Lance Armstrong

Remove all ads!

I suppose that by now everyone has heard about the Lance Armstrong doping allegations. According to reports, Lance had EPO in his system, which is a drug typically given to cancer patients (one which Lance in fact used in his cancer treatments) that increases red blood cell count. By enhancing RBC count, you increase the effective oxygen carrying capacity of your blood, which in turn increases the amount of oxygen your blood can deliver to your muscles, which in turn grants greater muscular endurance - something that is obviously useful in any long distance race.

Here's the thing that I don't get though - to most Americans, Lance's character is beyond reproach. It's like some kind of unhealthy love affair. I'd say that 90% of the American population assumes that the report is untrue, that the 1999 sample that came up positive was either tampered with, contaminated, mislabled, etc., and thus all the allegations are bogus.

I'm not one of these people. I didn't buy any of those silly yellow wristbands. I think the only reason Lance is as popular as he is, is specifically due to him being a cancer survivor. Sure, the 7 Tour Titles are great, but it's not nearly as "feel good" a story if not for him being a former cancer patient. Cycling is such a small, niche sport in the U.S., that if it wasn't for something like Lance Armstrong, a cancer survivor, winning 7 straight Tour de France titles, and also being an American, it wouldn't have nearly the impact in the U.S. as it presently does. Take away any one of those characteristics (especially being American) and the story of Lance Armstrong would be just a blip on the American radar screen.

I'm currently on the fence with this one. Part of me says that doping is so common all over the sporting landscape - whether American or European - that such a report seems plausible to me. Especially since according to the report EPO would have degraded somewhat over the past 6 years that the sample has been stored, not increased in concentration. So from that perspective the report seems to be true.

On the other hand, all cyclists are required to provide two urine samples after each day of the Tour de France (A and B). The B sample is a backup sample to double check in case Sample A comes up positive. In this case, no Sample A is available, because in 1999 Sample A came up clean and was discarded after the testing. For some reason Sample B was stored and has come up positive. However, the normal procedure is to double check it with a second sample - which of course cannot be done in this case. There is a small percent chance for a false positive, and as far as I know, the sample has not been forwarded to any other labs for independent testing.

So on one hand, I think there is a compelling case against Lance, and yet there is no way for them to prove the allegations, and no way for Lance to prove them false (since there is no way that Lance can go back to 1999 and provide an additional urine sample). The thing that I find unusual is the timing of the reports. Why, now that Lance has announced his retirement from competitive cycling, are his samples still being tested? It appears the only purpose of such is to try to rake up some mud on him. I doubt the IOC goes back and retests samples of retired Olympians, I doubt the NFL goes back and retests samples of retired football players, so why was this done? In fact, why was a sample from his 1999 race still in storage somewhere after all these years and what was the impetus to take it out and retest it? There definitely seems to be an outside motivational factor at work here.

Finally, what is the reaction of these doping allegations outside the U.S.? How well is Lance received outside the U.S.? And what do you think about Lance's guilt/innocence?

 

Well I don't know about him using EPO and I probably disbelieve that, but on the other hand I don't live in the belief that top sportsmen don't use any sort of performance enchancing drugs. Most are not banned and are therefore well within the rules but I don't know if it's a part of "clean sports". So no, I don't think that Lance nor anyone else who is on the top in such an physically hard sport as cycling is completely clean.

Anyway I'm pretty indifferent about Lance. He's good there is no doubt about that and he fully deserved all those tour de france victories, but since I find cycling to be one of the most boring sports in the existance, I don't really care that much about his achievements.

 

to win tour de france you have to use EPO, we all know it and we all deny it

 

To me, the phrase "performance enhancing drug" is somewhat of a misnomer. As you say, there are many items that are not illegal, that certainly enhance your performance, and they can be purchased at your local GNC. Most body builders for example take multiple different types of legal drugs to burn fat, and produce as much lean muscle as possible. I mean, taken to an extreme, even protein shakes can be considered performance enhancing.

 

There may be some ill will directed at Armstrong. Personality wise, he is a bit prickly, and he has certainly made a lot of enemies. However there is also the fact that he has done something unprecedented, and it would be natural to ask how he did it.

Personally, I think he has given a lot of exposure to the sport, and it is counter productive to discredit him at this point, unless they think that any press is good press. If I were involved in the sport I would be looking for some way to celebrate his accomplishments. He is retired, and has shown no interest (as far as I know) in joining the leadership of the cycling world, so if I were in the leadership of one of these cycling associations, I would use his fame to promote the sport, and I would do everything I could to minimize any negative impacts from the past, unless of course it turned out that he was doing something completely inexcusable.

But them my opinions are those of a complete outsider to the sport (personally I would watch golf or soccer* before I would cycling), so I really don’t know nothing about the political climate of the sport.

*Please don’t get offended at my apparent slight of these two sports, I love playing, or at least did love playing soccer, too old now but my son plays and I used to coach, and I would say that I like playing golf, but at my skill level it less resembles golf and more resembles some bald guy walking around a grassy field trying to kill a little white ball with a stick. But I still love doing it.

 

I think the only sport more interesting than the Tour de France is a marathon or possibly golf [sarcasm]. I don't really care about Lance or what he's gone through. He may or may not be innocent but that is really immaterial -- he cannot have his title taken from him and he can't be punished. However, I am quite irritated at the Tour's head idiots. The only reason to put this information out is for spite -- it really shows a lack of integrity on the part of LeBlanc. The sample were turned over to test a new method of detection WITH EXPLICIT AGREEMENT that no one would be punished for ANY results found. LeBlanc and the Tour de France have certainly gone against that agreement and crucified Armstrong in the media. That's just flat out wrong -- an organization like the Tour should have more integrity. I certainly do not put any weight to reports from news organizations that cannot provide proof of their statements. It's sensational, it's news, but it may also be false.

I refuse to believe such accusations until proof is given of wrongdoing -- it's just too convienent that now the agreement signed by the Tour does not allow for them to reveal the evidence that could lay this issue to rest. LeBlanc has made several negative comments about Armstrong in the past and has shown bias. He is simply not reputable on this subject.

 

The samples were being tested as part of an assessment of new tests for detecting EPO. They were identified by only a number, but supposedly the newspaper L'Equipe - which has limited credibility on all Lance-related matters, as its been at teh forefront of the witch-hunt against him from the beginning - found a way to match one of the positive results to Lance.

The part I find most appalling about this story is not that L'Equipe can't let go of the story, but that the TdF management seems to be so quick to buy into their results instead of conducting their own investigation into the findings. What does the race organization stand to gain by branding one of their most recognized champions as a cheater just because he's not French, and there hasn't been a French champion in 20-ish years? Cycling was rife with doping for many, many years, and it was only thinly veiled. Are they afraid that Lance being clean will diminsh the accomplishments of other riders? Why is there no posthumous mud being slung over someone like Marco Pantani?

Lance Armstrong has been the most heavily and publicly tested athlete in cycling, if not all of professional and even most amateur sports. If he WAS doping, why wasn't it found before now?

Now, I'm into cycling and I'm in awe of the accomplishment of winning even one Tour, but I'm by no means starry-eyed over Lance. Prior to cancer the man was an arrogant, if incredibly talented, jackass. What he's managed to do for the sport, however, is wonderful for those of us who love it and not just him.

 

And as a footnote to what Rally said...these alleged "positive" samples are from 1999.

 

The french institute is one of the best in the world for these things. They tested it again, and again, and then again. When they sent out their chairman to say there was EPO in his blood, that's bceause their case was bulletproof. It's correct.

It's not that the french are just jealous.

I found most remakable the quiet reaction from the other pros, along the line: 'Please don't look too close.'

Probably they all do doping and I never really thought Armstrong was an exception, heck, I don't even think Ulrich doesn't dope - after all he's from the East German sports tradition originally.

How can it be that the tour has got consistently faster? How could possibly Armstrong is simply superhuman and never ever has had a weak year, seven times in a row? Now that would be a success story almost as beautiful as ENRONs books, at a certain time. Or is it that the bikes just got better and better? Gimme a break.

 

That's really the case in almost all sports that require a lot of endurance, be it cycling, long distance running, nordic skiing, triathlon or anything in that style. But anyway I find it very uninteresting if he used anything back then, he won the tour the france with the same rules and using the same substances as anyone else. If he used EPO back then it's likely that so did everyone else.

 

And there has been no attempt at finding fault with the the other 6. Of course, we don't know if they tested the samples of all 7 years, and only found a problem with the first year, or if, for some reason, they decided to only test the 1999 samples.

 

Ragusa, it's not just the bikes that have gotten significantly better in that time, it's also the helmets and the uniforms and the tires and a myriad of other technial aspects of the sport. And yes, having cycled, I can tell you that differences like that really can be significant. Armstrong is a notorious tech-head in the sport and his cadre has driven many, many of those changes.

If you look at the times for Armstrong's wins, he hasn't really gotten consistently faster than cyclists of the past. Another technical advantage he has is in the modern knowledge of training methods so that he can peak his performance - with or without chemical assistance - for the even that means the very most to him. In the past, the cyclists rode all the major events of the season in stead of focussing on just the Tour or the Giro or the Vuelta or whichever. People have griped about Armstrong for that for years, but even the great Eddy Mercyx has told them (in so many words) to STFU about it because if he knew then what's known now, he'd train the same way.

 

I'm sceptical. With or without doping Armstrong would be a remarkable athlete anyway.

Weren't other athletes supposed to be heavily tested either?

Modern pharmaceutics are sophisticated enough to be not easily detectable. There is a difference between being clean and not getting caught. Insofar doping is like tax evasion. The question is if the testers can ever win.

Sure, there is the presumption of innocence, but with that much money in the game the motive is plapable. And anyway, it's always something difficult to have suspicions against a national icon.

[ August 26, 2005, 22:49: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

The French are just jealous of Armstrong. Here comes an American who beats everyone 7 years in a row. And to rub salt in the wound, it's in a sport that the vast majority of Americans just look at and yawn over. Now if you take the bike off road, then we become interested.

 

I disagree. While I agree that after being caught from doping you should probably be barred for much longer than they do now I doubt it would change anything. When an athelete is caught of doping his/hers career is practically over. There are examples of those who have come back after their doping punishment is over but it's rare for them to achieve anything significant afterwards. A year or two away from competing on the professional level throws you out from the picture no matter how well you excercise on your two year vacation.

With most atheltes it's not even their initiative to use doping. The doping is provided almost allways by the coaches who probably have orders from the local federation (which usually gets off the hook easily while the athelte and the coach take the blame).

Doping is in sports to stay for a couple of reasons. A) The competition is so hard and the temptation too much. Be on the top and cheat or finish each time on the tenth place and never achieve anything worth mentioning. B) Testing methods almost allways trail behind new kinds of doping methods, and C) the international doping rules are vague and easily abused, we saw this kind of activity in the world championships in Helsinki were two Czech atheletes got off the hook because of loopholes in the rules, and this has happened many times before.

 

That is probably a step over the line. The French certainly don't love Armstrong, but it has a lot to do with the attitude that he has shown the French over the years. He has thumbed his nose at some rules and traditions, petty ones, but he has done it just the same. Also, IIRC, most of the successful riders have at least tried to pick up a rudimentary understanding of the French language, and IIRC Lance has shown little interest in even knowing the most basic of terms. IIRC, Greg LeMond was appreciated, if not universally loved by the French even though he dominated the Tour for a few years, the difference being IMO that he embraced the traditions and learned the language to a lesser or greater amount (I don't know how well he learned it though, so I could be mistaken).

I really don't think this is a case of French jealousy. There may be certain individuals who are concerned about how a man could go from his deathbed to being arguably the most dominant Tour de France cyclist ever. I would even believe that there is some chance that an individual here and there might hold enough of a dislike for him (as I said, he is a bit prickly) to try new testing methods on his previous samples. I believe that there was a cyclist or trainer that he was associated with that came out within the last couple of years and accused Lance of cheating, so he hasn't just made enemies in France.

Lance makes a very big deal out of the fact that he is the most tested athlete in the world (he said it no less than 3 times in a recent interview with Jim Rome), and that he is absolutely clean and has never used any performance enhancing drugs. If so, he shouldn't have any issues with anyone testing for anything that was prohibited at the time the sample was taken.

Now the question is, if he did it, how far do you go in punishment? Strip him of the victory, throw an asterisk on it, or just releasing a public statement reprimanding him for it?

 

If Lance had doped wouldn't he have dominated the other cycling events?

He didn't.

Only the TdF, which he admits is what he trains for with the focus of all of his efforts.

An athelete who gains success via performance enhancing drugs will show marked gains in more than just one event.

I sometimes wonder why a performance enhancing engineered chemical is so much different than an engineered alloy bike frame, or an engineered synthetic rubber tire, or an engineered aerodynamic helmet?

Why the witch-hunt and knee jerk reaction over drugs? Why don't we feel the same way about using exotic surgery to repair an ACL or rebuild a hip so an athelete can keep competing? Why is it OK to take a steriod (at a doctors prescription) to help you heal after a surgery, but the same steriod used with the same prescription to help build muscle mass is a horrid sin? Is a perfomance enhancer OK if it comes in the form of a natural herb?

I think we're all a little touchy over this issue, without a great deal of consistency in how we respond to similar events.

 

And meaybe he's just careful as less participation results in less testing and less chance to be caught. Considering how you dope, and how long substances are detectable, that might even be a very smart move.

As for the testing itself, the probes were not named but numbered, and then they were made for routine test verification. There is no witch hunt for Armstrong, that the probes were tested after so long a time is actually an accident.

As for punishment - there will be none as the testing only concerned B-probes, as the A-probes are used up already verification is not possible. For punsihment you need both probes, A and B. There will be no consequences but the doubt on Armstong, that, as I have to add, isn't all that new either.

And then, I agree with Darkwolf on that issue: The French are not jealous, they are intensely patriotic but generally they are good sports. But in a sense Armstrong is like John Bolton: Being very good alone doesn't help you much if you're a jerk, or behave like one.

From all countries, the French react the harshest on doping, and put people to jail for doping. That has yet to happen in the U.S. Partly the French reaction is explained by the simple fact that they (rightly) consider doping as competition fraud, not at least because of the price money involved.

 

First off, from what I know Lance has gotten exponentionally more popular in France during the years and have even learned a bit of French and he is quite accepted in France nowadays.

Secondly, I do not think Lance is any more or less doped up than any other cyclist. That can mean anything though and with or without doping his accomplishment is awesome cause no matter what I am assured the playing field is even.