All of what you say is possible. None of it is decisive. I’ll just comment on this bit though:
Yes it does if LA is saying “You broke the unspoken rule that says pro riders don’t publicise the extent of drug use in this sport, this is what will keep happening to you until you learn to keep your mouth shut.”
You can say that would be a silly thing for LA to do, but let’s face it, what he did *was * a silly thing to do. Even if you assume LA is utterly clean, being obnoxious to a potential witness is pretty silly, any way you cut it, because of how it is going to be perceived.
Not quite that easy my friend. In the last 36 months a significant number of Armstrong’s closest rivals have been busted for things like EPO, blood doping, and recreational drug abuse. The last one I don’t care about but the first two certainly bother me.
Tyler Hamilton, for example, can currently count himself the single luckiest bastard in all of world sport. Consider this - he wins a Gold Medal in Athens for the Individual Time Trial just 2 weeks after le Tour - he fails his Olympic A sample test for blood doping. But then, his B Sample is found to be “inconclusive” because an insufficient number of red blood cells were still alive. OK, let’s err on the side of caution.
But then, 3 weeks later, he fails both his A Sample and B Sample for the same offense in the Tour of Spain and BAM! He’s out. He’s gonna be banned for 2 years for sure. His only defense now is to somehow, miraculously, to discredit the “processes” used in detecting blood doping.
And for those of you who aren’t aware… EPO manipulation was the fancy way of achieving the same goal as blood doping - that is, to simulate the effects of living at ultra high altitudes - which in turn elevates the percentage of “oxygen carrying” red blood cells.
My point is this… a fucking shitload of people all around Armstrong are getting busted, and will continue to get busted. Armstrong is on record as stating he recieves over 250 injections a year for anti-remission cancer drugs, along with nutritional supplements. Personally, I don’t care how you define it - once you’re receiving 250 injections a year, you’re no longer in the area of “natural therapies” - you’ve long since passed the grey area into “cutting edge” medicine.
I point blank refuse to accuse Armstrong of doping. But for 6 years now he’s been beating guys who have later been found guilty of precisely that. I will openly contend however that Armstrong is taking some magic potions that, if fully investigated, would later be banned too. The thing is this - he’s allowed to take injections so long as they don’t fail a drug test. He takes 250 a year. So does the rest of his team. It’s such a murky arguement that I can’t accept anymore that Armstrong’s conscience can be “totally clear”. The probability of results weighs against him for mine.
The very first rule I would change in international sport is “NO MORE INJECTIONS” unless on your death bed.
Is that common for people in remission? IIRC, when my sister went into remission she wasn’t getting any injections 3 years after the fact, let alone 6 or 7 years.
This is why it’s so annoying when his fans show such unwavering faith that he’s not doped. That said I believe what is happening to him as reported in the Reuter article is quite unfair.
BTW many of my cycling companions here in the US are very very skeptical of Hamilton’s positive tests. It’s telling to me that Europeans largely accept the possibility that there biggest stars are doped.
What about Australians? It seems they’ve had a recent doping scandal.
Why don’t they just go live in a high altitude somewhere? Would Denver be high enough? Do athletes that live in a high altitude environment and have naturally occuring elevated red blood cell counts get banned from sports?
Armstrong is on record as stating he recieves over 250 injections a year for anti-remission cancer drugs
[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand an anti-remission drug. Why would he want to get out of remission?
I believe there are disadvantages to training at high altitude. If I am not mistaken the ideal situation for boosting red blood cell count with the goal of improving athletic performance is to live at high altitude but train at sea level.
From the abstract
“A small proportion of athletes shows no improvement or even reduced performance with this “live-high train-low” strategy, but the enhancement for the average athlete is 2-3%.”
I have seen other similar articles. Another web site that discusses this strategy is here.
It might not be as hard as you think. Armstrong uses a device that lowers the oxygen level around his bed every night to simulate sleeping at altitude. He mentions it in one of his books.
The tents are very expensive. Leonard Zinn reviewed one for Velonews and found it hard to sleep in (several years ago, when they were new). Sleep is rather helpful with training. More over UCI rules set a cap on how high your red blood cell count can be before you are barred from competition. So it seems using a tent would imply very careful monitoring of your blood.
I dislike the idea of athletes winning because they have the better pharmacist or can afford an altitude tent. But sports are entertainment, and a good race is cool with or without juice or tents or whatever treatment/method is next discovered. We are not turning donkeys into race horses after all.
Getting back to the OP. Part of the problem is athletes are let off the hook by American fans. Americans are the ones who count for sponsorship (of American athletes) . Therefore these athletes will not admit there is a problem. Perhaps teams dope the athletes without their knowledge.
This
link is a discussion of a well known racer in the south east who has been accused of doping. I have seen him race often. Is this what amateur sports will come to?
Loathe as I am to get back into this discussion, I have to say that this statement is stupid and false.
The BALCO connections to track and baseball have dominated discussions in the U.S. for a long time. Ask Barry Bonds if Americans are “lettting him off the hook”.
We live in an era where the ends justifys the means sadly. The rewards are so great, the money is so huge.
Personally, I reckon the general consensus is that without Armstrong’s cancer treatment, there’s no way he would have ever been a genuine Tour contender. Certainly, he was a great “one day” exponent - his results prior to his cancer ordeal testify to this. And the records show that he won a World Championship in 1993 and I didn’t - so I have to be careful not to come across as being a jealous asshole. Equally true however is that Armstrong’s Grand Tour results also reflected his having reached his “pre-determined natural peak” as a Tour contender. After his cancer ordeal, he lost so much weight that his power-to-weight ratio improved by such magnitudes that he was able to be a genuine Tour contender.
My point, however, remains this… it’s simply not true to argue that Lance Armstrong has won his French Grand Tours via totally natural means. His exposure to the absolute cutting edge in medicine firstly, saved his life, and secondly, gave him a springboard he otherwise would never have had.
I’m happy to concede right now that my point is a grey one, and that further, in the abscence of anything resembling even slightly a “postive test” that we simply have to applaud his efforts for what they are. May I merely reiterate my earlier point that the assertion that he does it all “naturally” is, at best, a real play on words. The number of injections, the drips after stages, the high altitude sleep tents, the anti-remission drugs, the nutritional injected supplements - all of it adds up to a conscious effort to tweak every possible facet of esoteric sports science - and very little of it is natural. Legal yes, but natural no.
And quite frankly, everyone I know in cycling nowadays feels the same way as me - name, that’s NOT where we want to be. All I’m saying here is that I’m totally happy at 42 years of age to still be capable of racing in Senior “A Grade” - or as the Europeans would say - “Elite Category One”. I love coaching the up and coming juniors that I coach, and I love organising my local club racing scene. The strongest stuff any of us take is a double shot of flat white coffee after a race or a training session. I’m happy with that. It’s the way the sport should be. To be honest, the only times I ever had conversations about turning pro circa 1987 scared the living shit out of me. The very first thing that was explained to me was that I had to sign away any consent, whatsoever, as to what the team medicos were allowed to inject into me. Man, the whole sport sucks now if you ask me.
Barry Bonds is 40 some years old and his livelyhood is not at risk. What is is his reputation and the validity of his records. It is a long story, but suffice it to say that doping is a big issue in U.S. sports, and it is at the forefront of every discussion of sports in the U.S.
Google BALCO for all kinds of info.
My point was refuting your claim that Americans are ignoring the doping issue.
Well, he’s pretty clearly “doped” and hasn’t lost any earnings or suffered any suspensions, so I would actually ask what he has suffered? He seems to be getting a pretty easy pass.
Anyway, off of baseball and back on to cycling:
God damn, what a shitty week. The cyclist whom I have admired most, felt the most personal connection to, and rooted for above all other has failed two drug tests. Tyler Hamilton came back with a total of three positive tests and one sample screwed up by freezing. Addmittedly, the assay used is new and relatively untested, but based upon some relatively solid and well-understood science. Also, Hamilton is claiming that having had surgery in the past months could also have contributed to the positive result, but I doubt that we would have received a blood transfusion for any surgery that would still allow you to start the Tour, Vuelta, and win the Olympic TT immediately afterwards. Maybe a more complex version of the story will come out, but I’m doubtful. It’s more likely than not, IMHO, that he’s guilty, and more likely than not that he’ll never start a Div. 1 race again. I can pray that I’m wrong, but…
I’m conflicted because I want the field to become clean, and if it happens to start with a rider I like, so be it. But on the other hand, I do believe that Hamilton is still a genuinely nice guy, a guy that deserves what he’s won, a guy that would never have chosen to cheat if it wasn’t a basic requirement to play the game.
I started this thread becasue I thought what Armstrong did to Simeoni was a pretty shitty thing to do, not because he’s doped in the first place. Oh well, here’s the basic problem with dope: it isn’t a level playing field. No one knows exactly what the other guy is using. I doubt that a team like Communidad Valencia-Kelme has the same resources as Postal to devote to the “pharmaceutical” R+D projects…
At any rate, I think that the insurance company should still grant LA that $5 M purse. Not that they are incorrect to say that he’s likely doped, but the situation hasn’t really changed that dramatically from when the prize money was first offered. I think it’s more about the company not wanting to part with five million dollars.
Anyway, on to less gloomy news: unlike the Tour, at least the Vuelta isn’t sucking. (Venga Perez, venga, venga, venga!) Boo Boo Foo, if you’re ever in the states in my area, drop me an e-mail and I’ll show you some nice climbs around here.
A relatively un punished baseball player isn’t a good way to refute my claim. I could also point to American football which has no enforcement against doping as far as I know. What is interesting to me is that these 2 sports are fairly “American.” American football completely so. Track and Field, cycling, cross country skiing are less so.
Since you won’t tell me what BALCO is I can’t argue with you about it.
