Professional Cycling For the Fans - They got the bastard.

I understand that charges against Armstrong have been dropped. Have not seen it in print yet though.

Al

Court Strips Contador of 2010 Tour Title

Associated Press
MADRID -- Alberto Contador has been stripped of his 2010 Tour de France title and banned for two years after sport's highest court found him guilty of doping.
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
Alberto Contador crosses the finish line on stage eighteen of the 2011 Tour de France from Pinerolo to Galibier Serre Chevalier on July 21, 2011.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport suspended the three-time Tour champion after rejecting his claim that his positive test for clenbuterol was caused by eating contaminated meat during the 2010 Tour.
The three-man CAS panel upheld appeals by the International Cycling Union and World Anti-Doping Agency, which challenged a Spanish cycling tribunal's decision last year to exonerate Contador.
His ban was backdated and he is eligible to return to competition on Aug. 6. The decision was announced by CAS in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Whoa, here is a link to a news report for this:
http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/7545798/alberto-contador-stripped-2010-tour-de-france-title

Thanks for the heads up.

Bill

And, here we go again...

So, who becomes the favorite for this year's grand tours?

I can see the headlines "Armstrong Gets Dropped"

I gave up following the TDF when Floyd popped; halfway followed the latest investigation into LA's antics. Guess nobody thought Tyler was credible, or the Andreu's.

People keep coming up positive; more get by with it because they're 'off the back'. I've heard all the excuses; either legalize it or kick the violators out. If you really think you HAVE to use to be competitive, you're in the wrong profession.

Yes, I'm an 'old cranky b*st*rd' . . . .

I can see the headlines "Armstrong Gets Dropped"

Here's one:

"Armstrong faces no charges as investigation is closed"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0206/1224311333582_pf.html


Al

I have mixed feelings (and I'm not an expert here).

Everybody looks for a "nutrition" advantage which eventually crosses the line to performance-enhancement substances. The doping rules usually lag after someone figures out new processes or substances, so they're maybe legal until their beneficial effects are discovered. And blood doping isn't even a substance addition, it's your own blood. I'm wondering when carb loading will become illegal.

A humorous friend once proposed that every pro sports team be allowed ONE person to be exempt from drug testing. He painted the story of... "ninth inning, down by one, --and here comes MONGO!"

So, who becomes the favorite for this year's grand tours?
Perhaps Cadel or Andy or Philippe or the winner of one of the early spring classics.

whoa, just realized.. the "..He painted the story.." phrase in my previous post-- I mixed a metaphor. Does anybody collect those? My brother has been collecting mixed metaphors (have to be caught in the wild!) for years --and has been offered newspaper stories around his list several times, but he refuses to share the list publicly. Some are hilarious.

I have mixed feelings (and I'm not an expert here).

Everybody looks for a "nutrition" advantage which eventually crosses the line to performance-enhancement substances. The doping rules usually lag after someone figures out new processes or substances, so they're maybe legal until their beneficial effects are discovered. And blood doping isn't even a substance addition, it's your own blood. I'm wondering when carb loading will become illegal.

A humorous friend once proposed that every pro sports team be allowed ONE person to be exempt from drug testing. He painted the story of... "ninth inning, down by one, --and here comes MONGO!"
Doping became a big issue when people started dying on the course (the Brit on amphetamines, can't remember his name) and when cyclists started dying in their sleep from blood sludging from EPO. Carb loading isn't inherently dangerous. Most PEDs have significant health risks. You shouldn't have to take them to be competitive with the dopers.

:popcorn:

Perhaps Cadel or Andy or Philippe or the winner of one of the early spring classics.

Yes, although I'm not sure Evans has another major tour win in him. Gilbert and Schleck... seems possible. I confess I haven't kept up with the teams that are being built around these guys.

Doping became a big issue when people started dying on the course (the Brit on amphetamines, can't remember his name) and when cyclists started dying in their sleep from blood sludging from EPO. Carb loading isn't inherently dangerous. Most PEDs have significant health risks. You shouldn't have to take them to be competitive with the dopers.

Tom Simpson--british road cyclist died on the Mont Ventoux from exhaustion he had taken amphetamine and alcohol!

Road cyclists "doctored" themselves according to Jacques Anquetil to mask pain, it is only later enhancing drugs were used!

Doping has been used over a hundred years. Rules are not going to change the attitude of the professionals. Winning is the only way they can continue in their profession.

The above could have been written about any sport.

Yes, although I'm not sure Evans has another major tour win in him. Gilbert and Schleck... seems possible. I confess I haven't kept up with the teams that are being built around these guys.

This years' TdF course favors a TT rider who can climb, Evans fits that bill nicely. Schleck will be in second again, he is however a former winner now so that's something.

Wow! My 2009 Astana jersey with the entire TdF team autographs keeps getting more valuable by the hour.

My take on the LA thing is that the administration could not afford to have that investigation out front in an election year, thus the Friday night document dump on dropping the LA thing.

Contador is reported to have gained 17 pounds during the off season. Guess he found the beef.

Doping has been used over a hundred years. Rules are not going to change the attitude of the professionals. Winning is the only way they can continue in their profession.

The above could have been written about any sport.

Correct. The only difference between Contador and Armstrong is one succeeded in defence of allegations. They are all dopers.

This years' TdF course favors a TT rider who can climb, Evans fits that bill nicely. Schleck will be in second again, he is however a former winner now so that's something.

Agree; with the additions to BMC, and given this year's course, CE is in a very good position to repeat. A. Schleck had his chances in 2010 and 2011 -- couldn't take them (the fact that he is now the *winner of 2010 is neither here nor there).

According to his biographer, LA never denied pushing the envelope when it came to what he put in his body. He also claimed whatever he ingested never crossed the line into illegality. He doesn't say he hasn't taken drugs, he says he's never tested positive.

Those who have claimed Lance did cross the line are admitted dopers and liars, and/or had a bone to pick with him.

Lance is out from under the cloud of a criminal investigation. The sports world is still investigating him.

On the other hand, Contador tested positive for a banned substance. He doesn't deny that clen was in his body, he claims he didn't knowingly take it. He faces no criminal investigation that we know of.

The test for Contador, at the Tour, also showed traces of a plasticiser, which indicates a plasma or fluids bag and an IV being used on him. They charged possible blood doping along with the clenbuterol. Regardless he is busted and an appeal to the Swiss Supreme Court doesn't look very likely but he has a press conference this afternoon, stateside time frame I understand. I doubt a "clean" winner will be found now. They may be finding a way to mask or clear themselves somehow but doping is doping to me.

Bill

Those who have claimed Lance did cross the line are admitted dopers and liars, and/or had a bone to pick with him.

Not true. Maybe at one point in time, but not now. Too many people. Too much evidence. Anyway, that one is finally over except for the arguments amongst those like us, and there is finally a decision for Alberto - one that takes away from this year's TdF - but there will still be great racing. I think Cadel may be able to do it again, given the course this year. Would love to see Gilbert up there. But what I really want is a miracle by Vansummeren, because, well, he's my height!!

Those who have claimed Lance did cross the line are admitted dopers and liars, and/or had a bone to pick with him.


You don't think that's a brilliantly self-serving argument? I mean, who exactly should be qualified to testify against him - someone who doped alongside of him or someone who was never part of the doping culture and had no exposure to it?

The other victim of this fiasco is Andy Schleck who does not want to claim victory for the 2010 TDF. Schleck said, "First of all I feel sad for Alberto. I always believed in his innocence. This is just a very sad day for cycling. The only positive news is that there is a verdict after 566 days of uncertainty. We can finally move on."

And if Andy Schleck happens to win in 2012, well, Contador will not have been there to compete. At best, this is a sad day for professional cycling.

Who cares already.

I would still go for a bike ride with him.

Doping became a big issue when people started dying on the course

You are referring to drug use, blood doping is the practice of removing a pint of one's blood, (or someone else's), distilling it down to red blood cells,(or something), and putting it back in later so the blood can carry more oxygen. This was legal as recently as the 1984 Olympics but now is tested for by checking hematocrit levels.
No drugs are involved.

My take on the LA thing is that the administration could not afford to have that investigation out front in an election year, thus the Friday night document dump on dropping the LA thing.

I don't normally get involved in politics on the web but I have to disagree with you here.
I'd say that 99.9% of voters aren't even aware of the investigation, or if they have heard of it, they have no idea of it's progress or what it's about.

You are referring to drug use, blood doping is the practice of removing a pint of one's blood, (or someone else's), distilling it down to red blood cells,(or something), and putting it back in later so the blood can carry more oxygen. This was legal as recently as the 1984 Olympics but now is tested for by checking hematocrit levels.
No drugs are involved.
Blood doping carries moderate risk if it is your own blood and major risk if it is someone else's. A transfusion reaction can be fatal.
Blood doping and doping with drugs are separate but related issues with different specific risks.

People keep coming up positive; more get by with it because they're 'off the back'. I've heard all the excuses; either legalize it or kick the violators out.

The trick is identifying the violators.

If you test for a substance, you have to establish what level of that substance can occur naturally in an athlete. The level that you "approve" has to be at the high end of the scale or you will exclude everybody whose natural levels are on the high side. What you have done is to publish what level everybody else can boost to without being caught.

Now I'm wondering what might happen if you had already boosted your level to the max and then ate a hormone enhanced steak.

Correct. The only difference between Contador and Armstrong is one succeeded in defence of allegations. They are all dopers.

In your opinion - just to make the statement honest

You don't think that's a brilliantly self-serving argument? I mean, who exactly should be qualified to testify against him - someone who doped alongside of him or someone who was never part of the doping culture and had no exposure to it?

The people who testified in the Michael Jackson case against Jackson's doctor weren't admitted liars, and had never illegally administered drugs to people for whom they worked. Nor had they been fired by Jackson's doctor.

The people who were witnesses to the shooting of Gabby Giffords hadn't shoot anyone themselves. They hadn't been called before a grand jury for testimony regarding their own potential criminal acts, and offered immunity for their testimony. They weren't fired by Jared Lee Loughner. They didn't admit to lying about other crimes they'd witnessed.

A teller who I.D.s a bank robber may or may not make the correct identification. However, the teller isn't an admitted bank robber, hasn't been fired by the bank robber, and the teller isn't under investigation for robbing a bank.


So it's possible to accuse someone of a crime without having an ax to grind for being fired, who isn't under threat of indictment, and who hasn't admitted lying about the very thing he's accusing someone else of doing.

The people who have spoken out about Armstrong have admitted taking illegal drugs, may have been under potential threat of indictment for perjury, or were upset with Armstrong for financial reasons. They have less credibility than a witness to the death of Michael Jackson, than a witness to the Giffords shooting, and less credibility to a bank teller who's a witness to a bank robbery.

Maybe they are telling the truth, maybe not, but people we know about who have accused Armstrong of doping have good reasons for lying, e.g. to make money and stay out of jail themselves. We also know that people under stress, like those who have accused Armstrong, will believe their own lies.

That's not to say Armstrong didn't dope. Only that his accusers are not necessarily the most credible witnesses. And by way of making an idle comment in this thread, I contrasted their hearsay testimony against the fact that Contador had an illegal substance in his body.

Maybe if we think of this on a personal level. In my state they have established a legal limit of Blood Alcohol at .08. If I were to get pulled over at a check point and the officer decides I may be over the limit because someone in the back seat of my car says I have been drinking all night I may have to pass a field sobriety test. Lets say he still doesn't believe me I can take a blood alcohol test or breathalyzer test. If I blow .07 I am free to go my way. The guys in the back seat my not agree but still that is the rules.

Armstrong was tested maybe more than anyone has ever been tested. He didn't blow more than a .08 so he fell within the rules. Alberto blew a .09 and got tagged. It is time to move on

This is the 98-page ruling (http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5648/5048/0/FINAL20AWARD202012.02.06.pdf) on Contador if you're a registered insomniac.

:popcorn:

+1

Well, if LA wasn't behind the assassination of Jack Kennedy, then just who do you think was?

According to his biographer, LA never denied pushing the envelope when it came to what he put in his body. He also claimed whatever he ingested never crossed the line into illegality. He doesn't say he hasn't taken drugs, he says he's never tested positive.

Funny, I have always suspected this but never saw it in print. Was this in Lance Armstrong's War? I dont recall seeing it in "It's not about the Bike."

Well, if LA wasn't behind the assassination of Jack Kennedy, then just who do you think was?

Obviously, it was President Obama.

Obviously, it was President Obama.

Oh, NO! Now Sheriff Joe has another witch hunt to start!

Maybe if we think of this on a personal level. In my state they have established a legal limit of Blood Alcohol at .08. If I were to get pulled over at a check point and the officer decides I may be over the limit because someone in the back seat of my car says I have been drinking all night I may have to pass a field sobriety test. Lets say he still doesn't believe me I can take a blood alcohol test or breathalyzer test. If I blow .07 I am free to go my way. The guys in the back seat my not agree but still that is the rules.

Armstrong was tested maybe more than anyone has ever been tested. He didn't blow more than a .08 so he fell within the rules. Alberto blew a .09 and got tagged. It is time to move on

In this case, however, there is no established legal level of clenbuterol. It's more like if testing .000001 would get you a DUI.

But, yes, it is time to move on.

Those who have claimed Lance did cross the line are admitted dopers and liars, and/or had a bone to pick with him.

Lance is out from under the cloud of a criminal investigation. The sports world is still investigating him.

On the other hand, Contador tested positive for a banned substance. He doesn't deny that clen was in his body, he claims he didn't knowingly take it. He faces no criminal investigation that we know of.

And therein lies the distinction. Clearing Armstrong of any criminal charges means that the Department of Justice could find no evidence that he violated any statute within the subject matter jurisdiction of the US District Courts. It is not equivalent to finding that he always rode clean.

As far as the "fellow doper/no cred" argument goes, I remember when people used the same line of argument to discredit Jose Canseco when he blew the whistle on baseball dopers. I think the last 5 years have pretty much vindicated the guy.

In this case, however, there is no established legal level of clenbuterol. It's more like if testing .000001 would get you a DUI.

But, yes, it is time to move on.

I also know that I couldn't race in the TDF. I take Hydroclorothiazide and like that Russian rider I would have to withdraw. But because I can't race anyway I often wonder how much some of the "stuff" they take might help on a clib ride...:lol:

And there is still a parallel with DUI. If any restricted chemicals are found in my system if they administer a blood test I can still be charged and convicted of DUI. Like a 18 year old. .00001 is still against the law.:D

And therein lies the distinction. Clearing Armstrong of any criminal charges means that the Department of Justice could find no evidence that he violated any statute within the subject matter jurisdiction of the US District Courts. It is not equivalent to finding that he always rode clean.

I didn't say he didn't dope.

Oh look another doping discussion :rolleyes:
:popcorn:
:deadhorse:
:trainwreck:

A year ago I was all for nailing AC for the Clenbuterol infraction. But two things happened. First, it was the realization that most, if not all, the top TDF riders were doping. And secondly, I admired his character in the 2011 TDF. No whining, no excuses, balls to the wall riding, and then a conciliatory nod to all that he just was not as good at the time as the guys he lost to. I like that ... IMO this year's TDF will be BORING without AC there.

So ... just thinkin' here - If they all dope, then there is no unfair advantage and the competition is good. Without the scrutiny, the spectator public is ambivalent as long as the spectacle is excellent (and it usually is) With the scrutiny, is there really a reason to avoid doping though? Say you get caught, then you may get knocked around a bit but your sponsor still may benefit, and all the extra drama (although tainting the sport a bit) creates a number of jobs. I mean you have the labs and the labs that validate the labs, and the experts who verify the labs that validate the labs, and you have all of the people who collect and transport the samples, and all of the clerks that deal with all of the chains of custody, and lawyers (do I have to talk about lawyers!) ... and then you have the news folks and the magazine publishers and so on ad finitum . Why, the unemployment rate may double if they back off on doping scrutiny - that's all Europe needs right now. Anyhow ... just thinkin'

I am glad for Andy. Karmic payback I'd say.

-G

This thread should have been locked immediately. Where are the mods in this place? Do we need 37 threads on the same subject? Do we need subject titles that are so unnecessarily inflammatory?

Here's one:

"Armstrong faces no charges as investigation is closed"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0206/1224311333582_pf.html


Al


Guys this was mostly about the accusations of imporper use of govt funds, as to relations for the US Postal team, they werent looking to see if he'd doped. So the whole notion that "Yes, Armstrong is free and clear, he never doped, here's proof" is BS.



Here's an article on it:

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


"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."

This thread should have been locked immediately. Where are the mods in this place? Do we need 37 threads on the same subject? Do we need subject titles that are so unnecessarily inflammatory?
Since a moderator moved the thread here from the 50+ sub-forum where it was being discussed they would be the ones to ask. OP wasn't trying to overcrowd the Proracing forum we were going along fine until staff judged this to be the forum to have these threads. Just calm down man.

The test for Contador, at the Tour, also showed traces of a plasticiser, which indicates a plasma or fluids bag and an IV being used on him.

Apparently we all have plasticizers in our blood, and IV is not the most parsimonious explanation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17825522

But all those disposable water bottles they litter the course with could explain it.

Apparently we all have plasticizers in our blood, and IV is not the most parsimonious explanation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17825522

But all those disposable water bottles they litter the course with could explain it.

Next time please read the reference before posting. That reference discusses a completely unrelated class of plasticizer and reports human serum levels 300 to 700 times LOWER than those found in Contador's blood.