BeeTL

...

El Diablo Rojo

Remember he can see you when you sleeping, he knows when you are awake, he knows when you've been bad or good...blah blah blah.

If you havn't heard Fuentes as admitted that there are still 'clients' of his that are riding in this years Tour. So 9 of his riders got kicked out, lets say that he's got 9 left in the race, that's 10% of the peloton that would have been riding doped by just this one doc. If you want to believe that this is isolated then 'be good for goodness sake, Cause Santa Claus is comin' to town..........

marqueemoon

I've just always assumed that everybody does it, and that since admitting doing it spells disaster nobody would admit it unless confronted with the evidence (to minimize damage to their future career).

I would not be surprised or disappointed to learn that Lance was a doper. Knowing what we know now, from a competition standpoint I'm not sure how much it matters.

Smoothie104

There's no test for Growth Hormone, its been abused in all atheltics for over a decade now. And will continue to be as long as it is undedectable.

Also, these guys are paying 50,000 euros a year or more to these doctors so they WONT get caught, dont forget that.

And they are always steps ahead, Postal was in possesion of Actovegin before the Drug testers even knew it existed.

Thylacine

A couple of comments on your quotes.

First up, dopers are ahead of the authorities. Drug Runners are ahead of the authorities. Organised Crime bosses are adhead of the authorities. It's the difference between working without bounds (and where the real money is) and working within bounds (where funding is scarce). It's self evident and the way the world works.

Secondly, cycling is about as bourgeois as you can get. "Every guy can take part in it?" Sure, where are all the poor black and Asian people? "Big, small, fat, thin -- you see all of them in the field and depending on the circumstances"? Bullsh¡t. If you're not a genetic freak in earshot of 68kgs and 5ft 9ins, you've got bugger all hope. I like Erik Zabel, but he should stick to riding a bike and leave the talking to others.

As to your conclusion, it's admirable, but human nature simply isn't as lovey-dovey as you'd like it to be. If you consider what competitive cycling actually is, I don't see how a sane and resonable person couldn't add two and two together and not come up with "There's a good chance the majority of them flirt with the rules."

Now, my opinion when it comes to Lance is simple. Does anyone honestly believe you survive and thrive during and after Cancer on herb teas and yoga?

Dubbayoo

Even if Lance is guilty the fact is it just means he whupped other doper's asses.

dmotoguy

I dont like doping, i dont think it is good for the athletes in the long run, i dont think it is sportsman-like, but the current system of tests will never stop it at all. Its like the pre-employment drug tests that almost everybody passes even though they are drug addicts. I think there should be a life-long ban on racing if you have a positive test, and they should do blood/hair/urine/spinal fluid... whatever it takes.. and if there is a positive by one member of a team, the whole team is banned for a year.. this will make the teams get tough..

personally.. I dont really care if armstrong doped or not.. but i wish they would stop talking about it.. its not really relevant

domestique

+1...... the only people that loose are the lowly domestiques that can not afford blood transfusions and dopping drugs. But.... I guess the future widows also lose out after their husbands drop dead of a stroke or heart attack.

reef58

I can't understand why you guys keep ridiculing anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion that everyone dopes. While I agree it is the most compelling opinion it is not a scientific fact. You read the stories, do the research, and form an opinion that everyone dopes. Someone else does the same and is not convinced. Very few people know with 100% certainty who dopes, and who doesn't.

The sources used to form most of these opinions are dubious. One example is the names on the list. The good doctor claims some are omitted, and some he has never worked with. What is the truth? I don't know for sure, and neither do any of us on BF. I am sure we will know one day. God I hope so. Then maybe the focus can be on the race.

Richard

adamastor

My friend, you brought up the Armstrong case. I am not saying "he did it, because many/most people did it"...I am saying he did it

Because there is EPO in 6 different samples of his ( PROVEN, but legally not defendable, shame )
Because of Emma O Reilly
Because of Lemond
Because of Betsy Andreu
Because of Frankie Andreu
Because of Michele Ferrari
Because of Christophe Bassons
Because of Simeoni
Because of bags of Actovegin

And ONLY after that, because of
Basso / Ullrich / Beloki / Heras / Hamilton / Zulle etc

Nothing up there good enough to have court condemn him, because he was never caught positive, never was caught with an invoice from a doctor, never was caught with illegal dope.

Laurent Jalabert said last week on French radio: "There is a pre-1998 cycling, and an after-1998 cycling. Those who didn't understand, and di not change after 1998 don't have any excuse.

If Armstrong was just another rider like Indurain, Hinault or even Merckx, I wouldn't complain. Those guys retired, and kept low profile. But for God's sake, Armstrong has become an icon, a "hero", a person people should look at with admiration.

Some of you say Lemond is a whiner, but he is right in one thing: "Armstrong is not a happy person, and he will never be happy." Because his guilt and the silence around it will haunt him for the rest of his life.

wattsy_rules

Do you think we'll still be debating this subject in 20 years time? Probably, but the fact remains that he won 7 and he's the only one that has done so far, possibly ever.

Is he a doping cheat? Probably as well, but do I care?...Not really. It was just great watching him sprint away from the packs up through the mountains with nobody capable of staying with him let alone challenge.

Blackberry

[QUOTE=adamastor] Armstrong has become an icon, a "hero", a person people should look at with admiration.
QUOTE]

Lots of people DO look up to him with admiration. He's raised a ton of money for cancer research. In fact, in the middle of one of his TDF quests, he took time to ride a bike in central park with a friend of mine who had cancer and to give my friend a Postal team jersey. This was not a photo op. It received absolutely no publicity (except in my company's newsletter).

celephaiz

I gotta take issue with that one. If it's not defendable, it's not proven. There are reasons evidential handling procedures. If you were so sure he did it, you'd make sure there was no mishandling. If you couldn't make a case without cutting corners, you cut the corners, but don't tell me it's "Proven" because it's not. If Le Monde or l'equipe and whoever else wants to take the doping high road, they shouldn't cheat to create the story.

DMF 

adamastor gives himself away. He's saying, in essence, that Lance is guilty because he wants him to be guilty.

Just another Lance Hater, cheating.


And then there's stupidities like this:
Huh?? Merckx is "just another rider" ??

Hitchy

couldn't agree more, except for the bit about "even if"....Lance hasn't been busted, but neither was Flo Jo......having better drugs & not getting busted has limited cache

shokhead

Dont condem all sports because cycling is so #%^#up.

Hitchy

Ok...but name one where doping gives an advantage, where someone hasn't been busted?. Yeah, cycling has plenty of work to do in cleaning up the sport, but name one other sport that has rubbed out the 2 favourites the night before a major competiton....gee, the silence is deafening

merlinextraligh

I'm between BeeTL and El Diablo Rojo on this. Personal opinion, vast majority of them dope. That along with all the various pieces of evidence pointing to Armstrong doping makes me believe it's very likely he doped. However, he was never proven to do so, under the rules as they existed at the time. So he get's the benefit of the doubt until and unless.

Moochers_Dad

Fuentes said there were clients of his in the race, that doesn't mean there actually are. People lie.

shokhead

One bad apple doesnt ruin the bunch.

adamastor

Interesting reading in today's LA Times, who did their own reporting. But of course some will say it's all null and void, because they got most of their information "under cover". Still:

https://www.latimes.com/sports/cyclin...home-headlines

In the article, concerning the 6 positive Armstrong samples, the results were analysed by Australian researcher Ashenden, who was never mentioned by either l'Equipe nor le Monde:

"...As part of a project in 2004 to refine lab procedures, researchers used archived urine samples from earlier years. That's how a collection of Armstrong's 1999 race samples happened to be tested years later.

The results, Australian researcher Michael Ashenden testified in Dallas, show Armstrong's levels rising and falling, consistent with a series of injections during the Tour. Ashenden, a paid expert retained by SCA Promotions, told arbitrators the results painted a "compelling picture" that the world's most famous cyclist "used EPO in the '99 Tour."

The tests were conducted on what doping authorities call the "B sample," the second half of urine samples traditionally used in doping tests. The "A samples" were used and discarded in 1999.

Armstrong's B samples — actually a collection of several samples provided at various points throughout the 1999 race — were among samples of several supposedly anonymous racers taken out of deepfreeze in 2004.

The process is supposed to involve lab control numbers only, not an athlete's name. However, a French newspaper matched up Armstrong's name to at least six positive samples using race documents obtained from the International Cycling Union.

To make a typical doping case, then and now, authorities must prove a positive A and B sample. Such conclusive testing is not possible in the absence of an A sample.

Nonetheless, Ashenden testified that results he analyzed showed a "patent abuse which very, very closely resembles what I would suspect to see in an athlete actually using EPO."

Ashenden is a noted expert on blood doping. He coordinated research resulting in a two-year suspension of another former Armstrong teammate, Tyler Hamilton, found to be transfusing with someone else's blood in 2004.

The EPO test separates proteins by their electrical charge — that is, when a sample is run through an electrically charged gel, it separates those produced naturally in the body from those of injected EPO. Scientists then read the intensities and positioning of natural and injected EPO isoforms, or molecules, on the gel.

Any reading over 80% traditionally was viewed as positive for the presence of injectable EPO.

Ashenden provided arbitrators with a day-by-day breakdown of Armstrong's test results from the 1999 samples. For example:

On July 3, 1999, Armstrong won the first race of the Tour — the 4.2-mile prologue. His doping control form shows he was tested at 9:45 a.m. Ashenden said Armstrong's reading was 100%.

Such a high level, Ashenden testified, "is consistent with an injection that was received within just a few hours."

July 13, the first day in the Alps, ended in Sestriere, Italy. Armstrong took a six-minute lead. He was tested at 5:15 p.m. His test reading: 96.6%, consistent with an injection he "would have received — could have received earlier in … the day," Ashenden testified.

Tests for the final six racing stages showed "there was never enough EPO," natural or otherwise, "in any of Armstrong's urine samples to report a result," Ashenden said.

His explanation: When an athlete takes injectable EPO, the levels of that injectable EPO fall off day by day. At the same time, the kidneys have stopped producing natural EPO because the body recognizes "there's too much blood in his circulation."

The result, he testified, is that there isn't enough EPO of any sort to measure as the body gets a "chance to come to its … natural level." The Australian researcher concluded that "not finding enough EPO in the sample to analyze … you see that when an athlete stops taking EPO injections."

Ashenden defended the testing process, saying researchers had no way of knowing whose samples they were testing at the time.

A French newspaper reported last fall that three other racers tested positive for EPO during the same trials — cyclists from Spain, Denmark and Colombia. All three cyclists later denied using EPO.

Armstrong's lawyers tried to block Ashenden's testimony, arguing it was unfair and "unduly prejudicial." The arbitration panel denied that bid.

Armstrong flatly rejected Ashenden's analysis. He called the claims a "pure witch hunt."

"When I gave the sample, there was no EPO in the urine," he testified at the hearings..."

So, even Armstrong is not denying the truthfulness of the results, he keeps on stating he did not put EPO in it. So, what will happen one day, is that a technology will be developed, that will prove, that

1. there is EPO in those samples
2. the EPO is Lance Armstrong's

What a lot of people don't know is that there is still enough of those B samples stored somewhere in France, ready to be analysed in 1, 5, 10 years with new and better technologies. Technologies so reliable, they won't request any B, C, or D samples, because the results will be unrefutable.

Smoothie104

In the court documents they have printouts of Instant Messenger Conversations between Adreu and Jonathon Vaughters as well, Vaughters is telling him how different teams in the TdF used motorcycle couriers to deliver bags of blood to teams during the rest day, for re-infusion. They reffered to the blood, or doping as "hot sauce" and Vaughters implicates himself as well.

Sir-Lanceimnot

Ok, lets just say that Lance was doping during all of his 7 TDF wins. Fine! But if you ASSUME that then you must ASSUME that so were all of the other big names. So all things being equal he still kicked there butts.

If he did not dope during those TDF wins and nether did the other names that were never caught (until now...not proven yet) then he still kicked there butts.

either way he kicked there butts! end of discussion nothing further to debate because no one will know except him and maybe a select few who will most likely never talk. All we ever do is speculate on this and it is so played.

Vive Le Tour and ride clean!

vik 

Athletes agree to submit to doping controls as part of the terms of their profession. Doping controls must follow strict regulations in order to be considered valid as proof of an offence. Specifically there must be strict handling rules and there must be an A & B samples that can be validated independently.

No matter what happens in the future the urine samples in question have not been handled in accordance with the necessary regulations - not surprising as they were supposed to be utilized for research only. And there is no A & B sample to test. By virtue of this there will never be a doping violation proven against Lance.

I am not a Lance cheerleader and I am not soft of doping BUT, given the severity of consequences on an athlete for doping violations I cannot support anything other than the strict application of doping control regulations. You can't change the rules after the fact. If you believe in fairness in sport than there must be fairness in doping control.

As far as the latest TdeF doping debacle goes I think athletes should not be removed from competition unless there is proof they doped. I would much rather have a doper win the TdeF and be found guilty after the fact than see an innocent man removed from competition and be exonerated later. We universally accept this premise in western law by considering a man innocent until proven guilty.

Jan and Vino probably don't have another shot at winning the TdeF - especially given how weak the field is this year. If either of them turns out to be innocent it will be a huge tragedy.