Lance Armstrong

Epo was huge in the norties, not just jealousy from his accusers but they were probably doing it with him.

Lots of skulduggery went on, some of the things he did were incredible for such an endurance test
 
tiler65 said:
Epo was huge in the norties, not just jealousy from his accusers but they were probably doing it with him.

Lots of skulduggery went on, some of the things he did were incredible for such an endurance test
Click to expand...

And he had links with that dodgy doctor and almost all of the Motorola/USPostal team have claimed he doped......
 
We have witnessed the biggest fraud in sport, just hope the charges stick.
No way do you beat a doped Ullrich, Basso, Mayo, Beloki and everyone else on the podium since 1999 on Nike marketing and corporate cobblers alone.

Lemond has questioned his power output several times, no way do can you produce the power output/VO2 max without assistance.

Hope he gets all he deserves....Have a look at what Paul Kimmage has been writing in recent years and the Tyler interview on YouTube if you need convincing.
 
Last edited:
It'll be a shame if he loses all of his titles. He's been caught, but that leaves EVERY SINGLE other endurance athlete at his level who does exactly the same as he does, and more.

Cycling is riddled with drug abuse, and Armstrong is no different from any other rider.
 
Well, i would be surprised if he were found guilty...........

Open mind on this one...
 
...it must be June again!

One thing's for sure; if these accusations stick then the **** will hit the fan within the professional cycling world. You can't dope secretly by yourself and get away with it, and a huge number of his old team staff and riders are still in the sport, not to mention sponsors etc. I have a feeling this one will run and run.

Edit: Further, if this turns out to be true then the systemic, institutional attitude to doping need to be challenged. I'd see anyone who withheld knowledge of doping at the time as equally culpable for the ongoing damage doping has done to the sport and they should be suitably reprimanded also.

It also calls into question the competence of USADA and the UCI. Lance Armstrong is the most tested athlete in the world, he's been under investigation for doping multiple times, despite never having failed a test, and been found innocent on all previous occasions. If it takes them until now to make a charge stick you have to wonder what the hell they were doing on all the other occasions, and indeed how many other investigations they've fluffed entirely.

Honestly, I can't see how USADA can come out of this looking good. They've either failed woefully previously if they find differently, or they perpetuate the belief that really they are incapable, and frankly clueless, when it comes to identifying and punishing drug cheats.

As for Armstrong himself; I hope for the sake of a sport I love - and that was beginning to improve its image - he's innocent. I suspect this case will only reinforce the general belief that cycling is synonymous with doping cheats and that no one wins a professional race clean.
 
Last edited:
No one should believe what compulsive, bitter liars like Hamilton or Landis say, that's for sure. Furthermore Armstrong has never failed a test, though Hamilton claims he did.
What we have here is LOTS of circumstantial evidence yet nothing concrete, and the fact is he's innocent until proven guilty. I have always hoped he was innocent. Let's hope we find out once and for all.
 
Lance Armstrong says:

"I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one"


500 drugs over 25 years test is on average about 1 every 2 weeks. Since the drugs are detectable for up to 3-6 weeks in a urine sample, I would say all they are doing is (litterally) taking the ****
 
Maybe a large donation to, I think it was WADA, helps your case?
 
Richard King said:
Lance Armstrong says:

"I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one"


500 drugs over 25 years test is on average about 1 every 2 weeks. Since the drugs are detectable for up to 3-6 weeks in a urine sample, I would say all they are doing is (litterally) taking the ****
Click to expand...

All drugs have different detection times, and some detection methods can be beaten, and others can't be tested for. This is my field of expertise; I'm not just telling you something I read on the net.

When he says he's had no spike in performance for 25 years, that just tells me he's been using gear for 25 years.

Which isn't that far-fetched.

Lance Armstrong is about as clean as the guy in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, all the way to the back. Every sport is utterly riddled with gear. I have first hand experience.
 
London Headshots said:
All drugs have different detection times, and some detection methods can be beaten, and others can't be tested for. This is my field of expertise; I'm not just telling you something I read on the net.

When he says he's had no spike in performance for 25 years, that just tells me he's been using gear for 25 years.

Which isn't that far-fetched.

Lance Armstrong is about as clean as the guy in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, all the way to the back. Every sport is utterly riddled with gear. I have first hand experience.
Click to expand...

Considering he was performing with world class triathletes at the age of 14, it could just be a case that he is a freak of nature. It's highly unlikely he was using PEDs at 14. Also if he is found guilty on hard evidence it will completely destroy cycling, for him to go this long without failing a test means there would have to be some serious corruption right to the heart of the UCI, I for one hope he is clean and that everything I looked up to when starting racing at 14 was not all a big lie
 
jacob12_1993 said:
It's highly unlikely he was using PEDs at 14.
Click to expand...

My younger brother and I raced bikes when we were younger, he was offered growth hormones by his coach when he was 14/15, so I don't think it's that unlikely.
 
London Headshots said:
All drugs have different detection times, and some detection methods can be beaten, and others can't be tested for. This is my field of expertise; I'm not just telling you something I read on the net.

When he says he's had no spike in performance for 25 years, that just tells me he's been using gear for 25 years.

Which isn't that far-fetched.

Lance Armstrong is about as clean as the guy in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, all the way to the back. Every sport is utterly riddled with gear. I have first hand experience.
Click to expand...
And the drugs tests - are they random? or on Tuesday at 9.00 every 2 weeks?

All I am saying that in 25 years, that's a lot of "system beating" mathematically, its very improbable
 
Richard King said:
And the drugs tests - are they random? or on Tuesday at 9.00 every 2 weeks?

All I am saying that in 25 years, that's a lot of "system beating" mathematically, its very improbable
Click to expand...

A combination of both scheduled and random.

Cavendish, for example, had in excess of 60 tests performed last season.
 
Playing devils advocate here; if all the top athletes are doping then it's a level playing field, so no problem.

Assuming all top athletes are doping and subjected to regular testing, and then passing the vast majority of those tests, with only one test revealing anything suspicious then the testing is so broken and so unreliable that no conclusion should ever be drawn from it, let alone actually using it to bring action against an athlete.
 
TriggerHappy said:
A combination of both scheduled and random.

Cavendish, for example, had in excess of 60 tests performed last season.
Click to expand...

So in one season, would you say 60 tests, random and scheduled ought to catch out a drugs cheat.

From the outside looking in, its almost an oppressive regime of testing
 
London Headshots said:
All drugs have different detection times, and some detection methods can be beaten, and others can't be tested for. This is my field of expertise; I'm not just telling you something I read on the net.

When he says he's had no spike in performance for 25 years, that just tells me he's been using gear for 25 years.

Which isn't that far-fetched.

Lance Armstrong is about as clean as the guy in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, all the way to the back. Every sport is utterly riddled with gear. I have first hand experience.
Click to expand...

That is the biggest load of crap i have read on here in a while.
 
Richard King said:
So in one season, would you say 60 tests, random and scheduled ought to catch out a drugs cheat.

From the outside looking in, its almost an oppressive regime of testing
Click to expand...

Absolutely, the tests should be overkill and let nothing slip through the net.

I just finished reading Cavendish's autobiography and he described how when he wins a race he's assigned a concierge from whichever anti-doping agency is overseeing the race he won who won't leave his side whilst he does the press things and then he will have to strip naked and provide a urine sample in front of the concierge to ensure it's his own urine and not some elaborate contraption to provide a false specimen.

The frequency of tests should be sufficient to catch anyone out but it appears that's not the case, which can only mean that either the tests themselves are woefully inadequate at detecting doping or that there's corruption right to the heart of the sport.

I think the most disturbing aspect is that the people finally speaking out against Armstrong are being praised for coming forward rather than severely chastised for having kept quiet about the supposed doping for so long. If the sport is ever going to get a clean image then there needs to be a sincere intolerance to doping from everyone involved rather than only a skin-deep media front of intolerance to doping.
 
Richard King said:
And the drugs tests - are they random? or on Tuesday at 9.00 every 2 weeks?

All I am saying that in 25 years, that's a lot of "system beating" mathematically, its very improbable
Click to expand...

The problem with the tests is both the tests themselves and the way in which you are notified of them.

You aren't just suddenly approached by a guy with a needle and a urine pot, you're always given a couple of days notice. In some bodies, there isn't a penalty for having to reschedule an initial drug test, and if the testing body cannot contact you, you cannot be held liable for not attending a test. Although things are changing, this is initially how it was.

Take someone using growth hormone, for instance.. It's been available in recombinant form since the end of the 1970's, and it still can't be reliably detected, which is the same for other performance enhancing peptides such as IGF, fragment, or insulin, or EPO.

Although a test exists for EPO, which is what a cyclist will favour, the test is very unreliable, and a well-designed dosing schedule will almost eliminate the possibility of being detected.

Anabolic steroids can be detected, but many of the testing methods are either easy to fool (administering Ambien before a lie detector test to skew the results), or injecting masking agents such as Furosemide, or simply running dosages that can't be detected.

The old method of testosterone detection used to be to measure the ratio between testosterone and epitestosterone, I believe the ratio had to be 6:1 or less, but that just meant athletes also injected epitestosterone as well to keep the ratio the same. It didn't actually measure the amounts.

Now they've developed a method of detecting the different isotopes between natural testosterone and an exogenously administered hormone, the athletes have changed tactics. Now they use topical testosterone in smaller doses, or they use testosterone suspension, which has barely any ester attached and clears the system in a day or two, so an athlete can use right up until they get notified of a random testing.

Also, as is the case with Patrick Arnold and the BALCO scandal, one, with enough knowledge can simply make an alteration to an existing compound, thus creating a new drug that doesn't show up in the tests.

You're right on the money about it seeming improbable to fool a body for so long, but if you're properly prepared, it's much like crossing the road outside your house for 40 years and never once getting run over. You know the cars coming, so you make adjustments.
 
London Headshots said:
Yet no accompanying sentence showing exactly WHY it was crap.

Funny that.
Click to expand...

You have made the assumption that "he has been using gear" for 25 years with no proof whatsoever. In those 25 years, I wonder how many times Lance was tested. Every time, clean.

If I remember, when recovering from his cancer op did he not forego some meds for fear they would test positive???
 
London Headshots said:
The problem with the tests is both the tests themselves and the way in which you are notified of them.

You aren't just suddenly approached by a guy with a needle and a urine pot, you're always given a couple of days notice. In some bodies, there isn't a penalty for having to reschedule an initial drug test, and if the testing body cannot contact you, you cannot be held liable for not attending a test. Although things are changing, this is initially how it was.

Take someone using growth hormone, for instance.. It's been available in recombinant form since the end of the 1970's, and it still can't be reliably detected, which is the same for other performance enhancing peptides such as IGF, fragment, or insulin, or EPO.

Although a test exists for EPO, which is what a cyclist will favour, the test is very unreliable, and a well-designed dosing schedule will almost eliminate the possibility of being detected.

Anabolic steroids can be detected, but many of the testing methods are either easy to fool (administering Ambien before a lie detector test to skew the results), or injecting masking agents such as Furosemide, or simply running dosages that can't be detected.

The old method of testosterone detection used to be to measure the ratio between testosterone and epitestosterone, I believe the ratio had to be 6:1 or less, but that just meant athletes also injected epitestosterone as well to keep the ratio the same. It didn't actually measure the amounts.

Now they've developed a method of detecting the different isotopes between natural testosterone and an exogenously administered hormone, the athletes have changed tactics. Now they use topical testosterone in smaller doses, or they use testosterone suspension, which has barely any ester attached and clears the system in a day or two, so an athlete can use right up until they get notified of a random testing.

Also, as is the case with Patrick Arnold and the BALCO scandal, one, with enough knowledge can simply make an alteration to an existing compound, thus creating a new drug that doesn't show up in the tests.

You're right on the money about it seeming improbable to fool a body for so long, but if you're properly prepared, it's much like crossing the road outside your house for 40 years and never once getting run over. You know the cars coming, so you make adjustments.
Click to expand...

You statement about "always given notice" appears to contradict the UK Anti Doping Agency Rules that in Section 5.5.2 specifically refers to "No advance Notice Testing" and the need for confidentiality so the athlete doesn't find out, in accordance with the IST (International Standard for Testing).
 
PsiFox said:
You statement about "always given notice" appears to contradict the UK Anti Doping Agency Rules that in Section 5.5.2 specifically refers to "No advance Notice Testing" and the need for confidentiality so the athlete doesn't find out, in accordance with the IST (International Standard for Testing).
Click to expand...

Indeed, but there is always advance warning of some kind, because the athlete has to be able to make the engagement to be properly tested.

Again, there are several types of tests one must do in order to complete a full panel (I think that's the term), and unfortunately, some notice has to be given. usually 24-48 hours.

There is a decent example of this, if I recall, with Rio Ferdinand. Other football players have been guilty of the same kind of evasion in regards to testing. In most cases, you only need 24 hours to clear some compounds from your system, and like I already said, many compounds cannot be tested for.

There's also the issue with false positives. You may get a short notice test, even as much as a few hours, and subsequently test positive for a substance. The testers then have to rule out a false positive. A classic example is some pain medication causing a false positive for cannabis.

Also, a lot of athletes beat the p@ss test simply by using someone else's urine. Unfortunately, the urine test is the one most used in a random test.

Admittedly, I'm operating on knowledge from 2009, roughly, so things may have changed slightly in the last couple of years. I know a few new screens have been developed, but are largely unimplemented.
 
There's no notice of testing required, athletes are required to provide an hour a day they are available to the whereabouts system for a future certain period. The Vampires then turn up during that hour. From what I see most cyclists know that they are going to be in bed from 6am-7am so they nominate that time, which means they get woken up.
 
No notice testing takes place wherever the athlete is. The registered pool of top athletes have to provide a "whereabouts" statement giving details of where they can be found so a test can be carried out with No notice as I previously said.

This is in addition to the regular appointment style tests.
 
Lynton said:
You have made the assumption that "he has been using gear" for 25 years with no proof whatsoever. In those 25 years, I wonder how many times Lance was tested. Every time, clean.

If I remember, when recovering from his cancer op did he not forego some meds for fear they would test positive???
Click to expand...

So really, why not just say that instead of adding nothing to the discussion except an insult that risks derailing the thread?

Yes, I have made an assumption, it's based on an intimate knowledge of this subject. I firmly believe Lance has used drugs for years, if not decades. It's not "crap", as you so eloquently put it, it's called an "opinion".

For the record, I wouldn't think any less or more of him in either regard. I think he's a phenomenal athlete and role model. I'll be sad, like I said, if he tests positive, because it means he'll be in the **** and every other drug user (read: the top 98% of professional sport) will sit by the sidelines shaking their heads in disapproval like the hypocrites they are.
 
PsiFox said:
No notice testing takes place wherever the athlete is. The registered pool of top athletes have to provide a "whereabouts" statement giving details of where they can be found so a test can be carried out with No notice as I previously said.

This is in addition to the regular appointment style tests.
Click to expand...


And I just explained that the random tests that can't be avoided are generally **** tests, which are not conclusive or all-encompassing.

You're speaking on this subject as if the tests are perfectly infallible. People have been beating them for years and continue to do so. As many outspoken sports personalities will tell you, you have to be extremely stupid, unlucky, to both, to fail a urine test.
 
redddraggon said:
There's no notice of testing required, athletes are required to provide an hour a day they are available to the whereabouts system for a future certain period. The Vampires then turn up during that hour. From what I see most cyclists know that they are going to be in bed from 6am-7am so they nominate that time, which means they get woken up.
Click to expand...

So in other words, they know when they'll be tested.
 
London Headshots said:
Yes, I have made an assumption, it's based on an intimate knowledge of this subject. I firmly believe Lance has used drugs for years, if not decades. It's not "crap", as you so eloquently put it, it's called an "opinion".
Click to expand...

The problem is that opinions can and wreck careers, and really upset people

If I was going to loose my livelihood, I would hope it was based on some facts. The facts say that in 25 years, and after 500 tests, there was never any evidence of drug taking

Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. If the testers are experts, and are doing the job properly, then on balance, after 500 tests one has to conclude he wasn't taking any drugs. We employ the testers to do a job, we need to let them get on with it

I cant see the value in retrospectively going back and re-raking through old results either. The testers ought to be able to do their job and say one way or the other: this athlete is or inst cheating. They need to be able to tell you this for today's result, like they ought to be able to have told you for last years results too

If the testers are incompetent, or the tests are overly fallible, then we shouldn't be judging whole careers on the results
 
London Headshots said:
So in other words, they know when they'll be tested.
Click to expand...

They nominate 1hr everyday. They don't what day they are going to get tested, and generally the "half lives" of the substances are longer than 24hrs anyway, so knowing what hour in the day they might come doesn't help with evasion.
 
Cycling has been better since he left
The 1999-2006 era was almost as dull as the Indurain era, apart from 2003

The big tours have recently produced better racing, Albert apart, I think cycling is as clean as its ever going to be, there will always be cheats, too much money involved.

Problem with the Lance era, the UCI may have been involved as well.
What example are we setting if we let him get away with it? Yes it's a past era but Lance has made a lot if money out it.

Just YouTube Lemond/Lance press conference @2.10 is where it gets interesting, Lance doesn't answer the question....

There's also a good Radio interview with Lemond about the 1991 tour, first year of widespread EPO use, will post link if I can find it. In a line, he said he came into that tour in the best form he ever had, and was getting dropped by fat guys on the climbs...
 
Last edited:
redddraggon said:
They nominate 1hr everyday. They don't what day they are going to get tested, and generally the "half lives" of the substances are longer than 24hrs anyway, so knowing what hour in the day they might come doesn't help with evasion.
Click to expand...

OK, so from what you're saying, nobody is on drugs, because the tests are perfect.

I'm happy to leave it there.
 
Richard King said:
The problem is that opinions can and wreck careers, and really upset people

If I was going to loose my livelihood, I would hope it was based on some facts. The facts say that in 25 years, and after 500 tests, there was never any evidence of drug taking

Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. If the testers are experts, and are doing the job properly, then on balance, after 500 tests one has to conclude he wasn't taking any drugs. We employ the testers to do a job, we need to let them get on with it

I cant see the value in retrospectively going back and re-raking through old results either. The testers ought to be able to do their job and say one way or the other: this athlete is or inst cheating. They need to be able to tell you this for today's result, like they ought to be able to have told you for last years results too

If the testers are incompetent, or the tests are overly fallible, then we shouldn't be judging whole careers on the results
Click to expand...

Well, my opinion extends to the fact that I would be extremely gutted for him if he tests positive. I hope he continues to beat the tests like I believe he has done for years.
 
London Headshots said:
And I just explained that the random tests that can't be avoided are generally **** tests, which are not conclusive or all-encompassing.

You're speaking on this subject as if the tests are perfectly infallible. People have been beating them for years and continue to do so. As many outspoken sports personalities will tell you, you have to be extremely stupid, unlucky, to both, to fail a urine test.
Click to expand...

I'm not referring to the fallibility or otherwise of the tests just your statement that they always know in advance. They don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top