# Transfusion Equipment found w/ Astana @ 2009 TDF: Conti and Lance should explain...



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

I suppose some will just scream "French conspiracy" but I can't think why they would have this equipment knowing full well that it is banned by WADA and illegal in France.

I am looking foward to the explanations.

So much for a "cleaner" TDF in 2009

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/s...ong-team-broke-the-law-in-2009-Tour-de-France

Alternatively:
http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/...4426_3242.html


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Old_school_nik said:


> I suppose some will just scream "French conspiracy" but I can't think why they would have this equipment knowing full well that it is banned by WADA and illegal in France.
> 
> I am looking foward to the explanations.
> 
> ...


What will happen: UCI won't give any help to AFLD to identify the DNA. Nothing will come of it. Millions of threads around the globe are started about Lance, the two camps remain divided, and the show will go on.

Does this mean Astana or RadioShack will be out of the Tour next year?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Not to diminish the fun, but, I wonder if might be remotely possible that there could be a smidgen of merit in not catapulting to conclusions until the facts are known? 

I realize full well that what I'm suggesting is not common MO in this day of the instant gratification gleaned by non-winners from the very prospect that winners might be cheaters.


----------



## DZfan14 (Jul 6, 2009)

iliveonnitro said:


> What will happen: UCI won't give any help to AFLD to identify the DNA. Nothing will come of it. Millions of threads around the globe are started about Lance, the two camps remain divided, and the show will go on.
> 
> Does this mean Astana or RadioShack will be out of the Tour next year?


This is the most likely outcome. Nothing will come of this. But for you LA/JB loyalists, how many close calls do these guys need to have before the seeds of doubt have been properly sewn?

The part that I find unbelievable is that Astana is so careless in disposing their medical waste. You think they would pull a Dexter Morgan and find some way to conceal the evidence more carefully.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

So does this mean Wiggo was second??


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I hate to be the contrarian here, but doesn't anyone else find it interesting that they announced in October that they had uncovered "suspect" syringes of various sizes in the medical waste disposed by the Astana team, and two months later they announce they found banned infusion equipment in the same medical waste?

I can't imagine there was so much medical waste that it took them two months to find the infusion equipment. It must have been way down at the bottom of the bag, I guess. 

I want to know why there was two months between announcements. And don't tell me they wanted to wait to analyze it. The equipment is banned regardless of what it was used for. 

Finding banned equipment seems far more damning than finding "suspect" syringes, but they only mentioned syringes back in October. This makes me wonder what else they will find in the trash two months from now.


----------



## WeakMite (Feb 20, 2005)

Cyclingnews has an article now

"_French agency targets Astana for illegal transfusion kit_"

www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-agency-targets-astana-for-illegal-transfusion-kit


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Seven sets of DNA? Hopefully none of them had the AIDS.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> French planted it you think?


Nope. Not only would Astana share transfusion kits among several riders, but they wouldn't have the common courtesy to clean up.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Ekimov said:


> Are there any posts where you don't mention the line in bold?


It never hurts to point out that there are other ways to deal with personal inadequacy issues besides attacking winners without substantiated evidence.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Ekimov said:


> French planted it you think?


I have no idea. What's your explanation?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

What is your explanation for the two-month delay between announcing they found syringes and announcing they found banned equipment from the same medical waste? 

How can you justify that?


----------



## DZfan14 (Jul 6, 2009)

mohair_chair said:


> What is your explanation for the two-month delay between announcing they found syringes and announcing they found banned equipment from the same medical waste?
> 
> How can you justify that?


I don't think you can. This is just more Inspector Clueseau nonsense. If you have a smoking gun then produce it while it is still smoking or don't produce it all. I am as skeptical as anyone when it comes to LA and Johan's bunch, but when it comes to cleaning up the sport, if that is what the French want to do, then they are their own worst enemies.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Seven sets of DNA? Hopefully none of them had the AIDS.



I think they have their information wrong...It's from 2 years ago and the 7 sets of DNA are from the different blood bags Vinokourov was using


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

They found the bag six months ago and just now making a statement??????
I'm guessing they will reveal a positive test result after LA and AC die in about 60 years......


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

The delay seems pretty ridiculous but perhaps they were testing for DNA and just like the Tour positives they can't figure it out for quite a while.

Ideally they'll announce they found Lance's DNA and then we can all be entertained by LA's personal attacks and rhetorical flourishes, but curiously no accompanying lawsuit (just like with the L'Equipe EPO story).


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Wookiebiker said:


> I think they have their information wrong...It's from 2 years ago and the 7 sets of DNA are from the different blood bags Vinokourov was using


Ah, now he has the AIDS.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

SwiftSolo said:


> Not to diminish the fun, but, I wonder if might be remotely possible that there could be a smidgen of merit in not catapulting to conclusions until the facts are known?
> 
> I realize full well that what I'm suggesting is not common MO in this day of the instant gratification gleaned by non-winners from the very prospect that winners might be cheaters.


I agree completely.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Ok, how long before we find out that Greg LeMond is somehow involved with this?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> Comedian.
> 
> What exactly is 'substantiated' in your mind? Witness statements, positive tests, admissions?


I agree who needs due process? We have a story on the interent, where there's smoke there's obviously fire. Just save the cash, the time, the hassle etc. and ban the whole damn team!!! 

Due process exists for a reason. Courts and anti-doping agencies have a standard for burden of proof that the evidence must meet. If the standard is not met its simple no conviction. 

Do you believe a lesser standard for burden of proof should be applied than that currently applied by the courts and anti-doping agencies? If so why?

What in your opinion should be the minimum standard required to be met to punish?

Do you think its right to cast doubt and suspicion on an individual prior to conviction by the appropriate entity? If so why?

If the burden of proof is not met in the appropriate venue, and the individual vindicated, do you feel its right to continue to cast doubt and suspicion on such individuals? If so why?


----------



## The Moontrane (Nov 28, 2005)

Ekimov said:


> The Lance fans will put all the blame on Contador.
> Yet seven different sets of DNA were found. Systemic.


Conti’s vanishing septuplet siblings. :ihih:


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Arbiter said:


> . The French went through all of the official medical waste of all of the teams. They also went through a large amount of waste that was disposed of in a non-official manner, as Astana's was.


Let me guess. It was labeled with an Astana logo?


----------



## cheddarlove (Oct 17, 2005)

Most likely we will have to wait a day or two before the Tour starts for people to be busted and removed! In cuffs. Hiding their faces in the back of a car. Same ol' same ol'.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Arbiter said:


> A DNA test should be able to say who used the needles, even without a name tag.


Ok, now we need to get samples of every single rider to compare the DNA samples to what they have. It's far from computerized like the CSI/CSI spinoff shows.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

spade2you said:


> Ok, now we need to get samples of every single rider to compare the DNA samples to what they have. It's far from computerized like the CSI/CSI spinoff shows.


I believe the UCI already has DNA profiles for all its riders as part of their rider passport program. I think it was mentioned in one article though that there may be an issue with the UCI sharing the info with the French agency. If they share the info they should be able to match the DNA.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Let me guess. It was labeled with an Astana logo?


You're not suggesting that there is anything suspicious about Astana throwing their doping stuff in the medical trash bin where the French press scavenges for their lunch? I'm sure that they had some secret code on LA's "stuff". My guess is that a bag labeled "Anatsa L Legweak" will be discovered with one of Lances hairs on it! It's hard to outwit those French tabloids!


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

Is Lance really a doper? Are Treks really good bikes? Do the French ride bikes?


----------



## deadlegs2 (Oct 3, 2009)

Best Juiced Climb


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> No story on the internet..it went to court and he got off on a technicality.
> Answer my questions...what in your mind is substantiated proof...and secondly because he got off on a technicality, does all this other evidence suddenly become invaliated?


I answered your question, several times in another thread, but again: 

-Substantiated proof to me is an upheld conviction by the authorities responsible.

Clear?

To answer your current question:

-The evidence is not invalidated at all. I believe the quality and quantity of evidence needs to meet a standard of burden of proof in the correct venue whether that venue is the courts, anti-doping hearings etc. before conviction and sentencing.

Answered?

You havent answered the 4 questions I posed to you in my previous post.

Again they are:

1. Do you believe a lesser standard for burden of proof should be applied in cycling related cases than that currently applied by the courts and anti-doping agencies? If so why?

2. What in your opinion should be the minimum standard of evidence required before administering punishment?

3. Do you think its right to cast doubt and suspicion on an individual prior to conviction by the appropriate entity? If so why?

4. If the burden of proof is not met in the appropriate venue, and the individual vindicated, do you feel its right to continue to cast doubt and suspicion on such individuals? If so why?


So far it seems to me that you are of the opinion that anyone in the cycling community accused of wrongdoing has no right, or at least a lesser right, to the following elements of a just society:

1) a right to due process
2) the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by the appropriate authority

The impression I also get from your posts is that anyone who does believe that the above are important and chooses not to pass judgement until the above criteria have been fulfilled is -as you implied in another post- insane for not believing the -as you termed it in another thread- 'hard evidence'. Because after all, we all know that this 'hard evidence' garnered from such completely reliable sources such as the internet, TV, and various cycling publications is always 100% accurate, complete, and completely unbiased.

Please elaborate.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> So, take the OJ case...the fact that he was deemed innocent in a court of criminal law, means there is no substantiated proof?
> 
> Well in my opinion, I believe you are being incredibly naive to think this is not a cut and dry case of Ferrari doping his athletes. Due process...the legal system failed in this instance.
> Substantiated proof is not exclusively about the final say in a court of law. The statute expired...but the evidence still exists. So in your eyes we should just ignore the evidence because of the technicality
> ...


First off I think you have the wrong thread- this is the one referring to the Astana issue. Nowhere here did I mention Dr. Ferrari......

Point by point:

So, take the OJ case...the fact that he was deemed innocent in a court of criminal law, means there is no substantiated proof?

-OJ was convicted in a civil court on the basis of a preponderance of evidence. Guilty to me.....

Due process...the legal system failed in this instance. 
Substantiated proof is not exclusively about the final say in a court of law.

-Your opinion, glad you clarified that.

So in your eyes we should just ignore the evidence because of the technicality.

-Evidently you did not read my previous post. I stated that: The evidence is not invalidated at all. I believe the quality and quantity of evidence needs to meet a standard of burden of proof in the correct venue whether that venue is the courts, anti-doping hearings etc. before conviction and sentencing. What technicality? I didnt know I was discussing a particular case in this thread?

I can answer all your four questions by saying that even the judge was siding with Simeoni and his testimony. Fact. Ferrari has had his day and came out worse. Again in your eyes, because of thi technicality we should bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything is good. 

-At no point in this thread did I refer to the Ferrari case. I was speaking in general terms to which you have still not answered the 4 questions I posed in my previous post.

I have questions which you refuse to answer.
Why did lance stop his relationship?
Why have so many of his athletes failed tests?
What is a haemotologist working in cycling for?
Why did Nibali threaten legal action?
Why wouldn't Virenque work with him?
Why did Vino fail a blood test less than six months from the time he began working wiht him?
Why would Ferrari admit to doping Moser?
Why did the USP team work with him in secret?
Why did Lance keep their relationship a secret until the Sunday Times exposed it?
Why did Ferrari say that EPO was no more dangerous than Orange juice, the day after his riders came first, second and third, in a result never before seen?

Simple answer is, and you are absolutely correct by the way, is: 'I dont know'. But what I do know is that neither you or I or anyone other than the individuals themselves knows the real answers. For anyone other than those individuals to suggest a reason is simply speculation driven by suspicion and not firsthand knowledge. Id rather not guess about situations in which I have no direct knowledge.

I dont know enough about the Valverde issue to comment specifically-haven't followed it much.

Clear enough on all the above?

I was speaking in general terms, and my questions were posed as such. I've been polite enough to take the time to respond to your queries as best as I can. Ive answered how many of your questions now? In this thread at least 6 or 7? If you could please, just 4 straightforward answers to my previously posed questions before redirecting the discussion...

Thanks!


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> I was talking about Ferrari specifically and have no intention of getting into a generic legal argument. Thread title and all that....


Not a generic legal argument at all. Its a moral one. I think its fine to disagree, but there is no need to criticize anyone through implied insult (for example: you're insane for believing...) or dismissive sarcasm (such as calling someone a comedian when you know they are serious...) simply because they a)choose to reserve judgement until more is known or b)have an alternate point of view. Without firsthand knowledge can anyone ever really know what the facts are? Anyone can guess, but speaking as if our viewpoint is the absolute truth without firsthand knowledge is a bold step I'd rather not make.... What's that old saying?: Never assume it makes an a....

Take Michael Jackson. Everyone was SOOO sure he was a child molester, then after he dies the guy who pressed charges came out and admitted he had lied, but everyone had the same conclusion and the damage had been done. Id rather not make that type of mistake.

As for this thread, say Astana is vindicated? What was your comment? Systemic? Among other comments.... A little soon Id say.....

My point is...

When you're making statements that are highly damaging to the reputation and livelihood of an individual you'd better make DAMN sure you're right!


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

deadlegs2 said:


> Best Juiced Climb


 Isn't this the climb where Lance was tested just after and was 'positive'?

Pretty different from the way they do it today--- a ride like that with the yellow jersey. Too bad time marches on..At his age now, Lance won't be going like that again uphill.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> You know what, I am DAMN sure i am right.


Are you sure because you have direct firsthand knowledge? Or is your certainty based on info you've garnered from the internet, TV, and various cycling publications?

Are there any prosecutors out there who could make convictions based on your certainty?

If the answer is no, then I'm sorry all you have is your opinion......


----------



## ManxShred (Mar 6, 2009)

So by Association, LA is guilt because Ferrari is guilty?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> Yes if the statute of limitations hadn't run its course.
> 
> Jude's Reasoning re: Judgement on Ferrari in Italian Doping Case released
> 
> ...


This is the ASTANA thread....

It seems as if you have forgotten that you and I have been through this what 4 times now? In another thread? Youve already mentioned this at least twice.....

GIVE IT A REST!!

You seem unable to understand that your opinion is strictly that- Your opinion- which you are entitled to.

I disagree with your opinion, and I've clearly stated my reasons many times. If you have forgotten those reasons please refer to the correct thread. 

I have my opinion and I'm entitled to it based on my interpretation of the matter, which again Im entitled to. If you disagree then please do so politely and be on your way without insult or sarcasm.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> What's your opinion of what the judge said?


That Judge clearly thought he was right. 

The appeals Judge however decided that A) there was grounds for appeal and allowed the appeal to proceed. B)The burden of proof was not met in the prescribed time limit.

Which verdict do you accept? Obviously, you disagree with the ruling of the appeals court. 

Personally, having been through an appeal in court(granted not in Italy) I know firsthand how hard it is to A) have an appeal granted B) have a primary ruling overturned, even if on a statute... I accept the final ruling at face value until proven otherwise. 

AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE!!!


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> slegros said:
> 
> 
> > That Judge clearly thought he was right.
> ...


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Arbiter said:



> They also went through a large amount of waste that was disposed of in a non-official manner, as Astana's was.


Incorrect. This was found in the officially disposed of waste. Which makes it even less plausible.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Arbiter said:


> Not sure if they would need to get this from the UCI as the AFLD should have samples of most of the riders already


This is where the whole story falls apart. AFLD has tested LA several times this year alone. They have his DNA. But the report says that the UCI needs to supply the DNA info for matching. Why? I think we can all safely assume that AFLD has already run DNA test on LA's sample and compared it to what they have found in the waste. If you think they haven't you are certainly naive. There is not/was not/will not ever be a match. The Italians have already set the precedent on comparing DNA from testing samples to convict Valverde. There is no truth to this, or if there is it has nothing to do with LA.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Ekimov said:


> slegros said:
> 
> 
> > That Judge clearly thought he was right.
> ...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

slegros said:


> I believe the UCI already has DNA profiles for all its riders as part of their rider passport program. I think it was mentioned in one article though that there may be an issue with the UCI sharing the info with the French agency. If they share the info they should be able to match the DNA.


So, if the UCI already has DNA samples, how hard would it be to place these DNA samples at some sort of scene....somewhere in France where officials could find it?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Arbiter said:


> Given that the needles are said to have been found in and around the hotels that Astana was staying at you would think they would only need to get the Astana riders DNA to start.
> 
> Not sure if they would need to get this from the UCI as the AFLD should have samples of most of the riders already


I feel left out here. Where are you getting this information? I'd like to see something other than the non-story of the top link of the op.

If what you say is true, the story assumes that Astana is doping but is so stupid that they are forgetting to hide or dispose of the evidence. It occurs to me that not even a first time doping operation would be this stupid. It's like a bank robber leaving his name and address on his note demanding money from the teller. 

The only people that I can think of who are this stupid are the French sporting tabloids.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2009)

Post Festina scandal, I tend to agree with Swiftsolo its hard for me to believe a team would just toss something incriminating where anyone could pick it up or if they were going to toss it out not until it had been "cleaned".


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2009)

So someone was watching them and thus I'm supposed to believe they just threw up their hands and said we'll never get rid of this stuff safely so let's just toss it over here and let them have it?

If anything the argument that being watched affected their actions supports the idea that they would have been very cautious with such items.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

*Comment from lead investigator Renault.*

As quoted in today's Le Monde...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Arbiter said:


> I did not say that. We really don't know how the evidence was found. Certainly Johann and crew have plenty of experience hiding their doping trail, but sometimes even the best make mistakes.


Doubtful. People sometimes get caught red handed, but this is beyond a rookie mistake. Johann is too experienced and well paid to make a rookie mistake like that.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Arbiter said:


> He has done it before. I would not say that giving it to your Chiropractor to dump in a petrol station trash bin is professional.
> 
> Right now we are just speculating. If it is comes to pass that 7 Astana riders DNA were found on illegal syringes then I am sure that how and where these syringes were found will factor into the conspiracy theories floated by Johann.


Unfortunately, there are just as many ways to dispose of the evidence as there are ways to fabricate it.


----------



## muscleendurance (Jan 11, 2009)

Gnarly 928 said:


> Isn't this the climb where Lance was tested just after and was later cleared for effectively accusing Armstrong of being guilty of a doping violation with insufficient evidence. ?


yes it was


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Arbiter said:


> It will be interesting to here how they get 7 DNA samples on the syringes. Of course this may all be part of a grand French conspiracy to bring down Armstrong and 6 other riders but I prefer to lay the blame on the Illuminati or the Free Masons.


As someone noted earlier, UCI already has DNA samples of all professional riders.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Arbiter said:


> Oh, of course the UCI is involved in the Conspiracy.
> 
> The fact that the UCI and AFLD hate each other and the AFLD filed a 12 page report on how the UCI's testing practices at the Tour were corrupt was surely just a smoke screen to draw attention from their real joint goal of bringing down Armstrong.
> 
> It is all coming together now.


Let me guess where you're from.............


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Old_school_nik said:


> I suppose some will just scream "French conspiracy" but I can't think why they would have this equipment knowing full well that it is banned by WADA and illegal in France.
> 
> I am looking foward to the explanations.
> 
> ...


Here is the best info I can find on this subject http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/sports/cycling/24cycling.html?_r=1

It may fall just a smidgen short of convicting Astana, LA and AC except in the court of DF DA's


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> However the anti-hypertension drugs are used normally in conjunction with blood doping.


Lasix has long been used to "flush" the system "clean". Unfortunately this drug is very easily detected in the urine and was one of the first drugs we could test for. In fact, back in the day, labs couldn't detect steroids, but were detecting the drugs used to attempt to flush them out of the system since healthy athletes or horses should not have a reason to be on them. They also mess with electrolyte balance. I don't currently have the data in front of me, but I don't believe they could hide EPO, CERA, or HGH by using that drug.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> Could it be used as an aid to help prevent clots when blood doping?


Nope. Just ion exchange in the kidney, which won't involve any clotting factors. Typically it only echanges with +1 charged cations, primarily sodium. The mechanism is to decrease plasma expansion (and reduce hypertension) via removal of some sodium. Since potassium has the same valence, it's also excreted, which is very undesirable. Typically this was used for blood doping to capitalize on the higher hemoglobin. The extra pint of fluid needed to be excreted to keep a relatively save blood pressure and prevent fluid overload. In theory, trying to eliminate CERA, EPO, or HGH from the bloodstream would negate the desired effects of the drug, not that I'm aware of loop diuretics being able to do this in the first place.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Arbiter said:


> I do not think that anyone is claiming that they were using this a masking agent.


Then why would they have the alleged blood pressure meds in the first place?


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2009)

Maybe this guy needed them:


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Arbiter said:


> Did you read the rest of my post or the article in the OP?


I did, but no realistic rationale was substantiated.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Ekimov said:


> Also, to have this equipment in hte first place is illegal in France.
> But I'm sure the French planted it there and planted the seven riders' DNA also.


Apparently there are exceptions and I've yet to see where the question of exceptions has been addressed.

It seems to me that this entire story should have been released once the results were in and the goods were clear. Instead it casts a cloud that allows the conspiracy theorists to have another shot at telling us why another multi government /multi agency coverup has taken place. I agree that this has not happened yet but have no doubt whatsoever that it will when nothing of substance is found. The very foundation of the story forces one to accept that Astana is the most inept bunch of dopers ever assembled. We are asked to believe that the giant of alledged doping operations apparently never considered that anybody would be so incredibly astute as to go through their medical trash. "God Damm, that never occured to us--the very genius of these guys has finally outfoxed us with this stroke of brilliance".


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

The very nature of the cycling press needs to be addressed. Im certainly all for a clean sport, and convicted dopers certainly deserve what they get.

Take Paul Kimmage and his 'the cancer has come out of remission' comment about Armstrong. It was clearly a case of him deliberately being controversial in order to make headlines and sell news. Such unfortunately is the mentality of a large portion of the cycling media, and the media in general. Or for example the Tiger Woods 'doping' story, what doping? He received a legitimate treatment for an injury yet it was presented in a controversial manner so as to sell news-even by CNN. Certain aspects of most stories have the more controversial elements up-played while often any evidence which would quell any suspicion or downplay any controversy is footnoted or downplayed. 

That is what is happening with the headlines in the Astana case. Many articles are presented in a manner as to cast increased doubt and suspicion either directly on indirectly on Armstrong and Contador. For example 'Armstrongs Astana team caught with doping equipment'

Fact of the matter is contoversy sells, and an unfortunate byproduct is this manner of reporting continues to cast suspicion far after the story has left the headlines and often if exculpatory evidence is found it either is a footnote or not reported at all. Lets all at least try to be smart enough to see through this play. The press uses it to sell news and this practice continues to damage a sport we all obviously love.

I would go so far as to say that the unbalanced manner in which most doping stories are presented in the press has as much to do with cycling's dirty image as the problem of doping itself.

Take the facts both positive and negative at face value-weigh them appropriately and come to your own opinions. Lets not be sheep who mindlessly follow where the journalists would like to lead us for their own purposes on this one.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

SwiftSolo said:


> The very foundation of the story forces one to accept that Astana is the most inept bunch of dopers ever assembled.


In no way am I trying to deny the possibility of doping, but I would struggle to wrap my mind around the concept that such a high level team would be this inept! On the bright side, the fishy nature of all of the details and timing is pretty good for establishing reasonable doubt.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

slegros said:


> The very nature of the cycling press needs to be addressed. Im certainly all for a clean sport, and convicted dopers certainly deserve what they get.
> 
> Take Paul Kimmage and his 'the cancer has come out of remission' comment about Armstrong. It was clearly a case of him deliberately being controversial in order to make headlines and sell news. Such unfortunately is the mentality of a large portion of the cycling media, and the media in general. Or for example the Tiger Woods 'doping' story, what doping? He received a legitimate treatment for an injury yet it was presented in a controversial manner so as to sell news-even by CNN. Certain aspects of most stories have the more controversial elements up-played while often any evidence which would quell any suspicion or downplay any controversy is footnoted or downplayed.
> 
> ...


Between the racers, UCI, WADA, and journalists, I think I trust the journalists the least. I would agree they're very problematic. Instead of reporting the story, there's too much focus on trying to write/spin/control the story. The truth is never as important as ratings.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

slegros said:


> The very nature of the cycling press needs to be addressed. Im certainly all for a clean sport, and convicted dopers certainly deserve what they get.
> 
> Take Paul Kimmage and his 'the cancer has come out of remission' comment about Armstrong. It was clearly a case of him deliberately being controversial in order to make headlines and sell news. Such unfortunately is the mentality of a large portion of the cycling media, and the media in general. Or for example the Tiger Woods 'doping' story, what doping? He received a legitimate treatment for an injury yet it was presented in a controversial manner so as to sell news-even by CNN. Certain aspects of most stories have the more controversial elements up-played while often any evidence which would quell any suspicion or downplay any controversy is footnoted or downplayed.
> 
> ...


Does look bad for Tiger though.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2009/12/14/2009-12-14_tigers_doc_linked_to_hgh.html
Goes from squeaky clean sports superstar to pornstar banging sex addict. Then it emerges that his doctor is caught with HGH and Actovegin as well as links to BALCO.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Ekimov said:


> Yes, but you need a TUE. Astana don't have the required ones. And backdated TUE like '99 won't work this time.


What is your source for this information? Was it just fabricated for the hell of it or do you have something real?


----------



## deadlegs2 (Oct 3, 2009)

spade2you said:


> In no way am I trying to deny the possibility of doping, but I would struggle to wrap my mind around the concept that such a high level team would be this inept! On the bright side, the fishy nature of all of the details and timing is pretty good for establishing reasonable doubt.


The guy whose everyday job it was to cut all that stuff up into tiny pieces and flush it down the toilet took a day off..


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

deadlegs2 said:


> The guy whose everyday job it was to cut all that stuff up into tiny pieces and flush it down the toilet took a day off..


Oh snap! They must have assigned the job to the rookie temps.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> Lance failed a test on the prologue stage of 99 tour for cortisone. For two weeks he answered that he did not take ANY drugs for therapeutic reasons. For two weeks he put on his form nothing to declare as regards taking medicines. He was notified that he failed the test. He backdated a prescription through the team doctor. All on public record. Go and find it yourself, if you are prepared for it.
> 
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden


Wasn't that for some sort of cortisone cream pertaining to a saddle sore? Five hours a day in the saddle can do that. The problem with the UCI banned substance list is that it's excessive and many of the drugs have no performance benefit. Despite being callled "steroids", typical glucocorticoids and mineralcorticoids provide no performance benefits and it could easily be demonstrated to show somewhat of a performance if "abused". Believe it or not, but insulin is on the banned substance list. It's not impossible to fill out the TUE form, but a big hassle. Most asthma meds are also on the list.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> Paul didn't even write this. He was interviewed on Radio, so no sales involved there.
> He has wrote about doping for twenty years, as he is a former pro cyclist who witnessed doping at first hand. If this guy is not entitled to ask questions, who is?


Of course he is entitled to his opinion-we all are. Written or not though it was pretty inflammatory and he did receive a lot of attention for it. At the very least he came off as somewhat insensitive to people with cancer, and the work Lance has done to help people with the disease. Kimmage could have just as easily criticized Armstrong's return without equating him to cancer. Then again he also could have just as easily focused on the positive aspects of Lance's return to cycling, but chose not to. The questions should and need to be asked in cycling, but I think the issue of responsible journalism shouldn't overlooked while doing so.

As opposed only assailing the opinions/arguments of others, perhaps you could state your opinion and offer some solutions/ideas of your own? On second thought why bother... it seems to work well for the GOP...


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> Does look bad for Tiger though.
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2009/12/14/2009-12-14_tigers_doc_linked_to_hgh.html
> Goes from squeaky clean sports superstar to pornstar banging sex addict. Then it emerges that his doctor is caught with HGH and Actovegin as well as links to BALCO.


That article is a good example of what Im talking about. The article doesn't say anywhere explicitly that Woods did anything wrong or is even accused of any wrongdoing. It uses leading terms saying the procedure the doctor performed on him is controversial, but omits that the only reason it is controversial is that some doctors dispute that it works at all. It says that this doctor had many other high profile clients, yet Tiger Woods' name is the only name mentioned in the title even BEFORE the name of the doctor. Why doesn't the title contain only the name of the doctor, or the name of one of the other athletes mentioned?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Arbiter said:


> You are right. It is light on facts. Here is how something like this should be written. Lots of information and in depth analysis from an expert.
> 
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden


Personally I think it raises many interesting questions! Most definately! But the interviewer makes 4 procedural errors which weaken the article:

1)The interviewer doesn't challenge Ashenden at all. If he did, and asked many of the questions that readers raised in the comments section Ashenden's claims would come across far more strongly. Its his job to anticipate these questions, and raise them before the readers do.

2)The interviewer didn't independently verify any Ashenden's many claims or follow up with any of the agencies mentioned. He also made the mistake of allowing Ashenden himself to show how spiking samples was nearly impossible instead of having an outside expert provide that analysis. Independent verification would have closed holes for anyone doubting Ashenden, and would have been easy to do. (not to say they wouldn't verify or that Ashenden's analysis was in any way incorrect... the journalist simply made a mistake)

3)The interviewer doesn't interview any other noted experts in the field to either support or refute Ashenden's conclusions. If independent experts concur with Ashendens analysis then there is serious cause for concern here. (Although to his credit he attempted to get Dr. Coyle on record to respond to Ashenden's specific claims toward him.)

4) Finally as the allegations are directed at Armstrong, Armstrong himself should be allowed to comment or provide rebuttal information. If he refuses comment or has a weak rebuttal that would further support Ashenden's claims.

If anything I think its the journalist who lets Ashenden down here. Its the job of the interviewer to anticipate these sorts of things and ask the questions and close the loopholes before they are raised in the minds of the readers. 60 minutes usually does a pretty good job with this type of reporting IMO.

I think that the above 4 steps should be taken in this case as Ashenden raises many questions which should be looked into. There have been many cases where good investigative journalism has uncovered problems and brought about positive change. No reason the same cant happen in cycling. Its a very important function of a free press IMO.

Here is a critique of the article for further info, and yet another perspective:
http://velovortmax.blogspot.com/2009/04/ashenden-interview-critique.html


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2009)

Arbiter said:


> The use of the "Cancer" analogy was callous. Perhaps he should have said that Armstrong was the Herpes of Pro Cycling?



Ha, I don't agree, but that's still funny.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> Says the person who criticised Kimmage. :mad2:
> 
> Lets focus on Lance....he bullies riders who speak out against doping. He has failed tests. His blood indicates doping at this year's tour. He admitted to doping.
> He gets 2m dollars for his foundation by appearing at the TDU this year, yet he keeps it for personal gain. He comes back for cancer awareness yet doesn't speak to the media for larfge parts of the season.
> ...


Paul Kimmage! Bastion of journalistic integrity!!!! LOL!!! All journalists should aspire to his example!!! LOL!!!


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Ekimov said:


> Lance failed a test on the prologue stage of 99 tour for cortisone. For two weeks he answered that he did not take ANY drugs for therapeutic reasons. For two weeks he put on his form nothing to declare as regards taking medicines. He was notified that he failed the test. He backdated a prescription through the team doctor. All on public record. Go and find it yourself, if you are prepared for it.
> 
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden


You missed the question. What is your source that makes it clear that Astana did not have the required paperwork?


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

slegros said:


> Paul Kimmage! Bastion of journalistic integrity!!!! LOL!!! All journalists should aspire to his example!!! LOL!!!


Are you talking about this guy? http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/348323/the-big-interview-paul-kimmage.html
Seems only the "Old Guard" and defenders of the Omerta feel the same way as you.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> I read that link you provided. Particularly liked the line where it says that EPO molecules disappear over time and not appear. Even Lance himself has said that he doesn't doubt EPO is in the samples. His defence is that they were spiked or are not his. The samples were anonymous. The chances of spiking the samples, which were only Lance's, are 480 to 1. Lance wasn't the only samples retested, but Bo Hamburger was the only other person who tested positive on the retests. In order to spike, those were the odds faced. Lance by the way gave permission to the journalist in question to match the numbers with the UCI. It was not some sort of conpsiracy where scientists broke in and got his info. And the irony here is that people like me, who think he doped, are labelled the conspiracists.
> L'Equipe called Lance a liar and cheat and asked him at hte end of the article to sue them. He did not. The tape recording of his manager rang through. "The best thing for us is if this thing goes away, because otherwise it's all out war in a French court room, and it will blow the sport apart." Lance has never been afraid to sue. Why not now?:idea:
> 
> And by the way, Ashenden is one of the most well known scientists in this particular field anywhere in the world. You'd be doing very well to get anyone to match his knowledge in hte anti-doping field. Himself and maybe Werner Franke.


Do you read my posts before replying?

I don't disagree at all. Read my post, I presented that 2nd article to present another opinion to that of my own. At no point did I agree with it. I think it was Ashenden's choice of journalist that let him down. If the journalist had properly done his job what came out of it would have been much stronger. As it stands I think further investigation to look into and verify what Ashenden has to say is warranted.

If all of Ashenden's claims and conclusions were independently verified it would make his case that much stronger wouldn't it?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> Are you talking about this guy? http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/348323/the-big-interview-paul-kimmage.html
> Seems only the "Old Guard" and defenders of the Omerta feel the same way as you.


The question is what to do about it?

Maybe we can hook up with Greg LeMond and yell out 'YOU LIE' a la Joe Wilson at Armstrong press conferences? Aside from that....... Any suggestions?


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

slegros said:


> The question is what to do about it?
> 
> Maybe we can hook up with Greg LeMond and yell out 'YOU LIE' a la Joe Wilson at Armstrong press conferences? Aside from that....... Any suggestions?


No, but it is a bit unfair to accuse Paul Kimmage in the way you did while wanting due process etc for LA et all.
Kimmage is a well respected journalist writing for a broadsheet newspaper. 

Unlike most of us, Kimmage has seen the problem from the inside as has Lemond.

It is interesting that while the English version of LA Confidential was blocked, legal action against the French original failed and the same allegations were successfully reprinted in From Lance to Landis without legal challenge.

L'Equipe's headline "Le Mesonage Armstrong" and attendant "sue us if you dare" article produced no legal response. Why? Because LA knew he'd be under a microscope he could not influence.

He claims that by being the "the most tested athlete" with a 100% pass rate, he must be clean. Marion Jones was tested 160 times without a single positive. So that means nothing in terms of honest sporting endevour. All it shows is an ability to evade the testers.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> No, but it is a bit unfair to accuse Paul Kimmage in the way you did while wanting due process etc for LA et all.
> Kimmage is a well respected journalist writing for a broadsheet newspaper.
> 
> Unlike most of us, Kimmage has seen the problem from the inside as has Lemond.
> ...


To the best of my knowledge I didn't accuse Paul Kimmage of anything other than being inflammatory by equating LA to cancer.... In fact I called him a bastion of journalistic integrity that all journalists should aspire to!!! The LOL was because Its absolutely absurd that anyone would even dare to suggest otherwise!!!


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> Have you read his work? If not why criticise him for his opinion? When it is clear you know little about him. Or prove me wrong and give me an example of him being wrong.


Where did I criticize him or his opinion? I merely said that his comments equating LA to cancer were a bit insensitive. Do you read my posts before you reply?


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

> Where did I criticize him or his opinion? I merely said that his comments equating LA to cancer was a bit insensitive. Do you read my posts before you reply?


This wasn't a sarcastic quip?


slegros said:


> Paul Kimmage! Bastion of journalistic integrity!!!! LOL!!! All journalists should aspire to his example!!! LOL!!!


Pull the other one, it's got bells on!


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> This wasn't a sarcastic quip?
> Pull the other one, it's got bells on!


Wow sorry if you felt it was!!! Do you defend everyone's integrity so strongly? Wait!!! Oh yeah......


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> who do you think he is?


He's one of the world's foremost experts in his field. But he's not the only one. If you get 2 or 3 on board NOT disputing each other (which is usual academic practice), and all of what he says regarding the labs, sample test etc. is corroborated. Then you've got something much stronger don't you?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> For the SCA case, the Austrailian Institute of Sport had a number of people who researched the case with him, before he gave his testimony.


Get them all on board. If Lance cheated he deserves to get caught. Unfortunately the way the journalist put that article together left a lot or room for criticism and speculation(not from me!! you saw it I didn't write that rebuttal or post those comments below the original...). If he were to have addressed all the issues and left no wiggle room for doubt, then he'd have a very solid case. Im all for trying to eliminate any wiggle room. That's why I said further investigation is warranted and even went as far as to suggest ways to fortify the case!!

But what happens if some of what Ashenden said doesn't check out? Or if one or several of his academic colleagues of equal standing disagree with him? Then what??


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

oops! misplaced....


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> Research the SCA case then...it was investigated there.


If it was investigated and the findings were airtight why isnt LA being stripped of TDF wins? Evidently theres enough wiggle room that the people who have the power to strip him (you know those damn French-always siding with LA....) are not convinced yet..... 

Oh and you don't need to convince me by the way.... Nothing I can do about Lance......


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> And again, I ask you, have you read any of his articles?


Quite a few. Why do you ask?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> My god could you make a more stereotypcal statement.
> The wiggle room...the test wasn't there in 99. By the time the test came, it was too late.


Again read the post. Where do I mention any test done in 99?

Im not talking about tests done in 99..... Im talking about this Ashenden thing and the SCA investigation you mentioned. Last time I checked that's what we were discussing here. If his samples are conclusively positive based on Ashenden's or this SCA investigation's findings he should be stripped retroactively. I've never said anything otherwise. Evidently someone is not convinced enough by this new evidence to strip him otherwise he'd be stripped!! That's why I suggested it be corroborated-so it the NEW EVIDENCE (note: NOT the tests from 99) CANT be disputed!!

Re-read my posts: IVE STATED THIS FROM THE BEGINNING!!!!

Nothing to do with tests done in 99....


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Arbiter said:


> Patrice Clerc, who ran the Tour de France during Armstrong 7 year run, called the 99 tests confirmation that Armstrong's wins had been a "big lie". Shortly after he announced his return Armstrong flew to Paris to meet with the Amaury family who owns the Tour. He made it clear he would not ride the Tour if Clerc was still there. Clerc was fired a few weeks later.
> 
> As far as the article. You appear to find fault in that the interviewer did not aggressively question Ashenden's findings. Perhaps that was because Ashenden is one of the foremost experts in his field and his view on the 99 tests is correct?
> 
> ...



I think his findings should hold up under scrutiny. If they do, which they seem to be doing, then ALL who concur with them should be brought together to present irrefutable proof and provide pressure to act against LA. Why hasn't it happened yet?

If LA is guilty nail him.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Ekimov said:


> And that's what I'm trying to say to you. The time has passed. They don't have the power to strip him anymore. Just like they can't strip Bjarne Riis from 1996, eventhough he admitted taking EPO for that tour.:mad2:


But the technology exists, even if they cant strip him he should be proven dirty beyond a shadow of a doubt. As I mentioned Im not the one casting doubt on Ashenden's findings many have found fault with aspects of his logic. Is there conclusive proof he cheated? Not at the moment, only a probability (likelihood?) Clear up the doubts-corroborate Ashenden's findings if possible.

If attempts to corroborate Ashenden's work were to fail, then what?

With reference to this years tour and the transfusion equipment there are tests to determine whether blood transfusions were used or not, something about ratio of new to mature blood cells or something-im not an expert. Why didn't any of LA's test come back positive for doping if as many suspect he was using transfusions? If he wasn't tested for that why not?

That raises another issue? If Hematocrit levels are kept below 50 is any advantage gained if the riders are all held to the same standard as was the case in 99? Should a base Hematocrit level be the only standard used? Like an octane rating for fuel? Supplements are used to increase iron levels etc... It levels the playing field and offers no advantage that cannot be gained naturally....

As far as LA goes the basis of people saying he doped at this years tour was that his Hematocrit levels didn't drop over the course of the race, but his levels were what? 43 or so? Nothing spectacular there.....


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Even if the statute is up he should be proven guilty beyond any doubt. Ashenden's finding should be properly and academically corroborated to do so. Many have found fault with aspects of Ashenden's findings and conclusions(no need to convince me-please refer to the rebuttal article I posted). Corroboration of Ashenden's work would take away any doubts. It needs to be done if it can.

As for this year as I mentioned in another post there apparently is a test which measures the ratio of new to mature blood cells, if the ratio is off it is an indication of blood transfusion. If LA's samples weren't tested by that method they should be.

Should we do away with all tests for blood doping and revert to using a baseline hematocrit # as the only standard? Say 48 or so? Nothing that cant be achieved naturally.... Supplements are used to increase ferritin levels etc.. It would level the playing field like an octane rating for fuel....

Part of the basis of doping allegations against LA this year was that his hematocrit levels didnt drop of the course of the race as they did at the Giro. Tour was hotter, dehydration increases hematocrit? Its possible we dont know unless tested.. But regardles his hematocrit was nothing special, it hovered at about 43 for the whole tour....... Kind of stupid if he doped... Not like he gained much of an advantage if he did......


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Arbiter said:


> Statue of limitations is up. Sanctions based on this will not happen. This technicality does not mean that we should suspend critical thinking when it comes to Armstrong, or other riders for that matter. Valverde is still riding and Ulrich is not suspended and they are clearly dopers.
> 
> Ashden's interview has been available for close to a year and has stood the test of time.
> 
> ...


Even if the statute is up he should be proven guilty beyond any doubt. Ashenden's finding should be properly and academically corroborated to do so. Many have found fault with aspects of Ashenden's findings and conclusions(no need to convince me-please refer to the rebuttal article I posted). Corroboration of Ashenden's work would take away any doubts. It needs to be done if it can.

As for this year as I mentioned in another post there apparently is a test which measures the ratio of new to mature blood cells, if the ratio is off it is an indication of blood transfusion. If LA's samples weren't tested by that method they should be.

Should we do away with all tests for blood doping and revert to using a baseline hematocrit # as the only standard? Say 48 or so? Nothing that cant be achieved naturally.... Supplements are used to increase ferritin levels etc.. It would level the playing field like an octane rating for fuel....

Part of the basis of doping allegations against LA this year was that his hematocrit levels didnt drop over the course of the race as they did at the Giro. Tour was hotter, dehydration increases hematocrit? Its possible we dont know unless tested.. But regardles his hematocrit was nothing special, it hovered at about 43 for the whole tour....... Kind of stupid if he doped... Not like he gained much of an advantage if he did......


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Arbiter said:


> Patrice Clerc, who ran the Tour de France during Armstrong 7 year run, called the 99 tests confirmation that Armstrong's wins had been a "big lie".


Clerc is an idiot.


lets look at LA's TDF wins

2005
Lance Armstrong* 
Ivan Basso*
Jan Ullrich*

2004
Lance Armstrong*
Andreas Klöden *$$$$
Ivan Basso*

2003
Lance Armstrong*
Jan Ullrich*	
Alexander Vinokourov*

2002
Lance Armstrong*	
Joseba Beloki*
Raimondas Rumšas*

2001
Lance Armstrong* 
Jan Ullrich*	
Joseba Beloki*

2000
Lance Armstrong* 
Jan Ullrich*	
Joseba Beloki*

1999
Lance Armstrong*
Alex Zülle*	
Fernando Escartín*



everyone that finished behind Lance was/is a doper. Face it the top riders all DOPE.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Ekimov said:


> Lets focus on Lance....he bullies riders who speak out against doping. He has failed tests. His blood indicates doping at this year's tour. He admitted to doping.
> He gets 2m dollars for his foundation by appearing at the TDU this year, yet he keeps it for personal gain. He comes back for cancer awareness yet doesn't speak to the media for larfge parts of the season.
> 
> \.


And it's only through a long series of mafia style conspiracies, payoffs, and blackmail that LA has avoided ever being punished by the authorities. The current one is the perfect example. This latest round of "irrefutable evidence" will be used next month to add to your list of damming events. I mean, how much more clear could it be. Some illegal medical stuff was found in the trash somewhere in the vicinity of where LA once was. I'd say this meets all of the high standards that you've used on the past evidence that you've cited (like he admitted that he rubbed some cream on his saddle sore ass becomes "he admitted to doping"--only a small tweak of the facts). 

I asked before without answer, where are you getting the information that astana had no medical authorizations/exceptions for the IV rule? A link could at least add some remote plausability that it is possible that astana was the culprit?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Arbiter said:


> You make some good points, but may not understand the finer points of this issue.
> 
> One of the main reasons for the dip bags and large syringes that were found being banned is their use in rapidly bringing down Hct levels. While some may try to minimulize the fact that Armstrong kept a tester waiting for 30 minutes while he "Took a shower" or for 45 minutes after the TTT, or for 55 minutes later in the Tour is that this is more then enough time to bring a 49 hct down to 43. Because of this Hct has a much reduced importance.
> 
> ...


To not test the race leader the moment they cross the finish line is simply assinine..... The race leader and any rider due for random test should be quarantined the moment they cross the line and held until all tests are done. Thats the fault of the organizer, not the rider.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

I think that it is incredibly disappointing that these things were found. I think that whoever did use them should be brought to justice. For the sake of the sport and the fans.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

Ekimov said:


> On the hardest part of the race, he climbed better than he did previously and secured third place.


dont you believe in miracles?

maybe you love cancer?


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

Someone explain to me how more or less everyone who doped is eventually caught...excpet the ONE GUY who was/is scrutinized (and tested) the most. 

I know, I know....Im a "fanboy." Whatever.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

RkFast said:


> Someone explain to me how more or less everyone who doped is eventually caught...excpet the ONE GUY who was/is scrutinized (and tested) the most.
> 
> I know, I know....Im a "fanboy." Whatever.


Armstrong is not the most tested athlete or cyclist. Hushovd would have been tested more, as would Contador and Pellizotti. 
His "Most tested" line was changed to "One of the most tested" long ago after it emerged track & field stars like Marion "never tested +ve" Jones were more tested than him AND never failed a test!


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

RkFast said:


> Someone explain to me how more or less everyone who doped is eventually caught...excpet the ONE GUY who was/is scrutinized (and tested) the most.
> 
> I know, I know....Im a "fanboy." Whatever.


Well you see there's all this 'hard evidence' floating around in internetland. How dare you even ask a question like that when he's so obviously dirty as hell!! 

Ill sit back now and allow my 'colleagues' to continue to assail you for having the audacity to ask such a question, after which they will inundate you with regurgitated 'hard evidence' from internetland along with links to various articles. Following that they will continue in a relentless fashion to indirectly question your intelligence for even daring to ask such a question until you - in a moment of epiphany- become a 'True Believer' like the rest of us here.......


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

slegros said:


> Well you see there's all this 'hard evidence' floating around in internetland. How dare you even ask a question like that when he's so obviously dirty as hell!!
> 
> Ill sit back now and allow my 'colleagues' to continue to assail you for having the audacity to ask such a question, after which they will inundate you with regurgitated 'hard evidence' from internetland along with links to various articles. Following that they will continue in a relentless fashion to indirectly question your intelligence for even daring to ask such a question until you - in a moment of epiphany- become a 'True Believer' like the rest of us here.......


I'll grant you there is no direct evidence. However, you have to admit that the circumstantial evidence is pretty convincing, wouldn't you agree?

If the allegations in "From Lance to Landis" are untrue and baseless, why has there been no legal challenge to it? It is pretty much the whole of "LA Confidential" in English.

My opinion is that LA knows that his chances of coming out of it victorious are not good. Far better to let it slide than risk a public can of worms opening in court.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Damn quote button.... One of these days Ill figure it out....


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> I'll grant you there is no direct evidence. However, you have to admit that the circumstantial evidence is pretty convincing, wouldn't you agree?
> 
> If the allegations in "From Lance to Landis" are untrue and baseless, why has there been no legal challenge to it? It is pretty much the whole of "LA Confidential" in English.
> 
> My opinion is that LA knows that his chances of coming out of it victorious are not good. Far better to let it slide than risk a public can of worms opening in court.


Dont work on me!!! Work on the new guy!!! 

As for direct evidence don't worry I'm pretty sure someone will be along shortly quoting articles and providing links, and if that's not 'hard evidence' for you then your intelligence will be indirectly questioned as well.....


----------



## tnwtnit (Nov 29, 2009)

SwiftSolo said:


> It never hurts to point out that there are other ways to deal with personal inadequacy issues besides attacking winners without substantiated evidence.


Even though not all "doping" is cheating, I agree. It's fun to watch all the uneducated reject wanna-be amateur cyclists get on these boards and start slinging undeserved HATE towards Lance and other "dopers", especially in such a way that opens them up to being sued for libel.

And that's exactly why I don't and never will ride in local hammer fests, crits, or any group ride full of wanna-bes on road bikes. Those cyclists are just a bunch of can't-do sore losers who think they would be king of the world if it weren't for the "dopers". Then they hop on the internet to cry about it.

The worst part is, we are close to start of a new chapter in human physiological improvement, which may include genetic alteration and anti-aging therapies. What are all the cry babies going to do then? Maybe they'll finally realize that sports aren't just about finding the most gifted "born" athlete, but about pushing human excellence to the stratosphere.

All the losers who went to college for a paycheck (hello, engineers) and now sit in a office all day (then go ride their 'spensive bike after work to make themselves feel special) aren't the people discovering the physical boundaries of the human body. It's our professional athletes who are doing so. With implications deeper than your shallow minds could comprehend (life, death, the universe, aliens... that type of stuff).

The worst part of all the doping talk is that the haters couldn't tell us a reasonable definition of "doping", nor could they tell us off the top of their head what the risk is from any specific form of "doping".

What are the chances of dying from blood doping? You might seem a bit retarded if you are crying about a doping method that carries less risk than say, riding in a car (car accident death = 1/84).

You want to criticize somebody who takes a pill that let's them win at a cost of dropping dead the next day? Go for it. Last time I checked, practically all the winners are still alive.

Moral of the story? Everybody knows exactly the type of people the 'haters' are. The nobodies in expensive jerseys and bikes, riding on public roads yet using thin tires (YEAH MAN, because going 2 MPH faster really matters! Gotta brag to one of your idiot friends how many miles you cracked this week huh?) despite not having a chance at every standing on a real podium (let me guess, 'cause everybody else dopes, right?). No real friends (because civilized people can't stand to be around your piss poor attitude), and a total lack of imagination or creativity.

What blows me away is when I see these idiots post photos of their rides (especially the foreigners), and I see them on slick racing setups, yet the riders are big (even a bit fat), and at the end of the ride they are eating absolute sh*t food and alcohol. It's like, wow. Why even bother riding a racing bike if you are going to fail at some aspect of the equation? Put on some real tires designed to tackle the unknowns of street riding (or simply ride a mountain bike, or hybrid setup if you need drops) and enjoy the ride. But, I guess you douche bags can't actually just enjoy cycling like us elite folks. No, no.. you have to quantify it all (I especially have to shake my head at the guys who put their mileage into spread sheets...) and delude yourself into thinking you are 'fast' to get enjoyment out of it.

p.s. Lance is in Hawaii right now, enjoying great weather, family, and great rides. Maybe you'd all be somewhere nice as well if you all weren't such failures.


----------



## jjmstang (May 8, 2009)

No she doesn't. She dislikes uni-ballers. She likes a ball in each hand.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

tnwtnit said:


> The worst part of all the doping talk is that the haters couldn't tell us a reasonable definition of "doping", nor could they tell us off the top of their head what the risk is from any specific form of "doping".
> 
> What are the chances of dying from blood doping? You might seem a bit retarded if you are crying about a doping method that carries less risk than say, riding in a car (car accident death = 1/84).
> 
> You want to criticize somebody who takes a pill that let's them win at a cost of dropping dead the next day? Go for it. Last time I checked, practically all the winners are still alive.


_doping (noun) 1900: the use of a substance (as an anabolic steroid or erythropoietin) or technique (as blood doping) to illegally improve athletic performance._

Several Dutch and Belgian cyclists in the late 80's & early 90's died from heart attacks. 

The Festina affair in 98 showed that the drug use extended into recreational use to with the Pot Belge parties that several team members attested to,

Pantani and Jiminez both succumbed to depression, possibly brought on or exacerbated by cocaine. Pantani in particular was suspected of using EPO for much of his career.

So the risks are well documented.

BTW I have not raced in years. I was crap when I did. I am not bitter about a failed pro career (it was never on the cards!). I am on the other hand one of the tifosi, a fan. 

Wanting a clean and fair sport does not make me a hater, far from it. I LOVE cycling. That's why the malaise of doping has to be eradicated.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Admins on holiday?

To respond to an earlier post - people convicted in criminal court DON'T all deserve what they get. I forget what the count is up to now for people on death row who have been cleared of charges due to DNA evidence but it's in the hundreds. So much for the wisdom of crowds.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

Arbiter said:


> Funny, the UCI never noted the incident in their log.


they probably also don't note the large lump sum 'donations in their 'log' either 

at least they are consistent


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

terzo rene said:


> Admins on holiday?
> 
> To respond to an earlier post - people convicted in criminal court DON'T all deserve what they get. I forget what the count is up to now for people on death row who have been cleared of charges due to DNA evidence but it's in the hundreds. So much for the wisdom of crowds.


I agree that the wisdom of crowds can often be fallible!


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

*Johan comments on Le Monde's article*

Interesting what he says, I think.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-on-contador-armstrong-and-le-mondes-accusations



> Bruyneel also revealed that he isn’t in the least bit worried about the recent report in French daily _Le Monde _that the Astana team is under investigation following the seizure of blood transfusion equipment during the Tour that was allegedly in the team’s possession. “I’m not worried about that at all because there’s nothing in it: they can spend years looking into it and they won’t find anything. The fact that these people don’t take an objective position leaves me with a bitter taste. I don’t know where all this comes from. We’ve received no official notification… it’s a fixation, they’re just determined to find something. We were tested twice as much as any other team on the Tour and they are not happy because they didn’t find anything. But I’m not worried.”


Although, I didn't think the authorities had to inform the subject(s) of a criminal investigation until they're arrested.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators note.*



terzo rene said:


> Admins on holiday?
> 
> To respond to an earlier post - people convicted in criminal court DON'T all deserve what they get. I forget what the count is up to now for people on death row who have been cleared of charges due to DNA evidence but it's in the hundreds. So much for the wisdom of crowds.


Not anymore- clean-up complete. Looks like things got a bit out of hand.

Locking this one, but please feel free to restart another thread on this if you want to.


----------

