Bitches, I told you so... (Lance Armstrong related)

Okay, so it’s no secret on this board that there have been greater romances in the history of our tiny spinning globe than that of between me and Lance Armstrong. Although I always have held great respect for his accomplishments, and I still do, I do dislike him on a personal level. Many of his teammates such as David Zabriske and Floyd Landis especially have said that there was no such thing as friendship under Postal or Discovery, it was all about getting ordered around and doing what Lance and team management said. He did an absolutely shitty thing last year when he chased down a break with Filip Simeoni and told him to either drop the break or that he wouldn’t leave. This was not a sporting act, this was maffia-boss assholishness to shut up a rider that had spoken about his own personal experience with Mr. Armstrong’s long-term advisor, Dr. Michele Ferrari, adviding him to take EPO, a banned blood booster. In retrospect, even Mr. Armstrong has admitted that this action was a mistake.

Whenever I’ve stated that I belive that Lance was doped, this board has generally reacted rather poorly to the suggestion.

An IMHO thread where I get bitched at for providing my opinion and prefacing it with an IMHO:

Finally, the hors categoire thread on it, where I pitted the way the Armstrong chased down Simeoni. This is an act which Lance Armstrong has since admitted was a poor idea, but never apologized for, of course.

You get the idea. Whatever people like to claim, the fact is that the UCI, WADA, and other dope control organizations are still unable to successfully detect dope usage. In the 2005 Tour, Dario Frigo’s wife of Fassa Bortolo was discovered with large amounts of EPO and growth hormones at a French border checkpoint. He was obviously doped, but he never tested positive for it. We can’t even seriously catch EPO, which has existed in the pro peloton for nearly 17 years, let alone anything as insidious as HGH, IGF-1, etc. My opinion on Lance Armstrong’s doping was not one based upon sheer hate or whatever others have suggested. It was a sudden and otherwise inexplicable massive speed increase in the peloton’s speed around 1990. It was the information that I had heard from ex-teammates. It was what several close personal assistants had publicly stated about him. It was a positon that was reasonably based, and a position that is now vindicated.

Which brings us up to today. Here’s the story.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2005-08-24-tour-director_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA

In 1999, after every stage win, Lance Armstrong was dope-controlled with a urine test at least. These samples are divided into A and B samples. If the A comes back positive, the B still exists to double check the result. Both need to be psotive for a rider to be found guilty of a dope offense. All testing is done confidentially through the assignement of a unique sample number for every sample that’s been taken in the history of WADA.

With the best testing methods of the time, Lance Armstrong’s A samples were declared negative. When accusations regarding dope arose, Mr. Armstrong provided his negative test results to the media. This paperwork included the sample numbers of the test.

From the 1999 Tour, all of the unused and negative B samples were frozen at -20 celsius for another five years.

In 2004, more advanced EPO detection methods have been developed that look for protein byproducts of synthetic EPO metabolism in the urine rather than electrical conductivity tests which existed back in 1999. These new tests are more sensitive.

The WADA orders the lab holding onto the frozen urine from the 1999 Tour to be retested using the new EPO testing method because they’re curious how prevalent EPO was before this more sensitive testing procedure. 12 positive samples come back in addition to a lot of negatives. These samples are reported, “annoymously,” by sample number only. The WADA doesn’t match up the numbers with the riders because the test results are supposed to be confidential anyway until both an A and B sample have been tested and come back positive.

August, 2005: The French newspaper L’Equipe takes a look at the new WADA test results. They see the sample numbers and compare them with the sample numbers from Armstrong’s negative test results in 1999. Of the twelve positives, six belong to Lance Armstrong.

Lance Armstrong is now retired. In the three and a half weeks since he’s retired, he likely hasn’t doped again. The A samples from 1999 were all used up in 1999 for the initial test. He’ll never be sanctioned or held responsible for his EPO use. He’ll deny it all and say that, “It’s just the French!” as he always had, but he can never again claim to have never tested positive on a dope control. In fact, he’s now failed six.

In retrospect, you do have to admit that what he did to Simeoni was rather shitty. The lies about dope use? Well, I suppose he had to so that he could race. What else could he say?

Let’s all hope that in the very near future, WADA gets their science together to comprehensively test for dope use in the peloton such that a negative result actually means something and we don’t have quite as many rider’s wives showing up at border checks with a couple of kilos of EPO and horse pills for, “their ailing mother in law.”

Christ, that OP just glazed my eyes over.

I read the OP, and found it enlightening. I had not heard about this before, and I thank threemae for discussing it. I’m not sure what to think about Armstrong, though. It is always a challenge when one of society’s heroes turns out to have cheated.

Not to say that the other riders on the tour are as pure as the driven snow, of course.

Just give me the crux. It’s a stone cold fact that he cheated now?

So once again, the French - who have always had it out for Lance - say that they have proof he’s doping. And the proof is 6 year old samples, that the lab itself “could not confirm that the positive results were Armstrong’s. It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist.”

Um… how is this proof? Oh, wait, L’Equipe, a sports magazine, says it’s able to make the match, using some medical records. If the lab itself cannot make the match, how the hell can a magazine claim to? Especially a magazine that has made no bones about not being at all objective.

Sorry, threemae, but it ain’t proof. You and L’Equipe can believe anything you want - Lance dopes, the earth was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, the moon landing was a hoax - but don’t try to tell me that a bunch of tests done on 6 year old samples that the lab itself can’t tie to Lance is proof of doping.

It’s just the French. Live Strong!

No. A magazine that has never been objective about Lance claims they can prove that 6 year old urine samples are his. The lab that performed the test says the samples were anonymous, and cannot tie the drugged samples to Lance.

Ok…so the proof isn’t stone cold?

I think you’re going to need some independant verification that the samples were Armstrong’s and that the EPO was indeed present. A biased French rag that’s frequently critical of Lance making yet another accusation just doesn’t cut it.

Uhhh… so what? The purpose of putting all the time, money and effort into those teams isn’t to make friends. It’s to do legally whatever’s necessary to win the race. If they happen to become friends during the process then, hey, that’s great but I don’t see that as being even remotely of any consequence otherwise.

Exactly. The ham and eggers signed on knowing that Lance was the guy. Nobody made them sign on to take orders.

It sounds like a case of sour grapes. And a whole bunch of TS.

Why don’t those prancing French pansies simply ban Armstrong from the race, if they can’t win their own precious little bicycle race otherwise? Or why not just dope up their own riders and beat him that way? By the way, is illegal doping a big deal in the world of bike races? Have any French riders tested positive? Or are they just out to ‘git Lance?’

It is such a huge issue, that I’m quite surprised you haven’t heard anything about it before. (Note: I do not follow cycling closely, but these things make their way into the general discussion/news media, so that’s how I’ve heard of it.)

This is a quote from* L’Equipe* (from the linked article)

“Never to such an extent, probably, has the departure of a champion been welcomed with such widespread relief,” the paper griped the day after Armstrong won his seventh straight Tour win and retired from cycling.

Hardly an unbiased source for news. * L’Equipe* has been grinding an axe for Lance for, I don’t know, forever.

Also. A positive test can only be confirmed by a second positive. Those samples no longer exist. Nothing to see here.

Keep in mind that * L’Equipe* did nothing clever to identify the samples they simply claimed that the sample numbers of EPO tests from anonymous riders that tested positive were the same as the numbers signed for by by doctors and Armstrong after doping tests.

This is not worth commenting on.

It’s a very big deal. There have been scandals over the last 10 years that have wiped out whole teams. I don’t know if any French riders have tested positive, but there have been a lot of positives. What Lance has done is just inconcievable to some people, so they think he must be doping. There has been a big movement throughout the cycling sport to try to pin doping on Lance for that very reason, and without success. Now that he is gone they have proof? Uh uh. I’m not buying. It’s amazing… the people in charge have never been able to nail him, and God knows they’ve tried, and yet as soon as he retires they have irrefutible proof? Nope. This is an orchestrated smear campaign, because now there are no consequences. There was no proof during the races, but now that he’s done, after he can no longer get tossed for usage, there is conclusive proof? I call bullshit. If they had the proof (daily testing every race day for 7 years isn’t enough?) they should have come forward before now. And what’s more, have those 7 year-old samples been kept under lock and key the whole time? No tampering? Right. Same old bullshit, different day.

Well, the did have a “random drug test” before one of the stages of the last Tour. Surprise, surprise! The only rider “randomly” picked to have a drug test was Lance! So you decide if they’re out to “'git Lance” or not.

Is it reasonable or unreasonable to just presume that all high-level cyclists are doped in all competitions, and just consider it pretty much a wash when someone screws up and gets busted.

Dumb, trite quote – but it’s apparently taken to heart by many athletes in many sports:

“If you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying” – Jim Rome

Is it wrong to consider doping to be just the basic cost of doing business in high level cycling?

Your OP contains a contradiction that needs some explaining. You claim that EPO can still not be reliably detected. Then you claim that EPO byproducts (and therefore EPO) was detected in six year old frozen urine.

What is the false positive rate on the EPO test? How reliable is it?

The implication of your post is that Lance was doping 7 years ago. But, as I seem to recall, he won pretty handily this year even though his urine was scrutinized by the French more carefully and more often than vintage champagne. So we have to believe that the dope never existed, was irrelevant, or doping technology has continued to improve faster than detection techniques

They’ve even given Mr. Armstrong’s urine its own Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée: urine du Lance.

Funnily enough, the online English-French dictionary I used gave me urine and lance as the translation of the English word urine.

Personally, I believe that Lance doped. But many, if not all, of the other riders probably did as well. So the playing field was still level. The problem with these latest tests was that they were performed on the “B” samples. The reason that “B” samples are taken, is to have a verification backup in case the “A” samples are found to be positive. Well, logic tells us that if we need the “B” samples to verify that the “A” samples were in fact positive, then we would also need samples to back up positives tests on “B”. Since there are no “C” samples, this cannot be done. Armstrong has no way of defending himself. In this case, I’ve got to give him the benefit of the doubt. And keep in mind that I can’t stand the guy.