 |
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
quote:
Those we're just the IOC testers constantly out to get him. |
L'Équipe ~= IOC ?
quote:
if Lance Armstrong himself admitted to being doped, they probably wouldn't believe it. |
And if L'Équipe admitted they falsely accused Armstrong all these years, some still would believe Armstrong was an excessive drug user.
quote:
Every top level cyclist these days is juicing. |
Why just cyclists and not all top level athletes?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Winston
|
 |
Danmark
Mar 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
The evidence is all around and has been for years. In my view, it's like a variant of the anhtropic principle; if most athletes didn't avoid detection, there'd be no sport of cycling at all. And everybody - riders, aides, teams, sponsors, organizers, officials - have a common interest in keeping up the charade. It's their livelihoods, careers, reputations at stake here.
And everytime a rider is busted, it's quickly hushed up, and everyone continues as if nothing had happened. Well, over time, at least to me, the evidence mounted, and a larger picture started showing. That's when I abandoned all interest in the sport for good. And I was a pretty avid fan at one time, but no more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rah
While it could be true, this is far from conclusive evidence.
And since there are no back up sample to test (which is why they keep 2 samples in the first place) I don't think it's fair to paint a person's whole career black based on one unsubstantiated test when he sampled most of his career an came up clean.
He deserves the benefit of doubt, but as with any successful athlete, he won't get it. |
I concur
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Not on tests for EPO because they didn't have them |
Well yes they did from 2001 onward
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
Winston:
While I understand your suspicion, I'm not sure I understand your giving up on a sport you apparently once liked quite alot. If you think all the top riders are juiced, wouldn't that just mean a level playing field where no one is really cheating vis-a-vis one another? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but cycling isn't like baseball where individual records keep going throughout the ages. They change the route of the Tour de France every year, so it's not like someone's total time is ever comparable to that of another year.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
Its such a moving target in sports as well. Five years ago a player could admit they were juiced in baseball and there was nothing. Now there are senate hearing s and suspensions.
Cyclists used to do "blood doping"-- they would transfuse themselves with Blood taken from their own bodies at a prior time-- (apparently there is an endurance benefit)- there is no foreign substance but I think they count various types of blood cells-- This probably still goes on since there is no way to test for it -- all they can spot are the results. There are vitamins and steroid creams and nutritional supplements. Some things are legal and some are not and I expect the bar will keep moving. Take caffene-- ist in lots of things but can be abused
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
6 years is an awfully long time... even for a twinkie |
and if I understand it , here they are looking for abnormally electrically charged "bits" within the sample
Oh and japher shouldn't you be off changing diapers??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Winston
|
|
Danmark
Mar 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
Winston:
While I understand your suspicion, I'm not sure I understand your giving up on a sport you apparently once liked quite alot. If you think all the top riders are juiced, wouldn't that just mean a level playing field where no one is really cheating vis-a-vis one another? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but cycling isn't like baseball where individual records keep going throughout the ages. They change the route of the Tour de France every year, so it's not like someone's total time is ever comparable to that of another year. |
I personally think the 'level playing field' way of looking at it is ridiculous. It doesn't make any difference. They cheat, and the biggest cheater among the ones with some athletic ability to begin with, wins. Key word here is cheat. I don't like that. I especially don't like it when I start realising an entire sport is in on it - and the only suckers left are myself and all the other fans. Exit Winston, one sucker less.
For me, the suspicion started mounting about a year and a half after we had our own national winner of Tour de France, Bjarne Riis in 1996. He was a tremendous hero to virtually all of the population, until some doubts were starting to be raised - about his rapid ascent from a mediocre rider to the very peak of world cycling within just a couple of seasons. His association with doctors in the past who were now being exposed as suppliers of illegal substances. And so on, lots of revelations, but of course never any 100% conclusive incrimination. But he was off his pedestal, he remains off it, and he'll never come near it again. That's not just me, but the impression of a significant portion of the millions of people he cheated so massively a decade ago.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The director of the Châtenay-Malabry lab, where the EPO test was developed claims otherwise. From Boris' article:
quote:
"One of two things happens," De Ceaurriz said. "Either EPO, which is a protein, degrades as time passes and becomes undetectable. In that case we have a negative test result or, as in this case, the EPO persists as it is. We have therefore no doubt about the validity of our results." |
|
Yup -- I saw that-- I also saw the bit where the Canadian said samples degrade inside 3 MONTHS and the bit where they talked about more qualitative testing instead of quantitative. When I hear 'qualitative" I start thinking "subjective" and "figure skating judging"
So lets sum up
1. its some form of new testing-- I wonder did they do control tests with 6 year old urine (some with EPO and some not)
2."the Paris lab had created the model to allow the application of "qualitative rather than quantitative" standards when interpreting test results" -- this says to me that there isn't some absolute number
quote:
[SIZE=1]
"Ayotte noted that earlier standards had called for the application of a "hard-number" interpretation of results, meaning that if a certain percentage of isoforms were positively or negatively charged, a result would be deemed to be an indication of EPO use. Ayotte said research subsequent to the development of the test has suggested that testers understand the reasons behind the formation of positive and negative isoforms and "recognize the presence of distinct populations in a sample." " |
3. the urine is 6 years old when previously it was thought impossible to have a usable sample after 3 months
4. The linkage to Armstrong is suspect given the source of such linkage
5. Someone somewhere has violtaed ethics in a big-time way
All that said, Armstrong may be dirty but this whole thing stinks
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-08-2005 00:13
|