So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005

JohnnyO

Aug 2012

8:16pm, 25 Aug 2012

13,743 posts

0

JohnnyO

I don't, I can't, but I bet if you pay an 'expert' enough you can find a chink, some minor irregularity in the protocol, somebody who works in the records office at UCI with an axe to grind who could have fiddled the numbers. Ashenden would be an expert on one side. He cannot conceive how the samples could not be direct evidence of LA's doping. He may well be impartial (I believe he is), but there is almost always a refutation that introduces some element of doubt. Maybe in this case there isn't (and that is why he has chosen not to fight) but it seems unlikely to me.

Balance of probability, beyond reasonable doubt. I am not a lawyer, but what the doubters want is something absolutely irrefutable. Video of him injecting the stuff and then a blood sample taken by the Pope and analysed by Mother Theresa. I doubt that this level of proof will ever exist.

As I said, I believe he doped, on balance of probability. As the evidence mounts this seems to me to be beyond reasonable doubt.

But I doubt that there will ever be enough evidence for some people and hence he will always have his supporters.

And as I said, the one thing we can say is that he is guilty.

SPR

Aug 2012

8:38pm, 25 Aug 2012

17,453 posts

0

SPR

Luckily for Armstrong, the 1999 positives can't be used in any doping case against him.

Weean

Aug 2012

8:47pm, 25 Aug 2012

30 posts

0

Weean

Hmmm, I never really like Armstrong, so I'm probably not impartial.

I still think he was a phenomenal athlete, and the best amongst a whole generation of dopers. But he wasn't classy (chasing down Simeoni for implicating Ferrari?), and I don't think he respected cycling with his laser focus on only the Tour. He certainly didn't respect his rainbow stripes, reducing them to a thin vertical band in later seasons so he could sell more advertising space on his collar.

I'm ambivalent. I don't like the guy, but does anyone really gain by his titles being stripped?

Stander

Aug 2012

10:33pm, 25 Aug 2012

9,515 posts

0

Stander

SPR - thanks for that link to the Ashenden article. I have now read it - no easy job on an iPhone!

One of the "joys" of single parenthood is that once boy is in bed, with only crap on the TV I get a few spare hours every evening to read. I've never been one to pay much head to media hype and headlines, but if something comes into the news that interests me I'll happily spend some time reading more comprehensive stuff on the subject. The time spent reading the Ashenden articel was well spent. I had previous to your link to the UCI article seen it, but thanks for the link. I re-read after the Ashenden article.

With these and the piece in the Times today I am pretty certain that Lance is a doper and that his refusal to defend himself has reasons we may never know but are almost certainly linked to the fact that he is guilty and trying to play the poor hard done by victim.

I fairly sure that at the elite level in most sports that doping of one sort or other is rife and that many pratices happen that are against the nature of competing fairly. The money, glory, fame, whatever is just too enticing at that level not to use any means possible (fair or otherwise) to gain that extra edge over your fellow competiors - or to not fall too far behind those that do cheat.

for instance, is the use of oxygen tents fair? Apparently at the moment the answer is yes as they are not banned. Will we every get to a point where all cheating can be detected? No. By the times current testing as caught up with current pratices I'm sure that the next generation of cheating (genetic doping, for instance) will be in place.

So is the answer to stop all testing and just let athletes do as they will? Probably not. Some will risk everything - health included - to reach the top of the podium and I guess the public will get turned of if they know that the winner is always going to be the biggest cheater. No public = no money.

The testers will always be behind the cheaters which is why, even though this relates to distant (in sporting terms) history, I am glad retorspective result corrections happen.

Chrisull

Aug 2012

11:26pm, 25 Aug 2012

4,970 posts

0

Chrisull

Stander - oxygen tents, anti gravity treadmills - I'm with you on this, these confer unfair if "legal" advantages. If suddenly athletes start dying in/on them, they will be banned. The UCI were quick enough to ban Graeme Obree's bike partly assembled from bits of a washing machine (not actually the whole truth, if you read his book, but the simplification gives you a good idea) when he broke the hour record with it, when he used basically something anyone with a bit of knowledge, an inquiring mind and some spare parts could. But when it comes to something that half the world can't afford, they seem strangely reluctant to intervene.

The Vaughters interview, linked to earlier with the head of Garmin and former US Postal rider (http://www.bicycling.com/garmin-insider/featured-stories/jonathan-vaughters-talks-doping-reform) another biggie, offers the point of view, that while you might not stop athletes doping, if you make it such that gaining a marginal advantage via say a new riding technique or skinsuit, confers the same advantage as taking EPO, then people will start turning off the latter. The problem was using EPO offered such as massive advantage that everyone had to use it just to keep up. Bio passports means that it becomes impossible to have the massive improvements that EPO offers without them showing up in your stats, so if you use EPO, you can only get away with it so that it offers small "normal seeming" improvements. It has to be the way forward to prevent genetic doping too if/when it arrives/ed. You don't know HOW a cyclist has improved their stats, but you know that their stats have improved in an abnormal way, like it seems Armstrong's did, in a way that no-one elses in the world's could have.

Jambomo

Aug 2012

11:40pm, 25 Aug 2012

3,279 posts

0

Jambomo

I must admit that I'm not a fan of Armstrong so I'm not very impartial but I do believe that he was guilty of doping - only in a my opinion kind of way.

I have read some of the articles and for me it comes down to his lack of willingness to defend himself, we're not talking contesting a parking ticket, this is the stripping of the Mans whole life, all he's done in his sport and career, I don't believe anyone would give up and let their entire person and life be called into question if truly innocent. I also find it hard that we are supposed to accept that everyone around Armstrong was guilty of doping yet be was still able to beat them convincingly whilst clean, it simply wouldn't be likely at all.

Stander

Aug 2012

12:45am, 26 Aug 2012

9,519 posts

0

Stander

Actually Chris, with regards to "kit" I'm not fussed about what people use. Whether it be an oxygen tent, different defuser on your F1 car, sprocket on your bike or even just running shoes, we all have some kit that we think makes us faster. The problem with kit is that it then gets potentially very expensive to compete at the top level.

I just don't think we should treat the human body as another piece of kit. Competition should be pitting yourself against others. Yes, train and do what can can legally to get your body in the best shape. But not with artificial chemicals.

Bazoaxe

Aug 2012

7:30am, 26 Aug 2012

4,630 posts

0

Bazoaxe

I am sat here preparing for my 20 miler, gels in the gel belt....drinking water with a zero 5 tablet in it....all to 'give me an advantage' - makes me think.

FWIW worth and like stander having read loads, I agree that it looks like Lance was a doper. However, I still dont like this guilty cos he wont defend himself approach. A murder accused can offer no plea or defence but there is still a trial and then a decision based on the facts presented....any ban or stripping of titles IMO has to go through the same approach, whether or not its contested. If he is guilty, then the fans deserve to know more of the detail.

Chrisull

Aug 2012

10:44am, 26 Aug 2012

4,971 posts

0

Chrisull

Stander - yep that's where I'm coming from. Currently reading Running with the Kenyans, and it it's inspirational the way the Kenyans - in particular the Kalenjin (not tha Masai) compete and train to escape poverty, and it's by and large the rural population, not the urban population the best runners come from. I'd hate to see them "priced" out, against the Europeans and Americans, they should be beaten by a faster, more talented, better trained runner, not one who has had millions of pounds of the latest stuff bunged at them.

Bazo - agree entirely. Arbitration should still go ahead, the witnesses should still testify, USADA should show the proof it has amassed, otherwise we can only conclude cycling isn't that concerned about cleaning up its act, rather than picking a fight with someone who crossed them.

SPR

Aug 2012

12:32pm, 26 Aug 2012

17,455 posts

0

SPR

Stander 9515 nice post.

Science of sport blog has said in the past that the levels of power put down on climbs during the 90s and 00s were not sustainable without doping. Their analysis of the recent tours says that it it is cleaner due to power outputs.

I understand why people want to hear the evidence, I do too, but I know Armstrong knows the rules and knew that if he refused to fight the "non analytical positive(s)" (that is how it is seen), then he is found guilty. F Schleck for example is not guilty yet as AFAIK he is still fighting his positive test. I read an article yesterday about how the evidence could come out, some of which we've already said here: bicycling.com

About This Thread

Related Threads

Tag A User

Free training & racing tools for runners, cyclists, swimmers & walkers.

JohnnyO Aug 2012 8:16pm, 25 Aug 2012 13,743 posts	0 JohnnyO I don't, I can't, but I bet if you pay an 'expert' enough you can find a chink, some minor irregularity in the protocol, somebody who works in the records office at UCI with an axe to grind who could have fiddled the numbers. Ashenden would be an expert on one side. He cannot conceive how the samples could not be direct evidence of LA's doping. He may well be impartial (I believe he is), but there is almost always a refutation that introduces some element of doubt. Maybe in this case there isn't (and that is why he has chosen not to fight) but it seems unlikely to me. Balance of probability, beyond reasonable doubt. I am not a lawyer, but what the doubters want is something absolutely irrefutable. Video of him injecting the stuff and then a blood sample taken by the Pope and analysed by Mother Theresa. I doubt that this level of proof will ever exist. As I said, I believe he doped, on balance of probability. As the evidence mounts this seems to me to be beyond reasonable doubt. But I doubt that there will ever be enough evidence for some people and hence he will always have his supporters. And as I said, the one thing we can say is that he is guilty.
SPR Aug 2012 8:38pm, 25 Aug 2012 17,453 posts	0 SPR Luckily for Armstrong, the 1999 positives can't be used in any doping case against him.
Weean Aug 2012 8:47pm, 25 Aug 2012 30 posts	0 Weean Hmmm, I never really like Armstrong, so I'm probably not impartial. I still think he was a phenomenal athlete, and the best amongst a whole generation of dopers. But he wasn't classy (chasing down Simeoni for implicating Ferrari?), and I don't think he respected cycling with his laser focus on only the Tour. He certainly didn't respect his rainbow stripes, reducing them to a thin vertical band in later seasons so he could sell more advertising space on his collar. I'm ambivalent. I don't like the guy, but does anyone really gain by his titles being stripped?
Stander Aug 2012 10:33pm, 25 Aug 2012 9,515 posts	0 Stander SPR - thanks for that link to the Ashenden article. I have now read it - no easy job on an iPhone! One of the "joys" of single parenthood is that once boy is in bed, with only crap on the TV I get a few spare hours every evening to read. I've never been one to pay much head to media hype and headlines, but if something comes into the news that interests me I'll happily spend some time reading more comprehensive stuff on the subject. The time spent reading the Ashenden articel was well spent. I had previous to your link to the UCI article seen it, but thanks for the link. I re-read after the Ashenden article. With these and the piece in the Times today I am pretty certain that Lance is a doper and that his refusal to defend himself has reasons we may never know but are almost certainly linked to the fact that he is guilty and trying to play the poor hard done by victim. I fairly sure that at the elite level in most sports that doping of one sort or other is rife and that many pratices happen that are against the nature of competing fairly. The money, glory, fame, whatever is just too enticing at that level not to use any means possible (fair or otherwise) to gain that extra edge over your fellow competiors - or to not fall too far behind those that do cheat. for instance, is the use of oxygen tents fair? Apparently at the moment the answer is yes as they are not banned. Will we every get to a point where all cheating can be detected? No. By the times current testing as caught up with current pratices I'm sure that the next generation of cheating (genetic doping, for instance) will be in place. So is the answer to stop all testing and just let athletes do as they will? Probably not. Some will risk everything - health included - to reach the top of the podium and I guess the public will get turned of if they know that the winner is always going to be the biggest cheater. No public = no money. The testers will always be behind the cheaters which is why, even though this relates to distant (in sporting terms) history, I am glad retorspective result corrections happen.
Chrisull Aug 2012 11:26pm, 25 Aug 2012 4,970 posts	0 Chrisull Stander - oxygen tents, anti gravity treadmills - I'm with you on this, these confer unfair if "legal" advantages. If suddenly athletes start dying in/on them, they will be banned. The UCI were quick enough to ban Graeme Obree's bike partly assembled from bits of a washing machine (not actually the whole truth, if you read his book, but the simplification gives you a good idea) when he broke the hour record with it, when he used basically something anyone with a bit of knowledge, an inquiring mind and some spare parts could. But when it comes to something that half the world can't afford, they seem strangely reluctant to intervene. The Vaughters interview, linked to earlier with the head of Garmin and former US Postal rider (http://www.bicycling.com/garmin-insider/featured-stories/jonathan-vaughters-talks-doping-reform) another biggie, offers the point of view, that while you might not stop athletes doping, if you make it such that gaining a marginal advantage via say a new riding technique or skinsuit, confers the same advantage as taking EPO, then people will start turning off the latter. The problem was using EPO offered such as massive advantage that everyone had to use it just to keep up. Bio passports means that it becomes impossible to have the massive improvements that EPO offers without them showing up in your stats, so if you use EPO, you can only get away with it so that it offers small "normal seeming" improvements. It has to be the way forward to prevent genetic doping too if/when it arrives/ed. You don't know HOW a cyclist has improved their stats, but you know that their stats have improved in an abnormal way, like it seems Armstrong's did, in a way that no-one elses in the world's could have.
Jambomo Aug 2012 11:40pm, 25 Aug 2012 3,279 posts	0 Jambomo I must admit that I'm not a fan of Armstrong so I'm not very impartial but I do believe that he was guilty of doping - only in a my opinion kind of way. I have read some of the articles and for me it comes down to his lack of willingness to defend himself, we're not talking contesting a parking ticket, this is the stripping of the Mans whole life, all he's done in his sport and career, I don't believe anyone would give up and let their entire person and life be called into question if truly innocent. I also find it hard that we are supposed to accept that everyone around Armstrong was guilty of doping yet be was still able to beat them convincingly whilst clean, it simply wouldn't be likely at all.
Stander Aug 2012 12:45am, 26 Aug 2012 9,519 posts	0 Stander Actually Chris, with regards to "kit" I'm not fussed about what people use. Whether it be an oxygen tent, different defuser on your F1 car, sprocket on your bike or even just running shoes, we all have some kit that we think makes us faster. The problem with kit is that it then gets potentially very expensive to compete at the top level. I just don't think we should treat the human body as another piece of kit. Competition should be pitting yourself against others. Yes, train and do what can can legally to get your body in the best shape. But not with artificial chemicals.
Bazoaxe Aug 2012 7:30am, 26 Aug 2012 4,630 posts	0 Bazoaxe I am sat here preparing for my 20 miler, gels in the gel belt....drinking water with a zero 5 tablet in it....all to 'give me an advantage' - makes me think. FWIW worth and like stander having read loads, I agree that it looks like Lance was a doper. However, I still dont like this guilty cos he wont defend himself approach. A murder accused can offer no plea or defence but there is still a trial and then a decision based on the facts presented....any ban or stripping of titles IMO has to go through the same approach, whether or not its contested. If he is guilty, then the fans deserve to know more of the detail.
Chrisull Aug 2012 10:44am, 26 Aug 2012 4,971 posts	0 Chrisull Stander - yep that's where I'm coming from. Currently reading Running with the Kenyans, and it it's inspirational the way the Kenyans - in particular the Kalenjin (not tha Masai) compete and train to escape poverty, and it's by and large the rural population, not the urban population the best runners come from. I'd hate to see them "priced" out, against the Europeans and Americans, they should be beaten by a faster, more talented, better trained runner, not one who has had millions of pounds of the latest stuff bunged at them. Bazo - agree entirely. Arbitration should still go ahead, the witnesses should still testify, USADA should show the proof it has amassed, otherwise we can only conclude cycling isn't that concerned about cleaning up its act, rather than picking a fight with someone who crossed them.
SPR Aug 2012 12:32pm, 26 Aug 2012 17,455 posts	0 SPR Stander 9515 nice post. Science of sport blog has said in the past that the levels of power put down on climbs during the 90s and 00s were not sustainable without doping. Their analysis of the recent tours says that it it is cleaner due to power outputs. I understand why people want to hear the evidence, I do too, but I know Armstrong knows the rules and knew that if he refused to fight the "non analytical positive(s)" (that is how it is seen), then he is found guilty. F Schleck for example is not guilty yet as AFAIK he is still fighting his positive test. I read an article yesterday about how the evidence could come out, some of which we've already said here: bicycling.com