Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mostly through associations with known doping elements and the superhuman outputs that can only be achieved via doping. It is safe to conclude that any performances in which the rider sustains 6.5 watts/kg in Tour stages is using PEDs. Interestingly, those types of performances are becoming rare. Times on Alpine and Pyreneean stages are edging closer to performances of the 1980s. For instance, the times of Marco Pantani and Pharmstrong on Alpe D'Huez were 9 or 10 minutes faster than those of Hinault and Lemond in 1986. Last year's fastest ascent of Alpe D'Huez was only about 5 minutes faster. The fastest time last year would not have been a top 10 finish in the 1990s or early 2000s. The reason is simple: More riders are riding clean and those who are not have been forced to micro-dose. Even at the top of the peloton, there is not a single rider making a mockery of the sport with ridiculous levels of doping.
Doesn't double jeopardy apply here? I don't remember the constitution allowing for a never-ending case against a US citizen where solid evidence hasn't been presented in court. And why are we funding more BS government agencies when we're $15T in debt?
Lance Armstrong could have taken his case to court. The fact that he didn't should tell you something. He is using the same tactic that corporations use when they pay the fine without admitting any guilt. Why? Because court trial would prove more damaging then just copping a plea and moving on.
The guy passed over 500 tests. All they have against him
is hearsay. This organization oughtta clean up their act
going forward and quit harassing someone who has retired
from racing and that they have no credible evidence against.
When you have a few questionable blood samples and 10+ people testifying against you, I assume guilt. If he was on trial, a reasonable jury would convict him. The fact is that it's gotten extremely hard to nail people with undeniable proof of guilt (a positive blood test) because doping has become so advanced and there are methods developed to cheat the tests.
1. Failed test in 1999.
2. Continued association and payments to the undisputed doping technician of the pro peloton, Dr. Michele Ferrari. Anyone knowledgeable of the sport understands that Dr. Ferrari's service provided to riders is that of providing a doping program for his riders to follow.
3. Power outputs only possible with the use of PEDs.
4. His blood values after his return in 2009-2010 that were indicative of doping. Hematocrit levels jumping unnaturally before major races.
5. The testimony of numerous ex-teammates, doctors and associates, some of whom have nothing to gain and much to lose by coming clean. In fact, four of those ex-teammates lost their chances to compete in the Olympics by coming clean. For a couple, it was undoubtedly their final opportunities.
6. His efforts to destroy riders who aggressively pushed for clean riding.
7. His performances against fellow dopers, several of whom had superior genetic gifts.
The guy passed over 500 tests. All they have against him
is hearsay. This organization oughtta clean up their act
going forward and quit harassing someone who has retired
from racing and that they have no credible evidence against.
Lance Armstrong just got eviscerated by 60 Minutes.
We already know that former teammate Tyler Hamilton said that he saw Armstrong take EPO, testosterone, and a blood transfusion during the Tour de France.
CBS also says that George Hincapie told a grand jury that he saw it too.
But the most damning revelation of all from tonight's broadcast, Hamilton said that Armstrong failed a drug test in 2001 and that Lance, with the help of the International Cycling Union (UCI), "took care of it."
According to the 60 Minutes report that just aired, Armstrong got a personal meeting with the head of the lab who discovered his test. The lab director told the FBI in a sworn statement that the ICU arranged the unusual meeting and made it known that it didn't want the suspicious test to be investigated any further.
Armstrong's strongest defense has always been that he has never failed a drug test, despite giving hundreds of blood and urine samples throughout his career. This story now calls that claim into serious question.
Plus, as Hamilton pointed out, there are a lot of alleged drug users who never failed a test. Hamilton went years without failing one and Barry Bonds and Marion Jones (who spent time in jail after confessing during a government investigation) never failed one either.
Armstrong has pre-emptively attacked Hamilton's credibility, but in our opinion he made a pretty compelling witness. He seemed shaken and nervous during the 60 Minutes interview, not because he was unsure of what he was saying, but because he understood the gravity of his testimony. He's destroying lives here, including his own, and doesn't seem like someone simply out for publicity or just a quick buck.
Scott Pelley says in the video below that interviewing Hamilton was like "pulling teeth."
The one thing Hamilton repeatedly emphasized is that he wasn't just accusing Armstrong, he was accusing himself, his other teammates, and pretty much every significant rider in cycling world. It now seems clear that every major team and rider in competitive cycling used some form of doping to improve performance, which both lends weight to his story and makes it incredibly unlikely that a clean rider could dominate the tour the way Armstrong did for nearly a decade.
One month after winning his seventh consecutive Tour de France and retiring from professional cycling, Lance Armstrong is on the defensive over doping allegations stemming from his first Tour win in 1999.
L'Equipe, the leading sports daily newspaper in France, published a report Tuesday that said six different urine samples Armstrong provided during the 1999 Tour tested positive for the performance-enhancing drug EPO when examined in 2004 by a French lab fine-tuning EPO testing. The lab tested all the B samples from the 1999 Tour. EPO, which builds endurance, was a banned substance in 1999 but there was no approved test for it.
Of the 12 samples that returned as positive, six came from Armstrong, the story said. The lab did not identify the samples as being from Armstrong, and the testing was done with assurances that identification of the samples would be confidential and not used for doping enforcement. But L'Equipe reporters matched the samples' identification numbers in the lab report with information Armstrong released to French judicial investigators in a 2000 doping probe.
That's why Lance Armstrong doesn't want to this to go to court. When everything, gets laid out in court including testimony from former team members it would destroy what little credibility he has left.
Lance Armstrong is a bright shining lie. He's smart to quit while he's ahead. The real danger from court testimony would be his sponsors claw back endorsement money. That's probably the biggest reason he isn't going to fight this.
Lance A has achieved 7 Tour wins, nothing will change that in my mind.
Yep, it's an article of faith. Some have been pointing this out for 13 years. A photo of him injecting the needle could be produced and some folks would contort themselves to find some sort of rationalization.
Yep, it's an article of faith. Some have been pointing this out for 13 years. A photo of him injecting the needle could be produced and some folks would contort themselves to find some sort of rationalization.
I dunno, where's the picture?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
