Lance Armstrong appears finally to have run out of rope. (Read 2696 times)

    So, going forward...
    Say you're a talented, competitive cyclist. Multiple choice question.
    1. The sport is still dirty and I must use PEDs in order to compete. I just have to be as skilled at concealing it as I am at cycling.
    2. The sport is still dirty, and there are undoubtedly still cheaters out there, but I'm not going to risk getting caught. I'll probably lose as a result.
    3. After what happened to Lance, I'm not going to risk getting caught, and I don't think many others will either, so we are back to a pretty fair competition.
    4. I would never have cheated in any case.

     

    #5. I'd switch to running marathons and find another job.  Although I know I'd get beat by the Kenyans, I know that I can't ride 350 +/- days per year (approx 20k - 35k miles during the year) without having some sort of quick-recovery helper to get me ready for the next day of fun.  Seriously, the sport is almost impossible to race as it is. 

    2014 Goals:

    #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

    #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

     


    Feeling the growl again

        The physical evidence is limited to a handful of results of old samples re-tested with new protocols; the results don't test for the presence of PEDs per se, but generate a profile that's viewed as normal/abnormal.  Armstrong's old samples apparently tested out as "abnormal".

       

       

      BTW, from a scientific perspective, such indirect evidence of doping can be just as damning as a direct positive result.  Many of the "positive tests" that occur today are indeed not direct tests looking for the doping agent, but indirect measures looking for the biochemical fingerprint that results from the actions of the agent (and can be seen long after the agent is cleared from the body).  So it is important not to discount these types of tests out-of-hand.  They just didn't exist when the samples were originally drawn, and are being applied after the fact.  This is the exact type of scenario Paula Radcliffe envisioned when she deliberately had her own samples archived for later testing with new tests to prove she was always clean.

       

      (I don't know whether the above applies in this specific case as I don't have all the details though).

      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

       

        They just didn't exist when the samples were originally drawn, and are being applied after the fact.  This is the exact type of scenario Paula Radcliffe envisioned when she deliberately had her own samples archived for later testing with new tests to prove she was always clean.

         

        (I don't know whether the above applies in this specific case as I don't have all the details though).

         

        Is everyone being having their samples re-tested with these new protocols?  And by "everyone", I mean those that fall under the USADA's jursidiction.  Will we see new tests for old runners, cyclists, and triathletes?  Throwers?  Baseball players?

         

        Finally, how can USADA force the Tour and the cycling body to strip Armstrong of those titles?

        There was a point in my life when I ran. Now, I just run.

         

        Well, fuckers

        He still stands

         

        The Diary of a Once-ran.


        Feeling the growl again

          Is everyone being having their samples re-tested with these new protocols?  And by "everyone", I mean those that fall under the USADA's jursidiction.  Will we see new tests for old runners, cyclists, and triathletes?  Throwers?  Baseball players?

           

          Finally, how can USADA force the Tour and the cycling body to strip Armstrong of those titles?

           

          There is not systematic re-testing of everyone.  Samples are not systematically archived for everyone.  Plus the average person assumes far too much in the way of money and manpower at the testing labs.  I've been in the USADA lab and it is not large nor staffed with a lot of folks.

           

          As for the other question, you will need to suspend your dislike of reading as it has been answered above.  Smile

          "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

           

            So, going forward...

            Say you're a talented, competitive cyclist. Multiple choice question.

            1. The sport is still dirty and I must use PEDs in order to compete. I just have to be as skilled at concealing it as I am at cycling.

            2. The sport is still dirty, and there are undoubtedly still cheaters out there, but I'm not going to risk getting caught. I'll probably lose as a result.

            3. After what happened to Lance, I'm not going to risk getting caught, and I don't think many others will either, so we are back to a pretty fair competition.

            4. I would never have cheated in any case.

             

             

            Enjoy your beer, Mr. Finn.

             

            I think your choices here illustrate a central misconception in the Armstrong saga - notably, cycling is a team sport and doping as a component of training is systemic. Programs are designed and implemented by team doctors, coaches, and trainers. Riders do not get to make the individual decision whether to gamble with pharma-regimens or to ride clean. Riders are not offered contracts on World Tour teams unless they've been vetted as a 'team player' focused on 'winning'. A rider not on board with the rest of the team and its system is a liability to the livelihoods of every member of that team.

             

            I've followed cycling for years, this is just how the sport on the elite level is structured. I don't view Armstrong as a fraud because he isn't one. He ought to be regarded as the most dominant rider of his generation in what happens to be a very dirty sport.

              I think your choices here illustrate a central misconception in the Armstrong saga - notably, cycling is a team sport and doping as a component of training is systemic. Programs are designed and implemented by team doctors, coaches, and trainers. Riders do not get to make the individual decision whether to gamble with pharma-regimens or to ride clean. Riders are not offered contracts on World Tour teams unless they've been vetted as a 'team player' focused on 'winning'. A rider not on board with the rest of the team and its system is a liability to the livelihoods of every member of that team.

               

              I've followed cycling for years, this is just how the sport on the elite level is structured. I don't view Armstrong as a fraud because he isn't one. He ought to be regarded as the most dominant rider of his generation in what happens to be a very dirty sport.

               

              Interesting. I see what you are saying, and you seem to despair of it ever being clean(er).

              Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.


              Needs more cowbell!

                Interesting. I see what you are saying, and you seem to despair of it ever being clean(er).

                 

                I've never been able to follow ANY top-level professional sports because there seems to be such an overwhelming abundance of bad behavior and drug use at the very top...admittedly, it's only the bad apples that we hear about, but it's colored my attitude towards pro athletics.  People making obscene amounts of money and simultaneously being obscenely bad role models.  Law-breakers who often face no more than a slap on the wrist when they do things that would land the rest of us in jail.  I just can't get interested in any of it.

                I shoot pretty things! ~

                '14 Goals:

                • 6 duathlons (1 Olympic distance)

                • 130#s (and stay there, gotdammit!)

                  I think your choices here illustrate a central misconception in the Armstrong saga - notably, cycling is a team sport and doping as a component of training is systemic. Programs are designed and implemented by team doctors, coaches, and trainers. Riders do not get to make the individual decision whether to gamble with pharma-regimens or to ride clean. Riders are not offered contracts on World Tour teams unless they've been vetted as a 'team player' focused on 'winning'. A rider not on board with the rest of the team and its system is a liability to the livelihoods of every member of that team.

                   

                  I've followed cycling for years, this is just how the sport on the elite level is structured. I don't view Armstrong as a fraud because he isn't one. He ought to be regarded as the most dominant rider of his generation in what happens to be a very dirty sport.

                   

                  That's how I regard him.  Either he was clean and ridiculous, or he was (more likely) just leveling the playing field.  Either way, 7 in a row is ridiculous, especially after the cancer episode.  I can't think of many things more ludicrous than trying to go back in time to take titles from Lance and give them to some chump who just couldn't catch him.  


                  Feeling the growl again

                    That's how I regard him.  Either he was clean and ridiculous, or he was (more likely) just leveling the playing field.  Either way, 7 in a row is ridiculous, especially after the cancer episode.  I can't think of many things more ludicrous than trying to go back in time to take titles from Lance and give them to some chump who just couldn't catch him.  

                     

                    Yep.  Bernie Madoff should not have been charged or sent to prison.  After all, fraud and bad investments were rampant in the banking industry.  You couldn't compete by playing it straight.  What is the point in putting him in prison and giving back to some chumps who just couldn't steal as well as him.

                    "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                     


                    Hawt and sexy

                      Meh doping was a given. But he just quit fighting trafficking charges on top of everything else. That's a big "Oh shit" moment. That is what earns the lifetime ban.

                       

                      And since when was arbitration considered bad or unfair? It's not the agency's fault that Lance and his team of lawyers didn't bother to show up at a pre-hearing. They would have gotten say on one arbitrator outright and then agreement on a third candidate. So, a 50% say on who hears this case. That's more than I would get in a court case as Jane Blow citizen.

                      I'm touching your pants.

                        I've never been able to follow ANY top-level professional sports because there seems to be such an overwhelming abundance of bad behavior and drug use at the very top...admittedly, it's only the bad apples that we hear about, but it's colored my attitude towards pro athletics.  People making obscene amounts of money and simultaneously being obscenely bad role models.  Law-breakers who often face no more than a slap on the wrist when they do things that would land the rest of us in jail.  I just can't get interested in any of it.

                         I am having to agree with you Zoom.  I was crushed when it was  discovered that Marion Jones cheated and ever since then am suspicious of all of the sprinters.  When Tyson Gay got beaten in the Olympics by Gatlin my first thought was "is Gatlin doping?  again?"  Sport seems to becoming more hollywoodized than ever these days.  The athletes seem to look at themselves as some kind of media persona performing on a stage rather than as an expert at a sport.  I mean look at Ryan Lochte.  His great goal after winning his gold medal is to get on tv's reality show "The Bachelor".  Roll eyes 

                         

                        On another note.  I  saw Marianne Vos' win on tv during the Summer Olympic women's bike race.  Awesome race.  This *was* inspiring to me and I can only hope it was raced without the assistance of drugs.

                        Running Goals ...

                         

                        "But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep."  Robert Frost

                          Interesting. I see what you are saying, and you seem to despair of it ever being clean(er).

                           

                          Right, well it's certainly unfortunate even if it might level the playing field. It creates two competitions, one to the finish line and one to outwit the testers. It is unseemly and favors those with money and influence over those with talent. Not as widely reported in the Armstrong takedown is that USADA is also bringing down Armstrong's manager at Postal, Bruneyl, and his long time doctor Ferrari. Guys like Ferrari are the most responsible for the current state of cycling. That and the hands-off approach of the federation and tour directors.


                          Needs more cowbell!

                            On another note.  I  saw Marianne Vos' win on tv during the Summer Olympic women's bike race.  Awesome race.  This *was* inspiring to me and I can only hope it was raced without the assistance of drugs.

                             

                            The fact that we so often eye every top athlete with a certain degree of suspicion speaks volumes, doesn't it?

                            I shoot pretty things! ~

                            '14 Goals:

                            • 6 duathlons (1 Olympic distance)

                            • 130#s (and stay there, gotdammit!)

                              Meh doping was a given. But he just quit fighting trafficking charges on top of everything else. That's a big "Oh shit" moment. That is what earns the lifetime ban.

                               

                              And since when was arbitration considered bad or unfair? It's not the agency's fault that Lance and his team of lawyers didn't bother to show up at a pre-hearing. They would have gotten say on one arbitrator outright and then agreement on a third candidate. So, a 50% say on who hears this case. That's more than I would get in a court case as Jane Blow citizen.

                               

                              Totally disagree (a lot earlier in this thread).  Without repeating, I'll just say "what she said

                                Totally disagree (a lot earlier in this thread).  Without repeating, I'll just say "what she said

                                Cheevers:

                                 

                                Sally Jenkins wrote Armstrong's biography so she's got every reason to promote him and continue to promote him as a good guy.

                                 

                                http://fraudbytes.blogspot.com/2012/08/lance-armstrong-investigation-is-usada.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Fraudbytes+%28FraudBytes%29