[alcimedes]

Lance doping?

So supposedly there's a 6 year old urine sample that shows that Lance was doping. There's some question as to whether or not they can know for sure it was him, but what are your thoughts? Is anyone that good, or do you think he was using drugs to help him out.

Separately, the lab said it could not confirm that the positive results were Armstrong's. It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist. However, L'Equipe said it was able to make the match. On one side of a page Tuesday, it showed what it claimed were the results of EPO tests from anonymous riders used for lab research. On the other, it showed Armstrong's medical certificates, signed by doctors and riders after doping tests - and bearing the same identifying number printed on the results.

[DMBand0026]

No. I really don't think he was. He's a phenomenal athlete and he did what he did because of that. He didn't dope.

On another note and a completely unrelated story, I had a dream last night that I met Chipper Jones (of the Atlanta Braves) and he told me how to mix steroids with peppermint sticks so that tests couldn't detect them. It was really odd.

[SilentEchoes]

I would guess not.

I personally would not want to do anything to push my luck after the whole cancer deal. I think he is probably just that good, he does have the larger heart and all.

But I never followed cycling much until this year and there is a strong chance that I have no idea what I am talking about.

[stonyc]

I don't think he doped... and there's one factor that keeps me from seeing those urine samples as possibly damning evidence of doping:

They're old... 6 years is an awful long time to keep any sort of biological sample, especially for sensitive testing purposes. Who knows how many times they've been handled in those 6 years? They could have been contaminated, tampered with, or just plain out-lived their usefulness for testing purposes.

I think the Tour and the newspaper that reported the story are somewhat biased: they're French and they can't stomach the thought of an American legitimately winning their nation's athletic holy grail. Granted, other American sports (namely baseball) have stained the American-based athlete... but as Lance said at one point, he is/was the most highly tested athlete in the world. None of his more recent tests (for example, the EPO urine tests from 2001 and beyond) came up positive...

I'm giving Lance the benefit of doubt here because he is innocent until proven guilty... and the issues surrounding those urine samples, as well as the motives behind L'Equipe and the Tour organizers don't exactly inspire confidence in me to quite believe their side of the story.

[billybobsky]

Sure. But how?

He is on hormone replacement therapy owing to his testicular cancer and that undoubtedly has an effect, but should that count?

[geneman]

A retired Team doctor once (I believe it was 2001, in regards to the Zülle doping stories) said that probably 99% of the riders in TdF are on some sort of performance enhancers. I believe he's right.

So to answer the question: No more than the rest. Armstrong has proven his the better rider for several years, so regardless of doping, no one has been able to beat him.

One of my favorite statements from cycling is Bjarne Riis' ('96 tour winner) answer to the question if he was doped: "I've never been tested positive" - I think it sums up the situation in pro cycling pretty well.

[murbot]

He's probably the only athlete that I believe when they deny doping. It seemed like he was getting tested every freaking day while he was winning his Tours... and now this 6 year old sample pops up? Sketchy about being able to even confirm it was his. I think the French are just so eager to slam Lance that they'll bring up whatever they can. Throw enough handfulls of shit against a wall, and hope something will eventually stick.

BTW, I flushed an upstairs toilet the other day in my house that hadn't been flushed in almost 48 hours (damn kids). I couldn't believe the smell. What the HELL does 6 year old piss smell like?

[BuonRotto]

I hate to be a party pooper but my cynic sense tingles whenever we talk about athletes and doping, even with Armstrong.

[murbot]

BuonRotto, one more post like that and I'll ban you for trolling.

Final warning!

[alcimedes]

Everyone knows that NHL players are all doping.

[kscherer]

Armstrong beat the competition because he prepared better, period! He overcame and did it in fine fashion! The French have been after him since the beginning and will use whatever they can to destroy his credibility as an athlete. Pithetic! The French, like us (especially in the rumors forums ) can speculate all they want. Without proof, they are just setting themselves up for another failure. And why not? They're good at it!

[kscherer]

6-year-old piss with no knowledge of where it came from? WTF?!

[Enki]

Gimme a sticky, I can make any bottle label number match a number off a copied document in about 5 seconds. It means absolutely nothing after the original test is done and the samples are no longer subject to legally restricted control procedures.

[FFL]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Everyone knows that NHL players are all doping.

Are you confusing "NHL players" with "athletes?"

[BuonRotto]

Dude, your ankles probably hurt too much when you so much as lace up skates, nevermind actually getting on ice with them. You really shouldn't be talking. And, yes, NHL players probably juice themselves up like all other athletes and pro "wrestlers."

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Everyone knows that NHL players are all doping.

Don't make me smack you....

As far as Lance goes, I gotta say... I really don't trust the European governing bodies to keep a sample of urine pure / un-altered for six fucking years. Too many agendas, too many things that can probably change chemically.

I dunno. I'm not bio-chemist but testing urine six years after the fact seems a little hokey to me.

[Dorian Gray]

On balance, I think one has to concede that Armstrong probably was doping, like most great cyclists over the years. However, regardless of whether he was or not, Armstrong has always made life difficult for himself with his holier-than-thou attitude, and it was only a matter of time before he goaded someone into digging deep enough to find something naughty.

The whole "I got here because I train harder than anyone else 365 days a year" crap is strictly for the consumption of his largely cycling-ignorant fans. As is his portrayal of the latest accusations as some sort of anti-American crusade by L'Equipe (maybe trying to shore up American support, by pandering to prejudice, while conceding he has lost credibility in Europe?). Anyone who follows cycling will remember how L'Equipe heartlessly hounded Richard Virenque, who was of course the darling of the French peloton before the Festina affair. The story is merely the kind of investigative journalism that all great sports stars are subjected to on a daily basis in Europe. Here in the UK nobody demands our sports heroes to be saints, and none of them are. The French are tough on anyone at the top of their game, and particularly so if that person happens to be an arrogant Texan with a corporate image as slick as Nike and a rock-star girlfriend, who cynically ignores every other cycling achievement to dominate the media-grabbing Tour de France. I can't think of any country that protects its sports stars (and national leaders!) from criticism so earnestly as the US, and so adamantly maintains that they are whiter than the driven snow.

But why do I think Armstrong doped?

1. Well, he has been hyper-competitive from a young age, and such people tend to view risk-taking as par for the course.

2. He took a veritable cocktail of drugs during his recovery from cancer, including EPO. It must have been pretty damn tempting to keep juicing after recovery. Also, taking drugs and generally experimenting with one's body breaks down the mental barriers associated with the risk of taking drugs.

3. He claimed and recently exactly reiterated that he has never taken performance-enhancing drugs, but of course he did take EPO to boost his immune system during his recovery from cancer: is this statement deliberately coy?

4. He unexpectedly retired shortly before the latest evidence emerged: did he know the samples had been tested and publication was imminent?

5. In his podium speech after this year's Tour he needlessly and tastelessly dragged up the issue of doping again: why?

6. He worked closely with the notorious rocket-fuel guru Dr Ferrari, only severing ties when the Italian was formally convicted of sporting fraud, yet passed this relationship off as "periodic" encounters.

7. He hasn't killed (and might have started!) the convenient myth that he is genetically superior to other top-level professional cyclists: the freakish heart, sky-high VO2 max, lactic acid tolerance, etc (all of which are no more than above average within the European peloton, though of course they're far higher than the average population).

8. Likewise, his "cancer honed my tri-athlete's body into a lean cycling machine" tale is a bit rich given that he weighed the same before and after.

9. When a synthetic corticosteroid was discovered in Armstrong's urine in 1999 or 2000, he got off the hook by claiming it came from a topical cream for saddle sores, but nobody uses corticosteroids for saddle sores. Drugs in sport are not a black and white issue like many here seem to believe: athletes take what they think they'll get away with, in a quantity they think they'll get away with, and I'm sure Armstrong has sailed pretty close to the wind on some occasions.

10. Finally, the story in L'Equipe is pretty waterproof in terms of evidence. (The joker who asked for a sticky should read the 4-page article.)

I think it was five-time Tour winner Anquetil who sarcastically asked if "they" expected "us" to ride the Tour with nothing but mineral water. Most people believe Pantani soared to his 1998 Tour win on EPO, despite the fact that his post-mortem didn't reveal the telltale signs of usage. The greatest of them all, Eddy Merckx, almost certainly accepted a helping chemical hand, and Indurain is as suspect as the rest. Why should Armstrong be any different? Because he has a nice sob-story background and typifies the American Dream? Because the French think he's a dope cheat? Not convincing!

Even if Armstrong used EPO or stuff that can't be detected (human growth hormone, masking agents, blood transfusions, etc), he remains the best cyclist of his generation, and I say that as someone who found him boring to watch and obnoxious as a person. Cycling fans will always respect the guy for what he achieved, and if the public no longer thinks Lance is the only clean Tour winner in the last thirty years, well, would it really matter?

[Dorian Gray]

Moogs (and the rest of you): the lab that did the tests had no way of knowing which samples were Armstrong's and which belonged to the 200-odd other cyclists. In addition, it's the lab that actually invented the test for EPO. A VERY highly respected institution.

[709]

A respected institution that said themselves they could not verify who the cyclist may have been.

[alcimedes]

While I don't doubt the results of the blood they tested, it's hard to be able to say for sure that it was Lance's blood. It's been 6 years, you have to admit that there's a fair amount of pressure to take him down.

They need to just keep samples of all cyclists locked down for 10 years or so, but actually secured and named.

[Moogs]

But my real question: can a urine sample and all of its chemical makeup be kept chemically static for SIX years? Just seems strange to me.

[Naderfan]

yeah, I always thought it was hard to say everything stays exactly the same over 6 years.

And how creepy would it be to walk into that storage room!

[Enki]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray (The joker who asked for a sticky should read the 4-page article.)

You got a translation? But that's quite irrelevant as even the federation acknowledges the samples were not kept under legally supportable chain-of-custody control for the entire six years.

I have been involved in illegal drug testing and sample control which resulted in several convictions a number of years ago. The standards are incredibly rigorous and expensive to maintain. I have also seen acquittals due to less than 2 hour lapses in times noted next to chain-of-custody signatures. Unimpeachable custody is that big a deal. Without it don't even bother to begin talking, it's just so much hearsay.

The federation has already admitted they didn't require those controls during the intervening six years via their own presidents admission there is no guarantee it is actually Armstrong's sample. If he paid for chain-of-custody you know he would be all over the results. Without the funding and requirement to maintain airtight chain-of-custody, there are six years of opportunity to change a samples chemical makeup or change ID numbers, especially when someone has the documents that put names to legally uncontrolled sample ID numbers.

[windowsblowsass]

Originally Posted by DMBand0026 No. I really don't think he was. He's a phenomenal athlete and he did what he did because of that. He didn't dope. On another note and a completely unrelated story, I had a dream last night that I met Chipper Jones (of the Atlanta Braves) and he told me how to mix steroids with peppermint sticks so that tests couldn't detect them. It was really odd.

really he never really struck me as a steroid user


btvpeppermint intereting maye thats the real performance enhancer? very few people know this but minty fresh breath is a common feture among sluggers cooincidence i think not!



disclaimer this made sense at 2:30



i believe this quote from a USA TODAY article sums up most americans fellings about the issue

Also, it's the French doing most of the finger-pointing. Let's face facts. They don't mind us when we're buying their wine or storming German pillboxes. But aside from that, they don't really care for us. And they have never been able to accept their sporting jewel being dominated by an American, cancer survivor or otherwise. Clearly, they wouldn't mind cutting the spokes from beneath Armstrong's joyride through their bicycle race

linkage

[HezMah19]

Also, it's the French doing most of the finger-pointing. Let's face facts. They don't mind us when we're buying their wine or storming German pillboxes. But aside from that, they don't really care for us.

Its so true...even if I am Australian

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Moogs I dunno. I'm not bio-chemist but testing urine six years after the fact seems a little hokey to me.

I'm not singling you out Moogs.. Your quote was just handy.

I am a little offended by this constant accusation that it's sour grapes by the 'Europeans' / French.

Until a little while ago, and pretty much now, no one in the States gave two hoots about the TDF. That's not a critisism, just a fact of life.

I am English (as you all know) and don't really give two hoots about any of it. I have no interest in the sport at all.

But I will say a few things...

I agree with BuenRotto to one extent. I suspect that they all dope to one level or another.

I agree with most people that he is a fantastic athlete, and to be admired. And to come back from what he did doubly so.

I also think that if they all dope anyway, then it makes no bloody difference. For sure there are a lot of riders on drugs out there, and they still could not beat him.

I think you should all get off the paranoid trip about the French just trying to 'get him'. That just makes the people that say that look silly.

Moreover I would be willing to believe that "Clipboard Johnnies" of all nationalities always try to bring down people they admire (read 'are jealous of').

My 2c.

[CoolToddHunter]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray 4. He unexpectedly retired shortly before the latest evidence emerged: did he know the samples had been tested and publication was imminent?

I won't say yea or nay as to the doping (because I don't know), but this is just wrong. It's been known for months that the tour would be his last race.

[geneman]

Originally Posted by Moogs But my real question: can a urine sample and all of its chemical makeup be kept chemically static for SIX years? Just seems strange to me.

Well, it is very possible. Biological samples stored at -80C (or in some cases, as for cell cultures, at -196C) are very stabile chemically. All biological sciences depend on this fact for storing a multitude of different samples.

The basic idea is that cooling stuff down lowers the speed of the molecular movements (kinetic energy) and makes it impossible to reach the energy needed for a reaction. In addition most reactions needs a liquids phase to work, the locked structure of ice doesn't allow for molecules to "bump into each other". Of course nothing is stabile forever, but six years is not a long time in this sense.

I stand by my initial statement, that he was no more doped than the rest.

[geneman]

Originally Posted by CoolToddHunter I won't say yea or nay as to the doping (because I don't know), but this is just wrong. It's been known for months that the tour would be his last race.

Nice post by Dorian (especially the Virenque argument), but I have to agree with CTH on this one, there was even lots of speculation as to whether Armstrongs last race would be '05 or '06. I doubt he had much knowledge of what tests were being done where.

[DMBand0026]

Originally Posted by geneman Nice post by Dorian (especially the Virenque argument), but I have to agree with CTH on this one, there was even lots of speculation as to whether Armstrongs last race would be '05 or '06. I doubt he had much knowledge of what tests were being done where.

Agreed. Furthermore, people have been accusing him of doping for years (as people do with almost every successful athlete) so why would this time have been any different? He wanted to go out on top, and that's what he did. The notion that he retired because he thought he was going to get caught is pretty out there IMO.