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


Fat butt on couch

    Serious question (I'm of the same mind on LA's culpability as spaniel albeit I do not have his chemistry and bio sciences background):

     

    Can the physicians be able to boost performance and remain on the ragged edge of being caught without setting off flags during the career? I assume this to be the case which makes me wonder why the others were caught (Landis, Hincapie, ect.) at a later date. Different doctors? Lazyness on keeping the protocol? One of the hallmark defenses is "I'm the most tested athlete of all time and never failed a test" so why would others using the same theories, chemicals and practices get pinched?

     

    When EPO first came out, there was no test and they just used more and more until several cyclist famously died as a result of blood thick with abnormal numbers of RBCs.  Even once the test was developed, with standard dosing the window to catch dopers was only a few days after injection.

     

    With experience, the doctors for these cheaters learned that they could give the cheaters the benefit of the drug while giving smaller, more frequent doses that further reduced the window between injection and when the blood had to be drawn to generate a positive test...I've never seen definitive data on this (the doping agencies probably know, but for good reason don't share this information).  These days, that window is probably best measured in HOURS.

     

    TdF has also set a high hematocrit of 50, over which the cyclist receives a 7-day ban "for safety".  This goes back to the cyclists who died from taking their hematocrit to high, but in reality is is more likely it is because the know it is damned near impossible for a non-doping athlete to get their hematocrit above 50, even with altitude training.  So while surpassing 50 is not a positive drug test, you pretty much know they did it at that point (but they lack evidence to ban them long-term).

     

    Funny how once they put that 50 in the rules, a large share of the athletes started coming in with 48s and 49s...just under the limit.  This had not been what cyclists routinely tested at before EPO was available.  So what you basically saw was pretty damning circumstantial evidence of widespread doping, where the docs had learned to manipulate EPO to a) keep the riders right up at the high end of the allowable hematocrit, and b) test negative unless they were tested within just a few hours of injection.

     

    This is why I do not buy the "I never tested positive" defense.  People think because there is a test, it is a good test and will bust cheaters.  The fact is, you have to be pretty stupid to get caught doping with EPO these days and it has been that was since roughly 2001-2002.  There are also accounts of the testers showing up to draw blood and Armstrong et al delaying coming down for long periods of time rather than simply cooperating and giving in to the blood draw.

     

    Landis was busted for steroids, which is somewhat different.  It's important to note that he also likely doped for YEARS before that single positive test.

     

    Hincapie, I'm not recalling a positive test, but I think in the testimony of the Armstrong issue he's now admitted that he systematically doped and also failed to test positive?

     

    Hamilton, well, read his wikipedia page.  A botched test saved him at the 2004 Olympics, he almost lost his medal at the games for RBC doping with someone else's blood but then got caught again later in the year at another race.  His more recent ban stemmed from non-testing related evidence including payments and doping calendars.

     

    In short, there's good evidence that many of these cyclists doped for years before being caught.  IMHO there are two reasons for this; a) the tests are not as good as most people think they are, and are easily worked around with skill and masking agents; b) the testers have become better in recent years (since LA left TdF) and are now busting athletes for things they got away with for years.

    "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

     


    Fast is better than long

      Don't we all now assume that everyone in and possibly since the LA era doped, and it just turns out that some were better or luckier than others. And if that premise is accepted then wasn't Lance still the best because all tides were raised?

      2014 Goals: 2500 miles / sub 2 800m / 4:30 mile / sub 16:30 5K


      Give a man a fire and he'll be warm the rest of the night;
      Set a man afire and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

      What in the Jehu?


      just a simple cat

        "Hey, I was doping and he beat me, so he MUST have been doping!" 

         

         

          99 Problems

           

          Awesome. This would be great for a class.

            Don't we all now assume that everyone in and possibly since the LA era doped, and it just turns out that some were better or luckier than others. And if that premise is accepted then wasn't Lance still the best because all tides were raised?

             

            Yep, he was the best at the game that was being played.

             

            It's a little more complicated than that because--as with training--some people respond better to doping than others. So, the playing field is not exactly leveled; it's shifted to a different game.

              When EPO first came out, there was no test and they just used more and more until several cyclist famously died as a result of blood thick with abnormal numbers of RBCs.  Even once the test was developed, with standard dosing the window to catch dopers was only a few days after injection.

               

              With experience, the doctors for these cheaters learned that they could give the cheaters the benefit of the drug while giving smaller, more frequent doses that further reduced the window between injection and when the blood had to be drawn to generate a positive test...I've never seen definitive data on this (the doping agencies probably know, but for good reason don't share this information).  These days, that window is probably best measured in HOURS.

               

              TdF has also set a high hematocrit of 50, over which the cyclist receives a 7-day ban "for safety".  This goes back to the cyclists who died from taking their hematocrit to high, but in reality is is more likely it is because the know it is damned near impossible for a non-doping athlete to get their hematocrit above 50, even with altitude training.  So while surpassing 50 is not a positive drug test, you pretty much know they did it at that point (but they lack evidence to ban them long-term).

               

              Funny how once they put that 50 in the rules, a large share of the athletes started coming in with 48s and 49s...just under the limit.  This had not been what cyclists routinely tested at before EPO was available.  So what you basically saw was pretty damning circumstantial evidence of widespread doping, where the docs had learned to manipulate EPO to a) keep the riders right up at the high end of the allowable hematocrit, and b) test negative unless they were tested within just a few hours of injection.

               

              This is why I do not buy the "I never tested positive" defense.  People think because there is a test, it is a good test and will bust cheaters.  The fact is, you have to be pretty stupid to get caught doping with EPO these days and it has been that was since roughly 2001-2002.  There are also accounts of the testers showing up to draw blood and Armstrong et al delaying coming down for long periods of time rather than simply cooperating and giving in to the blood draw.

               

              Landis was busted for steroids, which is somewhat different.  It's important to note that he also likely doped for YEARS before that single positive test.

               

              Hincapie, I'm not recalling a positive test, but I think in the testimony of the Armstrong issue he's now admitted that he systematically doped and also failed to test positive?

               

              Hamilton, well, read his wikipedia page.  A botched test saved him at the 2004 Olympics, he almost lost his medal at the games for RBC doping with someone else's blood but then got caught again later in the year at another race.  His more recent ban stemmed from non-testing related evidence including payments and doping calendars.

               

              In short, there's good evidence that many of these cyclists doped for years before being caught.  IMHO there are two reasons for this; a) the tests are not as good as most people think they are, and are easily worked around with skill and masking agents; b) the testers have become better in recent years (since LA left TdF) and are now busting athletes for things they got away with for years.

               

              Great analysis.


              Menace to Sobriety

                Don't we all now assume that everyone in and possibly since the LA era doped, and it just turns out that some were better or luckier than others. And if that premise is accepted then wasn't Lance still the best because all tides were raised?

                 

                I don't know. Does doping raise everyone's performance equally and did they all use at the same dosage, frequency, etc?

                Janie, today I quit my job. And then I told my boss to go f*** himself, and then I blackmailed him for almost sixty thousand dollars. Pass the asparagus.

                  Don't we all now assume that everyone in and possibly since the LA era doped, and it just turns out that some were better or luckier than others. And if that premise is accepted then wasn't Lance still the best because all tides were raised?

                   

                  I don't think you could say all tides were raised equally because the teams/riders with the biggest, most sophisticated and expensive doping programs still had an advantage over the less funded teams both in terms of the effectiveness of the drugs and in their likelihood of getting busted.  But if you consider that, in general, the best riders still got recruited onto the best teams and the best teams got the best dope then the system probably still selected for the best riders. Meaning the riders who were the best all doped to the gills may very well still have been the best had nobody been doping. Which is part of what's so tragic about doping--in order to be in the game you had to cheat.

                   

                  Along those lines did anyone else catch the 30 for 30 on ESPN this past weekend on Marion Jones? It was kind of a heartbreaking story, really.

                  Runners run.

                  xor


                    >> and the best teams got the best dope

                     

                    True in the music world as well.

                     

                      The Ashenden article said testing lags about 9 years behind doping technology.  The tests being developed today are the ones that'll catch Lance Armstrong cheating almost a decade ago.  This is about the only reason I can see to go after retired dopers -- to demonstrate that when you're caught, no matter how late, you'll be stripped of titles and financially penalized (e.g. disgorge winnings, repay sponsorship dollars).

                       

                       

                      I don't know. Does doping raise everyone's performance equally and did they all use at the same dosage, frequency, etc?

                      But it doesn't have to.  Taking EPO smartly can get your hematocrit well over 50 ... but you can't ride if it's over 50.  So you don't have to respond maximally to EPO, you just have to respond such that your crit threatens 50 come race day.

                       

                      I'd seek the benefit of PEDs that helped me recover from hard workouts, higher volumes, etc.  Yeah, the crit approaching 50 would be sweet, but I'd want to get as much bang for my day-in-day-out training buck as possible, too.

                      “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman

                        When EPO first came out, there was no test and they just used more and more until several cyclist famously died as a result of blood thick with abnormal numbers of RBCs.  Even once the test was developed, with standard dosing the window to catch dopers was only a few days after injection.

                         

                        With experience, the doctors for these cheaters learned that they could give the cheaters the benefit of the drug while giving smaller, more frequent doses that further reduced the window between injection and when the blood had to be drawn to generate a positive test...I've never seen definitive data on this (the doping agencies probably know, but for good reason don't share this information).  These days, that window is probably best measured in HOURS.

                         

                        TdF has also set a high hematocrit of 50, over which the cyclist receives a 7-day ban "for safety".  This goes back to the cyclists who died from taking their hematocrit to high, but in reality is is more likely it is because the know it is damned near impossible for a non-doping athlete to get their hematocrit above 50, even with altitude training.  So while surpassing 50 is not a positive drug test, you pretty much know they did it at that point (but they lack evidence to ban them long-term).

                         

                        Funny how once they put that 50 in the rules, a large share of the athletes started coming in with 48s and 49s...just under the limit.  This had not been what cyclists routinely tested at before EPO was available.  So what you basically saw was pretty damning circumstantial evidence of widespread doping, where the docs had learned to manipulate EPO to a) keep the riders right up at the high end of the allowable hematocrit, and b) test negative unless they were tested within just a few hours of injection.

                         

                        This is why I do not buy the "I never tested positive" defense.  People think because there is a test, it is a good test and will bust cheaters.  The fact is, you have to be pretty stupid to get caught doping with EPO these days and it has been that was since roughly 2001-2002.  There are also accounts of the testers showing up to draw blood and Armstrong et al delaying coming down for long periods of time rather than simply cooperating and giving in to the blood draw.

                         

                        Landis was busted for steroids, which is somewhat different.  It's important to note that he also likely doped for YEARS before that single positive test.

                         

                        Hincapie, I'm not recalling a positive test, but I think in the testimony of the Armstrong issue he's now admitted that he systematically doped and also failed to test positive?

                         

                        Hamilton, well, read his wikipedia page.  A botched test saved him at the 2004 Olympics, he almost lost his medal at the games for RBC doping with someone else's blood but then got caught again later in the year at another race.  His more recent ban stemmed from non-testing related evidence including payments and doping calendars.

                         

                        In short, there's good evidence that many of these cyclists doped for years before being caught.  IMHO there are two reasons for this; a) the tests are not as good as most people think they are, and are easily worked around with skill and masking agents; b) the testers have become better in recent years (since LA left TdF) and are now busting athletes for things they got away with for years.

                         

                        But the USADA exists to implement and adjudicate testing.  As soon as it leaves that turf, it becomes a de facto prosecutor -- but unconstrained by the safeguards of due process.  If we assume that tests are irrelevant, then it puts the burden on athletes to prove their innocence, which is no way to run a railroad. 

                        C-R


                          Good info spaniel. I forgot Landis got caught on roids. Based on the Balco trials, it recall the mention that the cheaters were far more advanced than the testing agencies.


                          "He conquers who endures" - Persius
                          "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel


                          Fat butt on couch

                             If we assume that tests are irrelevant, then it puts the burden on athletes to prove their innocence, which is no way to run a railroad. 

                             

                            That's not what I said, and not what they are doing.

                             

                            However given the clear bias you have expressed and, frankly, your demeanor in a couple recent threads, I'm not really inclined to spend my time engaging about it.

                             

                            MTA:  If you want to be taken seriously, at least do your homework.  Several very important athletes have been convicted and banned without positive tests.  Others who never tested positive have admitted to long-term doping.  Many mechanisms that do not directly detect drugs, like cell ratios and other blood chemistry parameters, are routinely used as confirmatory evidence of doping sufficient to institute a ban.

                            "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

                             

                              Many mechanisms that do not directly detect drugs, like cell ratios and other blood chemistry parameters, are routinely used as confirmatory evidence of doping sufficient to institute a ban.

                               

                              That's important, here.  We are not talking jail.  This is an administrative agency, banning athletes.  I am not an expert on admin. law, but I believe when this is the context, they can do what is reasonable (i.e., the standard is "rational basis" vs. "beyond a reasonable doubt," or even "preponderance of the evidence"). 

                              "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus


                              Fat butt on couch

                                That's important, here.  We are not talking jail.  This is an administrative agency, banning athletes.  I am not an expert on admin. law, but I believe when this is the context, they can do what is reasonable (i.e., the standard is "rational basis" vs. "beyond a reasonable doubt," or even "preponderance of the evidence"). 

                                 

                                Yes.  You play in their sport, you agree to follow their rules.  As long as those rules conform to applicable law.  

                                 

                                Not every decision in life follows the rules of a courtroom.  You are not always "innocent until proven guilty" nor need subject to "beyond a reasonable doubt".

                                "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