Professional Cycling For the Fans - Armstrong: If you didn't test us we wouldn't fail

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-tourdownunder-armstrong

ADELAIDE, Australia (AP)—Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong said isn’t happy about the high level of doping in cycling but blames it on the sport’s strenuous efforts to expose drug cheats.

Armstrong said too many cyclists have tested positive for banned substances and that other sports would have similar records if athletes were monitored as closely.

The 38-year-old American has been linked to a U.S. federal investigation into drug use by cyclists, prompted by allegations from disgraced former teammate Floyd Landis. Armstrong said he was not concerned personally at being mentioned in doping investigations, but regretted the blemish on cycling.

“I can’t say no, you would have to say yes,” Armstrong said. “But to me that is really a byproduct of the sport trying harder than any other sport.

“I know if you laid those controls over any other world sport, especially one as demanding as cycling, you would have as many, if not more, positives.”

Armstrong made the comments at a news conference at Rowland Flat in South Australia’s Barossa Valley wine region, shortly after his arrival for the Tour Down Under that starts Sunday.

The six-day tour will be Armstrong’s final professional race outside the United States.

“I have never been one to sit around and reminisce much,” he said. “It would be a mistake for me to think back on the stuff that I did on the bike when I have things in front of me that are much bigger than that.”

Armstrong has a point. Other sports aren't trying nearly as hard as cycling to nail the dopers.

By the way, even if you test me, I won't fail.

Please make a note that I posted the link and the actual article.

Please make a note that I posted the link and the actual article.

I went there, it does appear to be the same text as you copied into the thread. Is there more to it? I was looking for the part where Armstrong says 'if they didn't test us we wouldn't fail'.

I'm certainly not an LA fan but I would have to agree with him here.

I believe only track and field has more testing than cycling. Certainly the mainstream sports in North America lag far behind in terms of testing and how many of those positives are for "recreational drugs?":D

I fail in other ways.

The first sentence implies a conclusion that is unsupported by the quotes in the rest of the article. He's not blaming testing for cheating. He's saying testing more athletes results in catching more athletes and that carrying out the same level of testing in other sports would result in similar rates of athletes being caught. In other words, cycling appears to have more doping because the sport is actually looking harder for it.

I think cycling has more doping because:

A) They do test more than most other sports and

B) It is more physically demanding (particularly the grand tours or multi day races) than just about any sport I can think of. The only sports that even really come close are endurance sports like swimming, track and field, cross country skiing, etc. I'm not sure the money in the highest levels of any of those sports is as big as it is in big time cycling, is it? That would be less pressure too.

In baseball, football, basketball, you can rely on your natural abilities and still make a lot of money. In pro cycling, particularly in the Lance era, at the highest level, it appears that it was dope and maintain your pro standing in the UCI or go home for the most part.

I do get the sense that the sport may be mostly clean now, despite the positives. Maybe I'm being naive about this. I really hope not. I hope they can get a handle on this.

The first sentence implies a conclusion that is unsupported by the quotes in the rest of the article. He's not blaming testing for cheating. He's saying testing more athletes results in catching more athletes and that carrying out the same level of testing in other sports would result in similar rates of athletes being caught. In other words, cycling appears to have more doping because the sport is actually looking harder for it.

Correct. This appears to have been written by a third grader.

What's fascinating to me is that you know you are going to be tested. It's only a matter of time, yet people still risk it. And what's worse now is that, at least for me, if I see a great effort being put forth by a rider I am suspicious. I was joking with a friend of mine about the Tour on what the "over/under" was on how long before we knew the winner, and that was before Contador's positive.

Having known people who have used PED's (rudimentary stuff compared to today) and known why, I still didn't get it, but I had someplace to go after cycling. The guys I knew, really didn't, or it was not an attractive alternative. That does not make it right and putting stuff into your body where you have no idea of the long term effects is idiotic, but it starts with "I'll do it once or twice" and then it's out of control. The DS says, "Take some of this today as we need a big effort from you..."

I guess it's like Breaking Away...Dave to Dad, "Everybody cheats, I just didn't know." Dad to Dave..."Well, now you know."

I guess they are trying, but I get tired of watching a race to find out the results have or may change.

I think cycling has more doping because:

A) They do test more than most other sports and

B) It is more physically demanding (particularly the grand tours or multi day races) than just about any sport I can think of. The only sports that even really come close are endurance sports like swimming, track and field, cross country skiing, etc. I'm not sure the money in the highest levels of any of those sports is as big as it is in big time cycling, is it? That would be less pressure too.

In baseball, football, basketball, you can rely on your natural abilities and still make a lot of money. In pro cycling, particularly in the Lance era, at the highest level, it appears that it was dope and maintain your pro standing in the UCI or go home for the most part.

I do get the sense that the sport may be mostly clean now, despite the positives. Maybe I'm being naive about this. I really hope not. I hope they can get a handle on this.

There's doping in all the sports you mentioned, you just have to read the back page of the sports section to get the cross country skiing doping results.

Football still has it...but years ago it was terrible. Examples of Lyle Alzado and Mike Webster, who are dead, were big steroid users. But, it's my impression that the mainstream sports sort of pay attention, but not really. Sosa, McGuire, yadda....

I think it's better than it's been but there's still people out there trying to invent the next elixir that can beat a doping test.

:popcorn

Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong said isn’t happy about the apparent high level of doping in cycling but blames it on the sport’s strenuous efforts to expose drug cheats.

One more word would have made that lead sentence work, maybe the guy had a word limit for his article. Maybe his editor's a schmuck and wanted to make sure we talked about it on BF.

:popcorn

And you wonder why you can't get down to race weight.

Maybe the Pro cyclists need to form a union like the MLB players. That way they can "negotiate" the terms of of the testing.

“I have never been one to sit around and reminisce much”

I guess that means: I'll continue to lie.

and you wonder why you can't get down to race weight.

ouch lol.............

Armstrong has a point. Other sports aren't trying nearly as hard as cycling to nail the dopers.

By the way, even if you test me, I won't fail. True but one has nothing to do with the other if your guilty of doping. Seems Armstrong is trying to start a whine and divert attention from himself.

Maybe his editor's a schmuck and wanted to make sure we talked about it on BF.
ding!

Yeah, he's talking about the perception that cycling is worse than other sports. That perception is created by higher levels of testing.

As far as people doing it even though they know they will be tested. They apparently feel that they couldn't compete without it. So, the choice in their mind is dope and get a way with it for a while (possibly forever), or find something else to do.

I posted this link in the 217, but what the hell: http://nos.nl/video/210777-lance-armstrong-gebruikte-doping.html

It's an interesting video to watch (most is in English).

Gotta agree, who really believes any large group of pro athletes is clean nowdays??

Maybe the Pro cyclists need to form a union like the MLB players. That way they can "negotiate" the terms of of the testing.

There actually is already a "union" but it's nothing like NFLPA, or MLBPA.

I'm certainly not an LA fan but I would have to agree with him here.

I believe only track and field has more testing than cycling. Certainly the mainstream sports in North America lag far behind in terms of testing and how many of those positives are for "recreational drugs?":D

Any and all Olympic events (and sports that old an Olympic "status") are tested like cycling. You hear about it in cycling because the UCI and ProTour make sure you hear about it....

Unless you can show me numbers to back up that cycling is one of the most tested sports I call BS.

The first sentence implies a conclusion that is unsupported by the quotes in the rest of the article. He's not blaming testing for cheating. He's saying testing more athletes results in catching more athletes and that carrying out the same level of testing in other sports would result in similar rates of athletes being caught. In other words, cycling appears to have more doping because the sport is actually looking harder for it.

What he said! Lets start testing Football, baseball and basketball they way they test cyclists. The testing in those sports now is pathetic.

Unless you can show me numbers to back up that cycling is one of the most tested sports I call BS.

http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/news/18836/UCI-to-ramp-up-drug-testing

"The UCI said that it has conducted more than 25,000 tests since the introduction of the biological passport in 2007 and that it had more data than other sports on its athletes."

Even the UCI says they test more than any other sport.

What he said! Lets start testing Football, baseball and basketball they way they test cyclists. The testing in those sports now is pathetic.

It all pales in comparison to the incompetence that is drug testing in boxing and MMA. Millions of dollars for each fight and your manager pees in the cup for you. It's absurd.

Any and all Olympic events (and sports that old an Olympic "status") are tested like cycling. You hear about it in cycling because the UCI and ProTour make sure you hear about it....

Unless you can show me numbers to back up that cycling is one of the most tested sports I call BS.


I think there is no doubt that Lance Armstrong is/was probably one of the most/if not the most drug tested athlete ever.

With all of the testing, you would think if he did dope, he would slip up at least 1 or 2 times when it is obvious to catch him.

I say, anyone on this forum, dope up all you want, I would imagine that you still couldn't hang even close with a clean Armstrong at his age and what his body has already been through physically.

Which goes back to genetics. Either you are blessed with them, or you aren't..it really is that simple for some people.

But some do choose to dope it up even with genetics under stress/pressure.

http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/news/18836/UCI-to-ramp-up-drug-testing

"The UCI said that it has conducted more than 25,000 tests since the introduction of the biological passport in 2007 and that it had more data than other sports on its athletes."

Even the UCI says they test more than any other sport.


No they say they have more DATA due to the passport. They didnt say they test more.

And you wonder why you can't get down to race weight.

http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/emot-iceburn.gif

No they say they have more DATA due to the passport. They didnt say they test more.

One could infer that they gathered that data by doing more testing. I'm only basing that on the fact they mention doing a large amount of tests in the same sentence they claim they have more data than any other sport. If the two were mutually exclusive I would expect them to make that distinction.

I think there is no doubt that Lance Armstrong is/was probably one of the most/if not the most drug tested athlete ever.

With all of the testing, you would think if he did dope, he would slip up at least 1 or 2 times when it is obvious to catch him.

I say, anyone on this forum, dope up all you want, I would imagine that you still couldn't hang even close with a clean Armstrong at his age and what his body has already been through physically.

Which goes back to genetics. Either you are blessed with them, or you aren't..it really is that simple for some people.

But some do choose to dope it up even with genetics under stress/pressure.

Incorrect.... Armstrong had around 85 tests from 1999 up until 2005, compared to the 160 tests of Marion Jones had in the same time frame. She was one of the most tested athletes and was doping. Another example is Kohl was highly tested, around 200 tests for his life as a cyclist. "Most tested athlete" is FUD from the Armstrong camp and fanboys


And here is a list of the 2009 WADA testing stats. Cycling is no better or wose than other sports.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Resources/Statistics/WADA_Doping_Control_2009_OOCT_Stats_EN.pdf

Even the UCI says they test more than any other sport.

The reason they say that is because people like you believe it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-tourdownunder-armstrong

Armstrong said too many cyclists have tested positive for banned substances and that other sports would have similar records if athletes were monitored as closely.


I wish the author of the article could have produced some actual quotes from Armstrong to support that assertion of his (the author's).

If it was the same press conference, this coverage from CyclingNews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-claims-cycling-does-more-to-fight-doping-than-other-sports) puts it in a much different light.

I think there is no doubt that Lance Armstrong is/was probably one of the most/if not the most drug tested athlete ever.

With all of the testing, you would think if he did dope, he would slip up at least 1 or 2 times when it is obvious to catch him.


Armstrong and his doctors and his experts knew the tests and testing regime better than the people giving the test. Not proof he did anything wrong but I think he was one step ahead most of his career.

I really don't care, except for the embarrassment and when you watch a race and the "winner" gets stripped, it taints the watching experience. I think they all dope a little. You still need the genetics to make the doping worthwhile.

Also, the quote below seems to be interpreted very differently between the two articles.


“I can’t say no, you would have to say yes,” Armstrong said. “But to me that is really a byproduct of the sport trying harder than any other sport.

“I know if you laid those controls over any other world sport, especially one as demanding as cycling, you would have as many, if not more, positives.”

The Yahoo article references it as, "Armstrong said he was not concerned personally at being mentioned in doping investigations, but regretted the blemish on cycling."

Cycling News referenced it as, "Armstrong admitted that the steady trickle of positive tests in cycling was a concern but he was insistent that they were a sign that the sport was tackling its problems."

Yahoo applies it to Armstrong personally, Cycling News applies it to the sport in general. Big difference.

I haven't looked at the data, so I don't know if it's true that cyclists are tested more than other athletes. I do know that testing is extremely inconsistant between sports and inconsistant by country/region. For example, I think the US has done a pretty good job cracking down on track doping, but I doubt other regions have been anywhere near as strenuous.

It bugs me because I perceive a double standard. For example, if Jamaica's sudden rise to dominance in sprinting in 2008 had happened for America (assume for a moment that like Jamaica, America had previously been a good but hardly dominant sprinting nation), every country in the world would be screaming doping. But because Bolt is charming, they get a pass. Also, the current ridiculous East African dominance in distance running deserves more scrutiny. Most people seem to just assume that East Africans are somehow genetically superior, which is a bit racist. To me, it's absurd that the every single sub 2:06 marathon ever run was run by someone from East Africa. And yet, nobody bats an eye.

The inconsistancy between countries was also true for years in swimming: China got away with murder in the late ninties and East Germany should be stripped of every Olympic swimming medal they won in 76, 80 and 84.

Lance acknowledges there's doping in all sports including cycling.

My favorite Lance quote is this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG4odJP-Zuw&t=3m4s):
"Three weeks on the roads of France over the Alps and the Pyrenees and through the heat is a lot harder than a 9-inning game. It just is. Any sport where you can do tobacco at the same time is not.. is not nearly as hard as the Tour de France."

I would just add that in sports where 90% of one of the teams is sitting on their ass and the other team is just standing there and why they need to dope to do that is beyond me.

Maybe the Pro cyclists need to form a union like the MLB players. That way they can "negotiate" the terms of of the testing.

Exactly. If the NFL tested as rigorously as cycling does, about 75% of the players would be suspended.

That MLB union cost baseball their Olympic spot. The players didnt want to be OOC tested per WADA standards.

I would just add that in sports where 90% of one of the teams is sitting on their ass and the other team is just standing there and why they need to dope to do that is beyond me.

The right kind of doping is going to help in any sport, no matter how hardcore you think the sport may or may not be. The method may be a lot different for a baseball player, but there are definite advantages to hitting a longer ball or throwing a ball a little faster. Millions of dollars could hang in the balance. It doesn't matter how hard the sport is. The money is going to temp people.

Incorrect.... Armstrong had around 85 tests from 1999 up until 2005, compared to the 160 tests of Marion Jones had in the same time frame. She was one of the most tested athletes and was doping. Another example is Kohl was highly tested, around 200 tests for his life as a cyclist. "Most tested athlete" is FUD from the Armstrong camp and fanboys


And here is a list of the 2009 WADA testing stats. Cycling is no better or wose than other sports.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Resources/Statistics/WADA_Doping_Control_2009_OOCT_Stats_EN.pdf


Ok, so how many times since 2005 has he been tested, specifically 2009-2010? Also, source for your number of tests?

Incorrect.... Armstrong had around 85 tests from 1999 up until 2005, compared to the 160 tests of Marion Jones had in the same time frame. She was one of the most tested athletes and was doping. Another example is Kohl was highly tested, around 200 tests for his life as a cyclist. "Most tested athlete" is FUD from the Armstrong camp and fanboys


And here is a list of the 2009 WADA testing stats. Cycling is no better or wose than other sports.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Resources/Statistics/WADA_Doping_Control_2009_OOCT_Stats_EN.pdf


Hey punters - go and have a look at the above website.

Assuming it is correct, cycling is NOT the most tested sport. It is tested less than swimming and rowing and around the same as skiing. Triathlon and canoeing?? are up there too. Unless there is some sort of media conspiracy, those other sports don't have the same level of drug busts that beset cycling.

In one year there were around 217 total out of competition tests for cycling. How many pro cyclists are there. This would be way less than one test per cyclist per season. That is why doping is rife - the odds of getting tested are very low.

Another factor in doping generally is that there seems to be no collection of frozen blood samples. This was advocated by, amongst others, the swimmer Ian Thorpe. This means that as better testing is developed in the future, it can be retrostpectively applied to today's champions. I think that blood collection is also less prone to tampering than urine testing.

So, of the Olympic sports (as opposed to pro sports like football, boxing etc), cycling is not the most tested sport and it would seem that there is a higher level of doping in cycling than other sports.

davida

That MLB union cost baseball their Olympic spot.

But nobody cares.

I do get the sense that the sport may be mostly clean now, despite the positives. Maybe I'm being naive about this. I really hope not. I hope they can get a handle on this.

My thoughts too

My favorite Lance quote is this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG4odJP-Zuw&t=3m4s):
"Three weeks on the roads of France over the Alps and the Pyrenees and through the heat is a lot harder than a 9-inning game. It just is. Any sport where you can do tobacco at the same time is not.. is not nearly as hard as the Tour de France."

and then there is this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6UjiqEgGvk0/S8Tggqv04iI/AAAAAAAABFs/Xq2b-02ZfNc/s1600/cipollini4.jpg
(ok, so it was a one time thing to gain attention...)

The inconsistancy between countries was also true for years in swimming: China got away with murder in the late ninties and East Germany should be stripped of every Olympic swimming medal they won in 76, 80 and 84.
Stripping East Germany of their 1984 Olympic medals would be about the same as stripping the U.S. of its 1980 Olympic medals.

And....internationally newsworthy why? Or congressional interest because of what reason?

And yes, the yahoo writer slaughtered that lead.

One sport can test more than another sport, doesn't necessarily mean anything. It depends on how comprehensive the test are. MLB test are pretty much a joke. On the other hand look at cycling. Not a Contador fan, but the levels at which he tested positive was incredibly low.

There are dopes in all sports.

Keith Hernandez, the Mets All-Star and former MVP first baseman, would sneak Marlboros in the runway behind the Mets dugout @ Shea Stadium between innings.

They don't do that in UCI cycling, the silly photo of Mario above notwithstanding.

One sport can test more than another sport, doesn't necessarily mean anything. It depends on how comprehensive the test are. MLB test are pretty much a joke. On the other hand look at cycling. Not a Contador fan, but the levels at which he tested positive was incredibly low.

Then think about how harsh the punishment is. For the first offense, the NFL suspends guys for just 4 games, which is only 25% of the regular season.

The thing with cycling is that it seems like big stars keep getting busted. In the NFL it seems like the small guys get busted. Who is the biggest name? Merriman? Cushing? We've never seen a guy like Manning, Brady, Brees, etc. get busted. Those are the ones that really stick out in the minds of average fans.