Lance Armstrong Charged - Shocked here (Not)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Goat

Goat

Player Valuation: £380m
Forum Supporter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18655970


Lance Armstrong charged by US Anti-Doping Agency

Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong has been formally charged with using performance-enhancing drugs by the US Anti-Doping Agency.

The case will now be heard by an arbitration panel, who will decide the outcome of the hearing.

Armstrong, whose seven wins came consecutively between 1999 to 2005, could be stripped of his titles and banned from cycling if found guilty.

However, the 40-year-old denies doping, noting he has never failed a drug test.



Dick-Dastardly.jpg
 

Probably the most tested athlete for drugs ever. Never failed one. He was clean and the sooner these pen pushing clowns realise this the better. My all time sporting hero.

VIVE LANCE
 
"I have been notified that USADA, an organization largely funded by taxpayer dollars but governed only by self-written rules, intends to again dredge up discredited allegations dating back more than 16 years to prevent me from competing as a triathlete and try and strip me of the seven Tour de France victories I earned. These are the very same charges and the same witnesses that the Justice Department chose not to pursue after a two-year investigation. These charges are baseless, motivated by spite and advanced through testimony bought and paid for by promises of anonymity and immunity. Although USADA alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy extended over more than 16 years, I am the only athlete it has chosen to charge. USADA’s malice, its methods, its star-chamber practices, and its decision to punish first and adjudicate later all are at odds with our ideals of fairness and fair play.

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. That USADA ignores this fundamental distinction and charges me instead of the admitted dopers says far more about USADA, its lack of fairness and this vendetta than it does about my guilt or innocence."

 

Ullrich never failed a test either. For the record I don't think less of Armstrong as an athlete as he was clearly a fantastic athlete. BUT, if you look at how dominant Ullrich was in 97, and Pantani in 98/99. Both have been found guilty of juicing, and yet Armstrong dominated them both easily, as he did every other challenger from the era.

Just not sure it stacks up. To be honest though I don't know why they're chasing it now for. I mean if you go through the top 10's of that era there aren't many that haven't been caught out, so even if you strip Armstrong of his titles, who do you give them to?

So I do think he was juiced, but then so was everyone in that era so it was a level playing field. I don't think it neccessarily takes away from his achivement of coming back from cancer to such a high level, although of course his constant insistence of his innocence would dent his credibility quite considerably if they did manage to prove it.
 
who knows, maybe, just maybe, he is innocent. Not that i give a sh1t like. As you say bruce, they were all at it. One more doped up cyclist aint gonna change nothing.
 
To be fair I think they are generally pretty clean these days, but the 90's were the EPO era. I mean if you look at Wiggins, he was always good at time trialling and with less weight is now ok at climbing.

Armstrong though was never great at time trialling (search YouTube for the vid if Indurain taking several minutes out of him), yet came back not only as the best time triallist in the peleton but someone that could destroy everyone, even the pure climbers like Pantani and Mayo, in the mountains. Losing a bit of weight won't make that possible.

I mean there's a feeling that Ullrich wasn't a great climber, but if you look at Arcalis in 97 when he destroyed Pantani, Virenque and Riis it was regarded at the time as almost a Ben Johnson moment and people thought he'd dominate for a decade.

Likewise if you look at Pantani in the 99 Giro, some of his performances were ridiculously dominant. This ride in particular he had a mechanical at the foot of the climb, lost lots of time, yet managed to not only pull everyone back but win comfortably at the top. Have to remember too that he still holds the record (comfortably) for climbs like Alps D'Huez and Mortirolo.

Yet Armstrong beasted both in the mountains in 2000. He might be clean of course, but I'd find that more surprising than if he had doped.
 

Welton Toffee said:
Probably the most tested athlete for drugs ever. Never failed one. He was clean and the sooner these pen pushing clowns realise this the better. My all time sporting hero.

VIVE LANCE
Click to expand...

Just because he never failed a drugs test, does not mean he was clean.

Not having a go at Lance, but in elite sports, drugs are used to enhance performance ( be it legal or illegal ) there are a lot of substances available which can't be tested for.

I'd stop testing altogether and say " It's all fair game, use what you want " at least then, everyone would be singing from the same hymn sheet.
 
Moomin said:
Just because he never failed a drugs test, does not mean he was clean.

Not having a go at Lance, but in elite sports, drugs are used to enhance performance ( be it legal or illegal ) there are a lot of substances available which can't be tested for.

I'd stop testing altogether and say " It's all fair game, use what you want " at least then, everyone would be singing from the same hymn sheet.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert but I don't think it's as simple as that. With EPO for instance I don't think it's a case of the more you take the better you get. Some bodies seem to respond better to it than others, so you can get people like Riis who made a big jump up in performance after taking it, whereas others may not see much improvement at all because their haematocrit levels are naturally high.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
I'm no expert but I don't think it's as simple as that. With EPO for instance I don't think it's a case of the more you take the better you get. Some bodies seem to respond better to it than others, so you can get people like Riis who made a big jump up in performance after taking it, whereas others may not see much improvement at all because their haematocrit levels are naturally high.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, our bodies are unique and will differ person to person upon which substance they take.

But, i feel with no testing ( all drugs fair game ) that it would be a fairer system. I feel for the clean guys in sport, the ones who don't take illegal drugs at all, competing against drug fuelled competitors. Especially in sports like MMA, if they time the clearance times to perfection you could have average Joe Bloggs versus a souped up Joe Bloggs on Steroids and TRT. Both would pass the tests, but its not fair.

It's a big problem in sport, and it will not go away.
 
Yes, that's right, and I think cycling takes it a lot more seriously than other sports. Fairly sure for instance that it's a lot more common in football than we're led to believe. I mean Dravids and Stam aren't thought of as dopers, yet both were caught taking nandrolone. Are we to believe they're exceptions? Given the physical demands on players now I'd be amazed.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top