# Armstrong’s Testing Plan Ends Before it Begins



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/sports/othersports/12cycling.html?_r=1&hp

No Catlin. I also hear that Damsgaard is also out. 

The Myth continues. Most will only remember the press conference


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/sports/othersports/12cycling.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> No Catlin. I also hear that Damsgaard is also out.
> 
> The Myth continues. Most will only remember the press conference


While I must say I am a little disappointed that the program is not happening, he has been tested by "other governing bodies" and so far has tested negative if I am not mistaken.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

jupiterrn said:


> While I must say I am a little disappointed that the program is not happening, he has been tested by "other governing bodies" and so far has tested negative if I am not mistaken.


The same governing body he gave a $500,000 "donation" to?


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Surprise, surprise.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

What a fu**ing joke....at any rate, it was going to be an even bigger waste of time than ever, when you consider that baseline figures were never established.
The Press Conference at LV is all the Lance apologists will decide to remember.

To the people who point to the UCI tests being negative, two words - Operation Puerto, the police cracked this case, not any cycling body.........


----------



## bikesarethenewblack (Dec 30, 2008)

This guy will say one thing and do another. This goes along with "I was just following Simeoni's wheel." 

I guess my question would be - between this and the great Tuft article, why is the NYTimes doing better articles than velonews?

That was rhetorical, but you know what I mean.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

jupiterrn said:


> While I must say I am a little disappointed that the program is not happening, he has been tested by "other governing bodies" and so far has tested negative if I am not mistaken.



Jupitern,

I totally understand your thinking but many of the cyclists who we have definitive proof of doping (either by admission, or other evidence like Frank Schleck's $10k) also passed the same "tests" that Armstong did... dozens of them so this simply does not hold up. Jan Ullrich himself who got busted in Puerto was taking everything under the sun as was Tyler and for some reason they "never failed a test" - these are winners now subject to tons of extra testing by these governing bodies....

Nik


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

Do you guys like your Reynolds tin foil or the cheap dollar store variety? Nothing the guy would or wouldn't do would change any minds down in this forum. Like I said I am disappointed but Oh well.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

jupiterrn said:


> Do you guys like your Reynolds tin foil or the cheap dollar store variety? .


right, :idea: 

And the only explanation for the 6 EPO positives in the 99 Tour is a French Conspiracy.....and Betsy, Emma, Walsh, Swart, etc. are just haters who are out to get him.....anyone who questions the myth does not believe in miracles. '

It is rather obvious which side of this discussion needs to suspend rational thought and believe in conspiracies.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

jupiterrn said:


> Do you guys like your Reynolds tin foil or the cheap dollar store variety?


I'm not going to engage in insults here but why must you? Armstrong knew what the accusations were and he felt the need to allay people's doubts. 

You're a nurse. You know how easy it is to give the samples and do the tests. It's so routine it's ridiculous. The results of an HCT test can literally be obtained in less than half an hour.



jupiterrn said:


> Nothing the guy would or wouldn't do would change any minds down in this forum. Like I said I am disappointed but Oh well.


You know this is not true and that the tests were only half of the equation. How he performed when we knew what his blood values were, was the other half.

This is a fairly big story for sports, especially in the wake of A Rod. Try to discuss this honestly without resorting to meaningless name calling.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Utah CragHopper said:


> Let me see. The guy who tested positive six times for EPO returns, refuses the offer to have his 1999 samples retested, claims he was always clean despite everyone he raced against being exposed as dopers, and promises the most comprehensive dope testing program in the history sports. At first he delays the beginning of the program until the off season is over, then he lies that the testing has started, and finally it turns out the program never even took a single sample. What exactly are we supposed to think?



Utah, Long time no read. Where you been?


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

If I recall correctly, Astana had some internal anti doping system in place last year. Is this system still in place for '09 and will Armstrong be subject to it? I'm not trying to argue the validity of internal testing, just wondering if it exists for LA at Astana.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

kbiker3111 said:


> If I recall correctly, Astana had some internal anti doping system in place last year. Is this system still in place for '09 and will Armstrong be subject to it? I'm not trying to argue the validity of internal testing, just wondering if it exists for LA at Astana.


According to an article I read (VeloNews?), he will now be tested by Damsgaard, who runs Astana's internal program. Course Saxo Bank ended its association with Damsgaard. I think it's only a matter of time until Astana follows suit.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

jorgy said:


> According to an article I read (VeloNews?), he will now be tested by Damsgaard, who runs Astana's internal program. Course Saxo Bank ended its association with Damsgaard. I think it's only a matter of time until Astana follows suit.


yup.

Cyclingnews.... late to the party again.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

_Fast forward almost five months and Stapleton's statement explained that, "We have the utmost respect for Don and all he is doing in the fight against doping in sport but we faced a myriad of problems relating to administration, coordination and cost."_

Like what? Cost? The guy got paid a million bucks to ride in the TDU.

gimme a friggin break...


----------



## The Moontrane (Nov 28, 2005)

Digger28 said:


> The Press Conference at LV is all the Lance apologists will decide to remember.


Hey, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. :arf:


----------



## cld12 (Jun 28, 2006)

*Professional wrestling*

In my mind bike racing has almost reached the level of professional wrestling. I used to love this sport, more than any other. Now I feel like there is no reason to trust any rider. I really wish that the sport was clean. I am not naive, I realize that it has never been clean, but that does still not make it right. The small things matter in life, and I wish the majority of people also believed in this. Between the news about baseball (which I do not like), the banking system, and the Madoff scandal, I am really down. I don't even know why I read these forums anymore. It is a form of self torture. 

I was such an Armstrong fan, and now I find him repulsive. There is no doubt in my mind that he was using some form of blood doping, from EPO or blood products or both. You do not come back from cancer stronger than before. If you have ever known anyone with cancer you will know how true this statement is. Do not buy the story that it changed his body type. I am a physician, and thiat is bunk. The fact that every other rider was doping still does not make it right. The fans need to care. Bicycling will most likely reap what they sew, just like the world economy. 

I will still watch the Tour and follow the racing season. I hope they catch every rider that cheats. I hope that the sport is pure, and the best rider wins. With examples of charlatans throughout every aspect in life, even in my field (14 babies from a woman on medicaid), my hope is dim. This will be my last post ever. Thank You for reading.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Utah CragHopper said:


> Let me see. The guy who tested positive six times for EPO returns, refuses the offer to have his 1999 samples retested, claims he was always clean despite everyone he raced against being exposed as dopers, and promises the most comprehensive dope testing program in the history sports. At first he delays the beginning of the program until the off season is over, then he lies that the testing has started, and finally it turns out the program never even took a single sample. What exactly are we supposed to think?


You boys disappoint me. I thought he tested positive for EPO 66 times as actually verified by the French tabroids (and others who hang around those same holes)? 

He's tested positive this year by both agencies but he's paid them off. In fact, he's paid off everybody in cycling (got my check last week). 

It isn't possible to ride a bike without PEDs if your name isn't Greg? It's clear that anyone who thinks it is is simply ignorant and has refused to ingest the truth that comes through the French roids and the ever reliable anonymous poseurs on the dope forum..


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Give me a break. The doping speculation is one thing, but to belittle his experience with cancer is taking it too far.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Utah CragHopper said:


> Let me see. The guy who tested positive six times for EPO...


According to whom again? Certainly not the governing body of his sport. Anything other than that is irrelevant as far as pro cycling is concerned. If you find the official testing programs insufficient, do something about that. But all this speculation and declaration from outside the sport is ridiculous.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Many of us have been there. None of us have any right to judge another's disease, pain, and recovery.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

And your self-righteous denunciations of other human beings are for what reason again, if not to stroke your own ego? What good does your attitude do anyone?


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*Well said....*

Perfectly describes my almost non-existent interest in the "sport" these days. However, I will pay attention to the Spectacle of July...just to absorb the circus like aspect of it all.





Utah CragHopper said:


> Major loss of interest in the pro side of the sport. It was not so much the doping as the selective and capricious nature of the anti-doping effort. The sport is now more corrupt than it ever was during the doping free-for-all that were the Indurain through Armstrong years.
> 
> On one hand the UCI blackballs Hamilton by preventing employment by any Pro Tour team, and on the other hand McQuaid puts his and the UCI's credibility on the line by guaranteeing that Contador is clean, even though Contador came out of one of the longest running teamwide doping programs and Werner Franke has the OP evidence that Contador was doping. There are so many things that can only be explained by UCI corruption, everything from the UCI taking $500K payments from Armstrong to teams getting tip offs of OOC testing to the refusal by McQuaid to test samples from the Giro for CERA. Riders on teams like Phonak can barely piss in a cup without causing a positive while riders on teams like CSC, who are obviously as juiced as Postal was in its heyday, destroy the entire peloton. Of the seven hundred or so tests that were supposed to be done in 2007, only twenty some odd had been done by the end of the season. Astana's riders were targeted and rather easily caught in 2007, while in 2008 the UCI performed 7000 tests for its biopassport system and did not manage to catch a single rider; at the same time the AFLD was able to use a sparse amount of data to target and catch 20% of last year's Tour stage winners. I could go on and on.
> 
> ...


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

pacificaslim said:


> And your self-righteous denunciations of other human beings are for what reason again, if not to stroke your own ego? What good does your attitude do anyone?


Attitude? Or simply calling a spade a spade. Armstrong has, at the very least, conducted himself in less than admirable fashion on many, many occasions (Olson twin, Simone incident, Landis blood flushing incident, etc, etc...).
I think to anyone that looks closely and without bias will see him for what he is. 
I spell it F-R-A-U-D.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> According to whom again? Certainly not the governing body of his sport.


 You mean like Robin Parisotto, the researcher who developed the EPO test and now works for the UCI running the Biopassport testing. Last week he said this

_"Parisotto adds that there are so many indications that Armstrong has been doped. "The many books in which witnesses put him in connection with doping, the positive EPO tests from 1999 by the French sports newspaper L'Equipe, wrote in 2005. And then the fact that everyone around him was doped and then were he be the only one that was not - it's hard to believe. " 

He adds that the results which showed that the Americans were doped in 1999, from a scientific point of view should be regarded as valid. "And the methods were also validated. It is clear that the question mark, the concerns about whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal nature than scientific. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in 1999 that he took epo then. *To deny it would be to lie*. " _

http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_pa...id_nyhed=17128


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> And your self-righteous denunciations of other human beings are for what reason again, if not to stroke your own ego? What good does your attitude do anyone?


What good does your blind devotion to a myth do? Helping perpetuate a fraud does what?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

What gets me is Catlin's complicity. LA apparently seduced him too.

He should have reserved comment rather than give the excuses legitimacy.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

lookrider said:


> What gets me is Catlin's complicity. LA apparently seduced him too.
> 
> He should have reserved comment rather than give the excuses legitimacy.


Catlin does not want to get sued


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

bigpinkt said:


> Catlin does not want to get sued


That seems to to be LA's MO. Which makes me ask, "If Lance can afford to sue everyone, surely he can afford the services of this testing program." I'm not buying the "it's too expensive, complex" excuse. I believe that it was a publicity stunt from the get-go. Lance had no intention of implementing this 'program'.

I also though that the comment about all of the testers tripping over each other quite comical. The PR machine is still cranking it out.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

HikenBike said:


> That seems to to be LA's MO. Which makes me ask, "If Lance can afford to sue everyone, surely he can afford the services of this testing program." I'm not buying the "it's too expensive, complex" excuse. I believe that it was a publicity stunt from the get-go. Lance had no intention of implementing this 'program'.
> 
> I also though that the comment about all of the testers tripping over each other quite comical. The PR machine is still cranking it out.


True. If he can afford to "Donate" $500,000 to the UCI wouldn't he be able to fund his own program?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Personally*



HikenBike said:


> That seems to to be LA's MO. Which makes me ask, "If Lance can afford to sue everyone, surely he can afford the services of this testing program." I'm not buying the "it's too expensive, complex" excuse. I believe that it was a publicity stunt from the get-go. Lance had no intention of implementing this 'program'.
> 
> I also though that the comment about all of the testers tripping over each other quite comical. The PR machine is still cranking it out.


I believe there comes a time when you just do the right thing regardless of the consequences. I had a job I hated for a large chunk of my adult life, and was advised by many friends, associates, to "be careful," "watch what you say," "you made a mistake by leaving," [email protected] it. You realize you'll be dead pretty soon, and it makes your decisions very simple. This guy Catlin is in his late 60's, 70's and he's still worried about playing poker with a punk? It's very sad. Stapleton is a punk too.

Life is very short and this Catlin is worried about getting sued, letting the subject dictate the testing schedule, negotiating with the subject? He [email protected] up in a major, major, way. The spectacle of LA suing him is just too over the top to contemplate. I'd be like, go ahead a$$hole. What a bluff on LA's part and a major miscalculation on Catlin's.

The most important tests in this whole charade, were the ones that should have been conducted at the time of the news conference. After that they could have take 2 or 3 more blood and urine samples, and posted those values on the net.

What a [email protected] joke. This is why Pharmstrong has dominated the scene. No one with very few exceptions gets in his face and tells him he can go eff himself. They're all worried about the reactions of others, or being frozen out. In almost any other sport, LA's attitude results in a fight. Even in tennis and golf the players are more confrontational.

Bravo to Walsh, LeMond, Juliet Macur, Selena Roberts, Decanio, Svein Tuft.

Didn't we have a Pharmstrong lackey on the Pro Cycling forum trying to disparage Tuft?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Lance is having a phone in press conference today.....but it is "Listen only". Don't want any of those pesky tabloid journalists to ask any questions that could get in the way of the message.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Utah CragHopper said:


> UCI blackballs Hamilton by preventing employment by any Pro Tour team



Uhh, no.
TH is free to sign with any Pro Tour team he wants. It is not a UCI rule, that was part of the Code Of Ethics that the AIGCP came up with. The same code that no one really follows.
Don't blame the UCI for TH not riding for a Pro Tour team, they can have him if they want him. Obviously they don't.


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

He didnt just have testicular cancer you half-wit. Get a clue. Do you think he drew those scars on his head? My god.
Now as far as the op goes. Im not sure about the past.......BUT ...to suggest that LA is scrapping this _new_ program going _forward _ (which is what your OP was referencing) because he wants to cheat and knows his own testing will catch him but the official testing wont, is simply illogical and preposterous. Even he isn that dumb. The past is one thing, but your conspiricy theory holds no H2O going forward. Frankly his excuse sounds quite logical, he just shouldnt have promised anything months ago.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

:Yawn: Armstrong didn't change much during his time off did he?


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

bigmig19 said:


> He didnt just have testicular cancer you half-wit. Get a clue. Do you think he drew those scars on his head? My god.
> Now as far as the op goes. Im not sure about the past.......BUT ...to suggest that LA is scrapping this _new_ program going _forward _ (which is what your OP was referencing) because he wants to cheat and knows his own testing will catch him but the official testing wont, is simply illogical and preposterous. Even he isn that dumb. The past is one thing, but your conspiricy theory holds no H2O going forward. Frankly his excuse sounds quite logical, he just shouldnt have promised anything months ago.


The guy is worth tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. So the expense issue doesn't wash. That is something he should have thought about BEFORE he made his grandiose statement.

Caitlin was a fool and let himself get played on this.

In my mind, Armstrong did a simple calculation of all the positive press he's getting for his return--notice its him at the top of the ToC website and not Levi--and said F*** it regarding the testing.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Utah CragHopper said:


> When Hamilton's suspension neared its end, McQuaid publicly asserted that Hamilton could not join a ProTour team because he was subject to the four year rule.


You missed my point. McQuaid can say whatever he wants, but he can not make a team not sign TH. It is not and has never been a UCI rule, so he has no power over the situation. It was a suggestion made by the AIGCP, and it held no water. Thus Basso riding for a PT team.
You say that the UCI has leaned on Organizers. Like who? The ASO? Unipublic? RCS? Yeah, they have always been influenced by what the UCI wants. It's the organizers who run the show, and it's the organizers who don't want certain people tarnishing their property. So they tell the teams they are not invited if the bring so-and-so.
Don't blame the UCI for TH's unpopularity among the people who REALLY run things.
As an example, the UCI wants all non pro-tour teams participating in the PT races and grand tours to have wild card status. LPR, and Aqua & Sapone do not have WC status, they are still racing the Giro though.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

I wondered how the Lanceophiles would react to this. The heads are still firmly buried in the sand by his fans I see. Ignore, ignore, ignore, continues to be the way forward for these people. If Lance was ever serious about Don testing him, then a baseline would've been established in Vegas. It was the usual PR bullsh** which Lance has proved himself so adept at. Issue lawsuits in the eye of the media, and the withdraw them very discreetly, before heading to court. Tell the media about Don, with the world's press looking on, then go back on this 'arrangement' when the fuss has died down. Lance is PR - and has great advisors in that regard. 
If a dope test turned up positive, the supporters are going to say a 'tabloid' spiked it. 
What part of this do his supporters not understand? The UCI is shooting itself in the foot by banning Lance - a money making machine. People want to believe in 'good' though, so Lance is safe, regardless of what he does.
To Pacificalism, would you be so supportive of his cancer efforts, and the fact that he was so 'brave', if you knew that many people link the cancer with PEDs in the first place?


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Given he's 8kg over his normal race weight going into the season if he wins anything this year it's not going to be because he's clean.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> To Pacificalism, would you be so supportive of his cancer efforts, and the fact that he was so 'brave', if you knew that many people link the cancer with PEDs in the first place?


FWIW, I've never praised Lance for being "brave" or worshipped him in any way. As previously mentioned, I grew up in the Lemond era and he'll always be my guy (on a bike: i just don't dig his crusade off the bike). I only react how I do in these threads because I have a strong motivation to speak up when i think people are being unfair and the sort of speculation regarding doping is one such example. Clearly the rest of you are comfortable with that sort of witch hunt. So be it.

As for his cancer efforts, I find them praiseworthy regardless of his cycling career or his personal behavior with women or his use of PEDs or any of that. When it comes to judging the livestrong thing, I don't care if Lance started it with funds and fame he got in a sport in which he may have taken PEDS against a field of others doing the same damn thing. Cancer is a much more important concern than sport.

As for "many people link the cancer with PEDs" ...well, "many people think a god created the world in a week about 5,000 years ago." It matters not what people think: it only matters what can be supported by direct evidence.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

And yet again Stapleton trots out the 'most tested of all time blah blah' 'most tested cyclist blah blah' both palpable untruths.

It's the same old MO - big announcement that everyone remembers and then quiet retraction months later - I'm still waiting for him to take the Sunday Times suit to the House of Lords. However, CN has a soemwhat scathing article - extraordinary, whatever next? Armstrong treating cycling fans like the knowledgeable adults they are, not dimwitted fools?


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> And yet again Stapleton trots out the 'most tested of all time blah blah' 'most tested cyclist blah blah' both palpable untruths.
> 
> It's the same old MO - big announcement that everyone remembers and then quiet retraction months later - I'm still waiting for him to take the Sunday Times suit to the House of Lords. However, CN has a soemwhat scathing article - extraordinary, whatever next? Armstrong treating cycling fans like the knowledgeable adults they are, not dimwitted fools?



<<CN has a soemwhat scathing article>>

Are you referring to their reporting of the Paul Kimmage questions? CN has been objective but not really that "investigative" when it comes to Armstrong.

Lance took a page out of the George W book - attack the attackers and make it seem like they are worse than you. What a hoax this guy is.

I


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Utah CragHopper said:


> Major loss of interest in the pro side of the sport. It was not so much the doping as the selective and capricious nature of the anti-doping effort. The sport is now more corrupt than it ever was during the doping free-for-all that were the Indurain through Armstrong years.
> 
> On one hand the UCI blackballs Hamilton by preventing employment by any Pro Tour team, and on the other hand McQuaid puts his and the UCI's credibility on the line by guaranteeing that Contador is clean, even though Contador came out of one of the longest running teamwide doping programs and Werner Franke has the OP evidence that Contador was doping. There are so many things that can only be explained by UCI corruption, everything from the UCI taking $500K payments from Armstrong to teams getting tip offs of OOC testing to the refusal by McQuaid to test samples from the Giro for CERA. Riders on teams like Phonak can barely piss in a cup without causing a positive while riders on teams like CSC, who are obviously as juiced as Postal was in its heyday, destroy the entire peloton. Of the seven hundred or so tests that were supposed to be done in 2007, only twenty some odd had been done by the end of the season. Astana's riders were targeted and rather easily caught in 2007, while in 2008 the UCI performed 7000 tests for its biopassport system and did not manage to catch a single rider; at the same time the AFLD was able to use a sparse amount of data to target and catch 20% of last year's Tour stage winners. I could go on and on.
> 
> ...


As much as I hate to admit it, I'm afraid that you're right about CSC being as doped up as Disco in its heyday. Just seeing Cancellara setting the pace up some mountains for the Schelcks and Sastre made me go mmmm! IMO F Cancellara should've been back with Boonen not up there with the likes of Evans. And I'm one of his biggest fans.

This year with Festana back in the mix I will be passing up everything that has to do with pro-cycling. Not renewing my cycling.tv memebership and even writing to my local TV station (the one that broadcasts TdF) that I will not be watching them come July. It may not do any good in the overall scheme of things but at least I will have tried.

And by the way, Paul Kimmage rocks!


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

I think Armstrong and Johan ditched Catlin in favor of Demsgaard because Catlin is too ethical while Demsgaard showed with CSC that he can be 'bought', he will do and tell whatever Lance needs in exchange of a team bike or something...


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> As previously mentioned, I grew up in the Lemond era and he'll always be my guy (on a bike: i just don't dig his crusade off the bike).
> 
> As for "many people link the cancer with PEDs" ...well, "many people think a god created the world in a week about 5,000 years ago." It matters not what people think: it only matters what can be supported by direct evidence.


Greg's crusade? Yeah I mean how dare he try and aspire to a clean sport, and stand up to a noted bully. :mad2: 

In relation to your second point above and where your comparison falls down, is that the first group is made up in no small part of Religious Fundamentalists, and the other of sport and medical scientists.
And there is an awful lot of 'direct evidence' to support the view that Lance doped. Witness statements are admissable in a court of law after all. For witness statements see: Stephen Swart, Emma O'Reilly, Jonathan Vaughters, Frankie Andreu, Betsy Andreu, Stephanie McIllvain. For corruptness in the UCI, well just read about Hein Verbruggen - that should keep you going for a while.
And do you not think it unfair that Lance did clean riders out of a living? One right does not undo another wrong. And we all should be answerable for our past indiscretions (that's putting it mildly). Otherwise in a court of law there wold be mayhem. 'Judge, it happened in the past, what good can it do by punishing me now?'. 
The Lance fans, when they do accept that he probably doped (eventhough they believe every piece of evidence supporting this view is unreliable), console themselves by saying, 'sure they all doped'. Well you know what, not everyone doped. And Lance, being the most successful rider of his generation, and one who bullied other clean riders, was one of the main protagonists in forcing clean riders out of the sport. So you go support this guy all you like, but arm yourself with some real facts in future (not the propaganda driven crap that comes from Sally Jenkins types).


----------



## bikesarethenewblack (Dec 30, 2008)

bigmig19 said:


> .to suggest that LA is scrapping this _new_ program going _forward _ (which is what your OP was referencing) because he wants to cheat and knows his own testing will catch him but the official testing wont, is simply illogical and preposterous.


Really? Is it illogical given that so many people have left postal, had poor rides and then great rides and get busted for dope.

I'm not so sure of that. Are you implying that all drug programs are created equal and that there isn't a certain method that may or may not lead to a positive test? If so, then that's illogical.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Dan Gerous said:


> I think Armstrong and Johan ditched Catlin in favor of Demsgaard because Catlin is too ethical while Demsgaard showed with CSC that he can be 'bought', he will do and tell whatever Lance needs in exchange of a team bike or something...


Well yeah, that would certainly be the cynical view and one I'm inclined to agree with.


----------



## BassNBrew (Aug 4, 2008)

HA HA...the more ARMSTRONG kicks ass and takes names the more you guys whine. Keep chugging your h8orade boys.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*H8 on!*



Utah CragHopper said:


> Funny how the more the guy dopes, the more the Armstrong chamois sniffers idolize him. Too bad your boy tested positive six times for EPO, proving him to have used more dope than any other rider in the 1999 Tour.



- Why wasn't he sanctioned Utah? :wink5:


----------



## exolyte (Sep 17, 2008)

yada yada yada....

one guy: "i can prove he doped!"
other guy: "i can prove he didn't dope!"

it gets old....it would be interesting to see all the anti-lance people out there try to prove his innocence and all the pro-lance people try to prove his guilt.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - Why wasn't he sanctioned Utah? :wink5:


Your faith in the UCI, the sporting worlds most pathetic governing body, is misguided. 

How did the EPO get in his 99 samples?


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

You guys have still never made a case for why anything other than the UCI (or other governing bodies a cyclist is racing under) matters.

Every sport has rules and a body that enforces those rules and the athletes are expected to live up to the rules as enforced by that governing body. Other people can say whatever they want, get a hold of "samples" and test them and claim they belong to such and such a person and contain such and such substance, or write newspaper articles based on hearsay evidence from others, but all of that is taking place outside of the actual sport, outside of the consent of the athlete, and outside of appropriate verification.

It troubles me that so many different outside groups and people are involved in making doping allegations. It makes it impossible for the athletes to defend themselves and confusing for public perception as well. Big headlines are printed with the allegations and then often times nothing ever comes of it but the athlete's reputation is already damaged. It's a shame.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Utah CragHopper said:


> You might want to ask yourself why Raimondas Rumsas has never been hired since his EPO positive in the Giro and instead has been forced to eek out a living racing Gran Fondos in Italy.


Because his wife was caught with a bootful of Pharmaceuticals in France, and he studiously avoided returning to face the authorities. He preferred to leave her in prison for a few months. Helluva Guy!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Big headlines are printed with the allegations and then often times nothing ever comes of it but the athlete's reputation is already damaged. It's a shame.


do you have an example of this? The headlines are most often correct. 

The impotency of the UCI is clear, that is why you see other avenues (WADA, The police, ASO, CONI) achieving the most success against the problem while the UCI wastes time with TT positions and pretends there is not a problem.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

If they want to pretend it is not a problem, then that is their right. The cyclists have agreed to live under those rules. They have not agreed to having their privacy violated by all the other outside forces I mentioned. We're talking about a person's body and their fluids and medical info. Privacy is normally protected in such situations, unless given up by the individual (which they do to their governing bodies, but not to newspaper reporters).

As for example, even in the Operación Puerto cases there have been cyclists that were either never formally charged with anything or whose cases were dropped - but all the public remembers is that there name came up as an allegation.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

exolyte said:


> yada yada yada....
> 
> one guy: "i can prove he doped!"
> other guy: "i can prove he didn't dope!"
> ...


That would be an interesting experiment. The problem is the definition of "innocence" and "guilty". Pro-Lancers want the legal definition; one that is irrefutable and would hold up in a court of law. My belief in his doping is a result of common sense. No way will my "proof" hold up in a court of law. However, there is a LOT of smoke surrounding Lance and doping. Just one example: the fact that he kept his relationship with Ferrari secret for 6 years doesn't prove that he doped, but common sense tells me that he did.

If I may borrow a phrase, there is "a mountain of circumstantial evidence" when it comes to Lance. OJ was not convicted in a criminal court, therefore he is technically innocent. However, a large majority of the public are convinced that he got away with double murder.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

pacificaslim said:


> As for example, even in the Operación Puerto cases there have been cyclists that were either never formally charged with anything or whose cases were dropped - but all the public remembers is that there name came up as an allegation.


So what are we trying to determine here?

I can't see any logical reason why professional male athletes would be associated with a gynecologist who just happens to also be an unrepetent dope doc other than if they were in fact doping.

To date, practically every OP case that has been followed up has concluded that in fact the named riders were doping. In the few cases where this hasn't been the case it was basically for a lack of overwhelming evidence although there was still evidence to speak to the above point.

If OP would have happened in practically any other country than Spain (and this is probably why it did happen in Spain) we would have seen a whole rash of suspensions probably including riders who so far have remained totally unidentified.

I think it extremely unlikely that any clean rider has had his good reputation sullied by an unfair allegation. OTOH, there are tons of riders who still race when in a just world they should have been suspended because they were doping but fortunate enough to not have anyone able or willing to get at the available evidence to prove it.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

HikenBike said:


> If I may borrow a phrase, there is "a mountain of circumstantial evidence" when it comes to Lance. OJ was not convicted in a criminal court, therefore he is technically innocent. However, a large majority of the public are convinced that he got away with double murder.


The other fact to consider is that WADA or any national anti-doping group has very limited if any investigative powers.

Landis, Armstrong, Basso, etc. could probably all be shown in a "court of law" to have doped beyond "reasonable doubt" if there was a prosecuting agency that could actually go out and collect evidence and force people to testify under oath.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> If they want to pretend it is not a problem, then that is their right. The cyclists have agreed to live under those rules.


Rules? The UCI does not follow their own rules. 


pacificaslim said:


> They have not agreed to having their privacy violated by all the other outside forces I mentioned. We're talking about a person's body and their fluids and medical info. Privacy is normally protected in such situations, unless given up by the individual (which they do to their governing bodies, but not to newspaper reporters).
> .


It may come as a surprise to you but doping is against the law in most countries. The Police are not violating anyone privacy.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*People forget the details in Operation Puerto....*



pacificaslim said:


> As for example, even in the Operación Puerto cases there have been cyclists that were either never formally charged with anything or whose cases were dropped - but all the public remembers is that there name came up as an allegation.


This is true but there was evidence that over 200 Athletes were being "treated" at the Puerto clinic. More than a hundred 450-milliter (approx. one pint) bags of blood, growth hormones, anabolic steroids and EPO. Out of those 58 were cyclists. I think at the time in 2006 there were about 950 pro cyslists or about 6% of pro peloton - then you have the Freiburg clinic in Germany where ther eis alos hard evidence of systematic doping....

Anyway, I believe many more pro's got off with no punishment than got wrongly singled out in the press and who were innocent.

It kills me that Frank Schleck is riding when there is such strong evidence against him, valverde too...


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*Easy,*



bigpinkt said:


> Your faith in the UCI, the sporting worlds most pathetic governing body, is misguided.
> 
> How did the EPO get in his 99 samples?



- Please re-read the "wink" as sarcasm. This has been whooped like a dead horse a jillion times or so here.

Nothing to see, move along, just trying to lighten the hate-mood in here some.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Old_school_nik said:


> It kills me that Frank Schleck is riding when there is such strong evidence against him, valverde too...


The thing that "kills me" is that this "evidence" is gathered by and analyzed by people who should have absolutely no say in whether these guys are allowed to compete or not. Oh, we have a bag here with so and so's dog's name on it, it must be his. Our labs says it contains substance X. Circumstantially, we've therefore concluded that he has cheated.

Ok, if it's an actual law enforcement body that has the "evidence", then accuse the rider of a crime and go through the legal channels where the cyclist has a chance to defend himself and then if convicted and the cycling rules say that a court finding is equal to a failed official test and the cyclist can then be banned, then fine. 

But otherwise, until the sports testing/rules body itself has gathered and analyzed proof, then of course they should be allowed to ride!


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

pacificaslim said:


> The thing that "kills me" is that this "evidence" is gathered by and analyzed by people who should have absolutely no say in whether these guys are allowed to compete or not. Oh, we have a bag here with so and so's dog's name on it, it must be his. Our labs says it contains substance X. Circumstantially, we've therefore concluded that he has cheated.
> 
> Ok, if it's an actual law enforcement body that has the "evidence", then accuse the rider of a crime and go through the legal channels where the cyclist has a chance to defend himself and then if convicted and the cycling rules say that a court finding is equal to a failed official test and the cyclist can then be banned, then fine.
> 
> But otherwise, until the sports testing/rules body itself has gathered and analyzed proof, then of course they should be allowed to ride!


Yeah, we should let the body controlling the sport police the riders, that always works out! 

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/17/1050172709693.html

http://www.velonews.com/article/9948

Just a couple examples of sports federations actively covering up positive tests. Nevermind the UCI endlessly looking the other way while doping was widespread.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

If sports federations fail at testing, or cover up positives, it is what it is. It is their sport to do with as they and the participants choose! The athletes have agreed to allow their personal medical privacy be violated by their sporting body and submit to the testing protocol as described by the governing bodies. Only. Everyone else should stay the hell out of it. It's simply none of these random people's business (nor our business) what the athletes are doing with their bodies. It is only the business of the athletes and their governing body that they have allowed to test them in order to participate in their events.

You guys seem to think that others are doing a better job: in reality they are doing a completely different job that is wholly external to pro cycling.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

pacificaslim said:


> If sports federations fail at testing, or cover up positives, it is what it is. It is their sport to do with as they and the participants choose! The athletes have agreed to allow their personal medical privacy be violated by their sporting body and submit to the testing protocol as described by the governing bodies. Only. Everyone else should stay the hell out of it. It's simply none of these random people's business (nor our business) what the athletes are doing with their bodies. It is only the business of the athletes and their governing body that they have allowed to test them in order to participate in their events.
> 
> You guys seem to think that others are doing a better job: in reality they are doing a completely different job that is wholly external to pro cycling.


In a sense I agree with you. Look at pro wrestling, there are no tests that I'm aware of, and the sport continues on its merry way. I have no problem with that. If the UCI decided to do the same, that would be fine with me too.

The reality is that there are laws on the books against doping, especially in Europe. That makes it a police issue. Also, as the federation for an Olympic sport, the UCI has to live up to the WADA code. Whether or not that's right, they've agreed to do it, and if they fail that responsibility they have broken that agreement.

So it is their business after all.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

[


pacificaslim said:


> If sports federations fail at testing, or cover up positives, it is what it is. It is their sport to do with as they and the participants choose!


Wrong. The UCI screwed up the testing so bad that the responsibility for it was taken away from them and given to WADA. As has been made clear by the ASO and RCS the sport does not belong to the UCI, it belongs to the fans and the race owners



pacificaslim said:


> The athletes have agreed to allow their personal medical privacy be violated by their sporting body and submit to the testing protocol as described by the governing bodies. Only. Everyone else should stay the hell out of it.


Drug testing is part of the job, it is not a violation. The police are not going to "stay the hell out of" doping and the press are going to report on the crime.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

SilasCL said:


> Yeah, we should let the body controlling the sport police the riders, that always works out!
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/17/1050172709693.html
> 
> ...


No, we should let anonomous posters / dip$hits on a biking forum spew bull$hit and once that bull$**** exceeds 5 posts, we should form a anonomous vilgilante group to yank that rider out of the the next ride and hang him alongside the road.

It is through this method that real justice occurs.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> No, we should let anonomous posters / *dip$hits* on a biking forum spew bull$hit and once that bull$**** exceeds 5 posts, we should form a anonomous vilgilante group to yank that rider out of the the next ride and hang him alongside the road.
> 
> It is through this method that real justice occurs.


Classy.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> No, we should let anonomous posters / dip$hits on a biking forum spew bull$hit and once that bull$**** exceeds 5 posts, we should form a anonomous vilgilante group to yank that rider out of the the next ride and hang him alongside the road.
> 
> It is through this method that real justice occurs.


You are well past your 5 post allowance.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*Details on how bags were obtained - DNA tests were done ont hese bags*



pacificaslim said:


> The thing that "kills me" is that this "evidence" is gathered by and analyzed by people who should have absolutely no say in whether these guys are allowed to compete or not. Oh, we have a bag here with so and so's dog's name on it, it must be his. Our labs says it contains substance X. Circumstantially, we've therefore concluded that he has cheated.
> 
> Ok, if it's an actual law enforcement body that has the "evidence", then accuse the rider of a crime and go through the legal channels where the cyclist has a chance to defend himself and then if convicted and the cycling rules say that a court finding is equal to a failed official test and the cyclist can then be banned, then fine.
> 
> But otherwise, until the sports testing/rules body itself has gathered and analyzed proof, then of course they should be allowed to ride!


Here's a link to an article about Puerto:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,425939,00.html


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> No, we should let anonomous posters / dip$hits on a biking forum spew bull$hit and once that bull$**** exceeds 5 posts, we should form a anonomous vilgilante group to yank that rider out of the the next ride and hang him alongside the road.
> 
> It is through this method that real justice occurs.


Nice strawman argument. No one cares what you think, so move along now.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

You've failed to consider Armstrong's work ethic and the fact that he's a genetic freak.

I mean do you really find it so unbelievable that his hemoglobin increased about 150% more than the absolute best responders (and about 1000 to 2000% more than the typical response) who spent twice as much time at altitude while simultaneously halving the production on new red blood cells? You sad, cynical person. You clearly don't believe in miracles 

This was a great comment "The probability that Armstrong raced clean is about the same as the probability that Armstrong was pregnant."


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Well...just spent time reading this thread. Then realized it is from 2009.


----------

