrite WRT performance enhancing drugs. The logic of their
position is that if 90% of them are on dope, the most successful of them are
the least likely to be in the 10% of that population that is clean. The
don't have to find every doper and they have numerous incentives to nailing
the biggest fish that is actualy guilty. It makes sense from a certain point
of view. The people that don't make sense are those that call Lance a
cheater and imply that he would not be winning if *he* is not on drugs.
Obviously as long as they are all playing by the same rules, the outcome is
not changed much. However, if it can be shown that 90% of them are on dope,
it then means that fans of certain riders that retired with less than
expected results while complaining about the problems, will now be
vindicated at least among those that had scoffed at their complaints. If 90%
are on dope, I want to know which 90%, if that is possible.

I am not even close to convinced of this claim but it is correct to
investigate these problems. The shame of it is the way that some fans turn
it in to something that it is not. For example, you can't use dope to
explain why Ullrich, Mayo and Vino (just to name a few) have not been able
to beat Lance. You might be able to make a claim that riders like Zulle were
kept from winning the Tour though since he is one of the few that was caught
and gave thorough testimony as to when he started to dope. It did not help
his performance, but maybe it did help some of the riders that beat him just
enough to make a difference. It certainly helped Virenque who apparently was
on the same program during part of the same period (Zulle only joined the
corrupt team for half a year by the time the Festina Affair had started).
During the time Virenque used EPO, he was able to go on breaks all day long
day after day, and also put in decent ITT performances. After he was caught
he is still able to have strong days, but he obviously pays for them during
subsequent stages. Virenque's performances before and after he was caught
are precisely as one (that really understands how and when EPO helps) would
suspect. I wish I knew all of the answers but none of this dampens my
enthusiasm for the sport and respect for the athletes. These products just
might help some enough to change the outcome of some races but the athletes
work every bit as hard. The real damage from the doping scandals is the
public perception that there are some miracle drugs that turn ordinary
people in to fake champions. There are some people that should know better
and yet they imply this on a daily basis. Any fan of cycling that uses this
kind of BS to smear an unfavored athlete (like Armstrong) is damaging the
sport every bit as much as the drug users.

Quoted message said:

--
Sandy
Paris FR

*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Then why hasn't he tested positive for it? Just like Meirhaeghe was
recently surprised with an out of competition test, are the top ranked
cyclists not of greater focus?

If Lance was doping, why was his performance so relatively poor in 2003?
Did he forget his dope that year, or what?

Or simply, is the UCI in cahoots with Lance??? A lot of things don't add
up.

You are focusing wrongly. It's not whether Lance tests clean or not. It's
the rest of the guys.

All of this speculation about Lance and the rest of the peleton adds
up too trying to prove a negative.

Quoted message said:

We read here enough claims that (recently written) 30-95% are doping. Even
if it's only the smaller figure, how is it that they all tested clean ? Or
are you saying that everyone who did not test positive in the TdF is clean.
I'd like to believe that, too.

That said, I imagine it is QED that all the riders in the TdF who tested as
clean as Armstrong are just as clean as Armstrong. And that they are all as
clean as their tests show. Clean. So we can all now retire from these
sordid exchanges, until and unless a variance comes up.

You get just one shot at the logic tree. You have to make your choices.
--
Sandy
Paris FR

*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

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

Quoted message said:

All of this speculation about Lance and the rest of the peleton adds
up too trying to prove a negative.

You are caught up in the mathematical or logical (pure) proof of negatives.
The real world gets a sense of belief that does not need to be 100% in order
to be valid. You also missed my point.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Paris FR

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

Quoted message said:

Pistof said:

Then why hasn't he tested positive for it? Just like Meirhaeghe was
recently surprised with an out of competition test, are the top ranked
cyclists not of greater focus?

If Lance was doping, why was his performance so relatively poor in 2003?
Did he forget his dope that year, or what?

Or simply, is the UCI in cahoots with Lance??? A lot of things don't

add

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up.

A. A positive test implies doping, but the lack of a positive test does
not imply the absence of doping. Thus, statements like "... has never
failed a drug test..." do not imply that someone is clean, but only that
they are, at a minimum, clever enough to avoid triggering a positive
result.

A negative test (or non-positive, if you prefer) certainly does NOT imply
doping. It seems fair to assume that a negative means no doping until
otherwise proven. Your napoleonic version of justice does no-one any good.

Quoted message said:

B. There are other things besides doping that affect performance. Who
knows what happened in 2003? But it does seem that LA was not in top form
then.

well, OK. Let me be clear. When I say doping, I mean all performance
enhancers/ments which are specifically disallowed.

Quoted message said:

C. If, as has been suggested, 90% of the peloton is doping, then the Tour
would obviously have a very strong interest in NOT discovering it -- just
like the USDA has a strong interest in not discovering any more cases of
mad cow disease. Otherwise there would be no tour. However, it is also in
the Tour's interest to appear to be policing things -- thus the occasional
bust.

It all adds up perfectly, IMHO.

I don't know how you can follow up paragraph C with a statement like, "It
all adds up perfectly, in my humble opinion" without being sarcastic. So
you are telling me that the Tour knows and is letting it go barring a few
busts just to keep the press busy? I'm not much into believing conspiracy
theories like these. Sorry.

Dave

"Casey Kerrigan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Pistof

Quoted message said:

Then why hasn't he tested positive for it? Just like Meirhaeghe was
recently surprised with an out of competition test, are the top ranked
cyclists not of greater focus?

If Lance was doping, why was his performance so relatively poor in 2003?
Did he forget his dope that year, or what?

Or simply, is the UCI in cahoots with Lance??? A lot of things don't

add

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up.

You do understand that some of the drugs being taken can't be tested
for yet.

Why is that. Is it because they are so new that testing methods are still
being developed. I can't imagine that more than a month or two would be
needed, right? If the substances are not known about then they wouldn't
necessarily be banned, right? It would seem hard to ban a substance when
you don't know it exists.

Quoted message said:

Other drugs can be covered up or masked using other
substances. The drug takers are always ahead of the drug testers.
Look at some of the other now admitted drug taker who managed to always
pass their drug tests.

So your feelings are that Lance is taking a performance enhancing drug but
that he is able to hide it from blood tests by means of covering it up with
additional non-banned substances?

Quoted message said:

The sad thing in this whole drug mess is that testing clean doesn't
offer any assurance that the athlete really is clean.

But they are getting busted. Or is it that just the dumb ones are?

Dave

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:43:34 -0500, "Pistof" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Then why hasn't he tested positive for it? Just like Meirhaeghe was
recently surprised with an out of competition test, are the top ranked
cyclists not of greater focus?

If Lance was doping, why was his performance so relatively poor in 2003?
Did he forget his dope that year, or what?

Or simply, is the UCI in cahoots with Lance??? A lot of things don't add
up.

I'm not commenting on Armstrong, but on sports drug testing in
general: There is an inherent conflict of interest when sporting
authorities are in control over drug testing. It's bad publicity to
catch people so it's very possible that at least some people involved
in the testing would prefer riders not to be caught. And similarly
they might tend to be lenient about rules when certain riders are
caught -- (such as in the recent Jeanson case).

The creation of WADA was a step in the right direction of separating
drug control from the sporting federations. Though certainly WADA has
problems.

JT

"gym gravity" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

And what drugs would those be Casey? As far as I know the only drugs

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

can't be tested for are naturally occurring hormones and aside from EPO

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Testosterone there aren't any that are of benefit to an endurance

athlete.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what about the so called "micro-dosing" of epo?

Is micro-dosing of EPO impossible to detect? If it is, it would also seem
impossible to get a benefit from, or that the testing techniques are very
poor.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, it is possible to mask some drugs but most of the masking agents

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

also illegal. And believe me, drug takers are NOT ahead of drug testers.
Present day liquid and gas chromotography methods can find EVERYTHING.

It

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

isn't a case of being able to find something, it's a case of how much it
costs to perform such a complete screening.

They can find EVERYTHING they are LOOKING for.

Quoted message said:

And as was demonstrated in several confessions there are other ways. You

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

use steroids out of competition and hope you aren't caught in an OOC

test.

Quoted message said:

Out of competition tests work. If they are in fact, suprise tests.

So you think there's a possibility that athletes like Lance and others are
getting a heads up about upcoming suprise tests?

Dave

SMMB said:

We read here enough claims that (recently written) 30-95% are doping.

This was speculation on my part, and includes not just a full blown
EPO program but everything banned, including OTC stuff by riders in
top teams. It's just an estimate, which I think is both reasonable
and disturbing. But I have no inside knowledge.

JT

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pistof said:

"Casey Kerrigan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You do understand that some of the drugs being taken can't be tested
for yet.

Why is that. Is it because they are so new that testing methods are still
being developed. I can't imagine that more than a month or two would be
needed, right?

Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in the
test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the benefits of
the EPO appear (and stay much) later. As for the time needed to develop the
tests, consider that they have been trying to come up wth a test for EPO
for years.

Quoted message said:

If the substances are not known about then they wouldn't necessarily be
banned, right? It would seem hard to ban a substance when you don't know
it exists.

True, but that won't stop people from using the substance.

--
tanx,
Howard

So far, so good, so what?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

SMMB said:

We read here enough claims that (recently written) 30-95% are doping.

This was speculation on my part, and includes not just a full blown
EPO program but everything banned, including OTC stuff by riders in
top teams. It's just an estimate, which I think is both reasonable
and disturbing. But I have no inside knowledge.

JT

What is the basis for your speculation?

Howard Kveck said:

Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in the
test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the benefits of
the EPO appear (and stay much) later.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the guy who's strongest towards
the end of the TdF ought to be the guy who's LEAST reliant on EPO.
True? Especially if he's been finishing toward the front and getting
consistently tested, you'd know at a minimum that he hasn't doped since,
say 3 days before the start. Presumably his competition hasn't either.
The effects of EPO should have been at their minimum during that final
time trial this year.

--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply

In article <91GOc.55265$8_6.37804@attbi_s04>,

Tim Lines said:

Howard Kveck said:

Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in the
test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the benefits of
the EPO appear (and stay much) later.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the guy who's strongest towards
the end of the TdF ought to be the guy who's LEAST reliant on EPO.

I'd say that sounds fairly reasonable - either it's that or he's the guy
who has figured out his timing and dosages to result in max hct towards the
end of the race. And just to make it clear, I'm not one of the "they're all
doping" crowd. I don't know, but there is evidence that *some* are using
illegal substances.

Quoted message said:

True? Especially if he's been finishing toward the front and getting
consistently tested, you'd know at a minimum that he hasn't doped since,
say 3 days before the start. Presumably his competition hasn't either.
The effects of EPO should have been at their minimum during that final
time trial this year.

Again, these seem like reasonable assumptions to make, if you believe
riders are using EPO.

--
tanx,
Howard

So far, so good, so what?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?