Professional Cycling For the Fans - Just in - Lance Armstrong Doping Investigation is dropped.

As per Los Angeles times, the Federal prosecutor will drop Armstrong investigation for doping. Grand Jury investigation will not be publicize. The U.S attorney's decided to drop the case after much complain of Armstrong Attorneys.

Armstrong couldn't be happy from the results. He said... "I commend them for reaching it(decision), I look forward to continuing my life as a father, a competitor and an advocate in the fights against cancer without this distraction."

... remember his accusers??? Floyd Landis, Yaroslav Popovych, Allen Lim, Tyler Hamilton and Liaison Stephanie Mcilvain. Floyd spark this investigation by sending emails to anti-doping officials, and quoted Armstrong using performance drugs. Hamilton in 60 minutes stated "I saw in his refrigerator. I saw him inject it more than one time like we all did, like I did many, many times,".

Frankie's wife Betsy Andreu who also testify against Lance using performance drug, stated. "This is what happens when you have a lot of money. It's why Lance hired the attorneys he hired with political backgrounds. He got it quashed."

Armstrong defender attorney Mark Fabiani and U.S. Attorney stated that they could not discuss the outcome of the contempt motion because proceedings were sealed.

... It must have been a relief for Armstrong to see this drop. I wonder why the public cannot see the proceeding. I am curious as how did it go. I would love to watch the proceedings same as I love to watch Judge Judy.

This is history of sports being written. pretty cool, I thought I share it.

Citation: Los Angeles Times 2012, Vitoria.KIm@latimes.com, lance.pugmire@latimes.com

If Lance didn't dope, then the Mets don't suck.

I remain a Mets fan, so let that be your guide.

Old, old news and in the wrong forum.

Off to the 217 (Pro)

apparently the feds are like the 41 - if there are no pictures or video - it didn't happen.

Ummmm...partly true. They didnt "drop the doping investigation", they "dropped" their Grand Jury Investigation into alleged misuse of funds for the US Postal Team, thats what the whole thing was about that they were investigating. Here's an article on it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/feb/06/lance-armstrong-federal-investigation?newsfeed=true

(read this part especially):



The announcement of the dropping of the case against Armstrong came from the US Attorney's office in Los Angeles, and reminded us that its primary purpose was not to prove that the rider had doped. In the US, sports-related doping is not a federal crime. The effect of doping is the issue, and in Armstrong's case an attempt was being made to discover if sponsorship money provided by a US government body had been used to subsidise a doping programme by his US Postal team. Fraudulent misuse of federal funds would have been the crime, rather than cheating in order to distort competition.


That doesnt mean he's out of the clear, nor does it mean he didnt dope...that simply means they couldnt find any supposed misuse of funds.

Story from Washington Post regarding how the US media treated the grand jury investigation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/end-of-lance-armstrong-probe-raises-questions-about-medias-reporting/2012/02/07/gIQAcHOXxQ_story.html

Good article from the Washington Post. Thanks for the link!

Yes, a darn good article, and the reporter asks the right question about his colleagues -



While something less than a complete exoneration of Armstrong, the muted end of the investigation raises questions about the media: Did they go too far in painting a picture of misfeasance and illegal behavior by the seven-time Tour de France winner? And did they fail to ask some tough questions about the government’s case?


Maybe the media was far to willing to believe Landis and Hamilton, and the Feds own usual bluster about a "strong" case, instead of seeing the 500+ clean tests that LA had over 15 years.

Story from Washington Post regarding how the US media treated the grand jury investigation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/end-of-lance-armstrong-probe-raises-questions-about-medias-reporting/2012/02/07/gIQAcHOXxQ_story.html
yup... good story

Good article but only scratches the surface. They didn't mention the cycling media specifically velonews that all but convicted Lance. It's their biased reporting and chumming the waters that caused me to cancel my subscription and visiting their site. I have no respect for them.

Good article but only scratches the surface. They didn't mention the cycling media specifically velonews that all but convicted Lance. It's their biased reporting and chumming the waters that caused me to cancel my subscription and visiting their site. I have no respect for them.

Dont hold anything back, tell us how you really feel? Lol

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/46259845/ns/sports-cycling/

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/46259845/ns/sports-cycling/

Thanks for the link. The author made a classic mistake when they said, "I saw him ride. Never seen anything quite like it. Astounding. But I still can't be sure how he did it. And now I never will."

Simple. Pick the right parents, ride your bike a gagillion hours and have a competitive nature that says I will.

Here's an excellent post from that WashingtonPost.com article(comments section), this is actually right on:



2. The investigation was never about whether or not Armstrong doped -- it was about whether or not he headed a fraud by conducting a massive team-wide doping program for US Postal, a much higher bar. 3. 60 Minutes reported that Armstrong's most loyal lieutenant, George Hincapie, admitted to doping, implicated Armstrong and the entire US Postal program. Hincapie never denied the allegations -- he instead offered an ambivalent statement saying he'd never talked to 60M and didn't know where they got their information. Don't you think he'd have denied such an extraordinary claim if it were untrue?

No one who actually understands cycling actually believes Armstrong rode clean. Sorry. As for the 'most tested' claim, a number of cyclists who have later admitted to doping never failed a test. The public doesn't seem to understand that tests for EPO don't test for the drug, which naturally occurs in everyone, but on the very subjective measure of hematocrit levels, allowing a course of 'micro dosing' to easily undercut the tests. (Google Bernhard Kohl if you're curious about how this works.) Further, there are no tests yet that can reliably detect autologous blood doping of the sort Armstrong (and every top cyclists of his era) is accused. And to deny Armstrong doped you have to ignore a mountain of circumstantial evidence: the numerous eye witness accounts (all 'disgruntled former associates'!), the fact that almost everyone who ever shared a TdF podium with Armstrong has subsequently been busted or admitted to doping, the sudden and precipitous drop in climbing speeds in the TdF since more rigorous testing regimens have been implanted, -- and before that, the sudden spike in climbing speeds in the late 90s and early 2000s when doping became widespread and sophisticated and when tests were still weak. (In what other sport did athletes suddenly get faster, then slower over the span of a decade?) And on and on.

Here's an excellent post from that WashingtonPost.com article(comments section), this is actually right on:

Whoever wrote that on the Washington Post knows nothing of drug testing. There is a test for EPO. It tests for a different isotope than what is produced naturally in the human body.

http://www.antidopingresearch.org/BeyondSportsDopingHeadlines.pdf



Isoelectric focusing

Isoelectric focusing (IEF) is used to detect recombinant EPO in the urine EPO test [12-14]. Historically,
the EPO test at the Olympics (2000 to 2006) was done on paired blood and urine samples collected
simultaneously. The blood test is an indirect test because it does not detect the presence of recombinant
EPO. Instead, it measures multiple parameters (eg, hemoglobin, hematocrit, percentage of reticulocytes)
and calculates a score which indicates whether the individual is on or recently off recombinant EPO [15].
Since 2002, EPO tests done by United States sports authorities have included only the urine test, a direct
test that identifies recombinant EPO. EPO tests are done on only some of all of the urine samples, upon
request by the sports authority.


Endogenous human EPO is a glycoprotein with a known amino acid sequence and glycosylation pattern.
More precisely, it consists of a family of isoforms (molecules that differ only by their degrees of
glycosylation). As a result, the pH at which each isoform bears as many negative as positive charges
(isoelectric point or PI) is different.
Recombinant human EPO differs from endogenous human EPO only by its overall glycosylation pattern
(ie, it consists of a different family of isoforms). The difference in overall pattern of isoforms allows
differentiation between recombinant and endogenous human EPO.

As per Los Angeles times, the Federal prosecutor will drop Armstrong investigation for doping. Grand Jury investigation will not be publicize. The U.S attorney's decided to drop the case after much complain of Armstrong Attorneys.

Armstrong couldn't be happy from the results. He said... "I commend them for reaching it(decision), I look forward to continuing my life as a father, a competitor and an advocate in the fights against cancer without this distraction."

... remember his accusers??? Floyd Landis, Yaroslav Popovych, Allen Lim, Tyler Hamilton and Liaison Stephanie Mcilvain. Floyd spark this investigation by sending emails to anti-doping officials, and quoted Armstrong using performance drugs. Hamilton in 60 minutes stated "I saw in his refrigerator. I saw him inject it more than one time like we all did, like I did many, many times,".

Frankie's wife Betsy Andreu who also testify against Lance using performance drug, stated. "This is what happens when you have a lot of money. It's why Lance hired the attorneys he hired with political backgrounds. He got it quashed."

Armstrong defender attorney Mark Fabiani and U.S. Attorney stated that they could not discuss the outcome of the contempt motion because proceedings were sealed.

... It must have been a relief for Armstrong to see this drop. I wonder why the public cannot see the proceeding. I am curious as how did it go. I would love to watch the proceedings same as I love to watch Judge Judy.

This is history of sports being written. pretty cool, I thought I share it.

Citation: Los Angeles Times 2012, Vitoria.KIm@latimes.com, lance.pugmire@latimes.com

Is this a direct quote??? Because, the writing/grammar totally blows! :P

Is this a direct quote??? Because, the writing/grammar totally blows! :P

I can really benefit from you in my English 3 paper.