Lance Armstrong is a dope

[SteelBlue]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/sp...pagewanted=all

The name that seals the deal is Hincapie. That was game over.

[RC Vikings]

"I think I saw it a couple times," Hamilton replied.

When someone starts out "I think" doesn't that mean they don't know or aren't sure. Hamilton broke my heart because I always thought he was clean. Never believe a liar.

[Surfah]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/sp...pagewanted=all

The name that seals the deal is Hincapie. That was game over.

I bet he'd pull a Pettitte for LA.

[pelagius]

When someone starts out "I think" doesn't that mean they don't know or aren't sure.

Not in context. A few sentence earlier he makes it clear he saw Armstrong inject EPO. In the follow up he says he thinks he saw it a couple of times. That seems like uncertainty about the number not uncertainty about whether he ever saw it. Lots of people discount Hamilton's testimony, but I don't think you can discount that he claims to he have seen Armstrong inject.

[LiveCoug]

Not in context. A few sentence earlier he makes it clear he saw Armstrong inject EPO. In the follow up he says he thinks he saw it a couple of times. That seems like uncertainty about the number not uncertainty about whether he ever saw it. Lots of people discount Hamilton's testimony, but I don't think you can discount that he claims to he have seen Armstrong inject.

Am I reading it wrong, or didn't he say he saw LA dope many, many times right before saying a couple times?

[Eddie]

Yeah. I like the transition from "More than one time" to "many many times" to "I think twice".

So...um...which was it?

[pelagius]

Am I reading it wrong, or didn't he say he saw LA dope many, many times right before saying a couple times?

Yes, I think you are reading it wrong. The many, many times refers to Hamilton (or the group collectively) injecting EPO not to Armstrong specifically.

[old_gregg]

Yes, I think you are reading it wrong. The many, many times refers to Hamilton (or the group collectively) injecting EPO not to Armstrong specifically.

i don't know about that. this makes more sense, given the question:

"You saw Lance Armstrong inject EPO?" Pelley asked.

"Yeah, like we all [saw him inject], like I did many, many times," Hamilton said.

"You saw it more than once?" Pelley asked.

"I think I saw it a couple times," Hamilton replied.

[creekster]

Thanks for that commentary. I'm torn over LA because I think he came to pretty much the same conclusion that Bonds did; both looked around and saw others excelling and getting rewarded for it by cheating. So they partook.

A work colleague in France, as well as many, many others, concluded that they were all cheating, so LA's achievements should be viewed through that lens; he was the best among a group of cheaters. I can understand that, and as result, 7 wins still seems pretty extraordinary (except I guess when you consider that some of his best competition was getting caught and not eligible while he got those wins). That's why I still love what Landis did on Stage 17 and it is hard for me not to remember it with fondness--what a ride and perhaps my best TDF memory. But still, they cheated.

I know I've said this before, but what really sets it apart for me is how aggressively and vindictively LA went about using his position in USA cycling circles to squash all opposition and intimidate everyone that could threaten him. I guess he felt he had to protect the franchise.

I am not sure this conclusion stands to scrutiny. The range of possible doping methods is broad. It is unlikely that all of the cheaters were cheating the same way or with similar effectiveness. Many would have been limited by resources and access, among other things. Moreover, its not like a bike, where everyone can see some new innovation. It is done is secret, without discussion, under no scrutiny, and without consideration by the sports' governing bodies. IOW, the field isn't level for the cheaters. It is very uneven among them.

Your Landis example illustrates this point. What Landis did that day was PHENOMENAL. and it turns out he was amped up with testosterone. LA has not been accused of using testosterone. Landis cheating is very different from LA's cheating and both of them are different than Contador's cheating.

[creekster]

What does that matter? People get exonerated from blood that is decades old.

This very issue will define lance Armstrong and his legacy. If he really were innocent, he wouldn't give up the fight. He loses everything by not clearing his name.

Lances teammates have indicated he is a cheat, his otherworldly accomplishments are so far out of the realm of ordinary that it raises eyebrows, and beating a doping test in a sport that is filled to the brim with dopers evading tests hardly exonerates him. They nailed him to the wall and he finally can't fight it anymore. Adios, cheater. Lance is a fraud. He beat cancer and for that he can be proud and grateful, but his persona is a lie.

"what am I on? I'm on my bike....oh, and I'm also oxygenating my blood to enhance my performance."

Nailed him to the wall? Thats sort of funny. The summary of the evidence is this:

1. Results from two years of testing that are 'fully consistent with" EPO use. As I posted elsewhere, this likely means that his hematocrit levels were suspiciously even and close to but not over the line. I have read a couple of articles by one of the guys who created the hematocrit testing protocol and he makes a pretty persuasive case that such results are, in fact, indicative of doping. But the thing is the results do not prove doping. They don't even qualify as a violation. they are just "consistent with" such practices based on a series of assumptions.

2. Testimony from team members and perhaps others who claim to have been aware of his use of drugs. It is on the basis of this testimony, which has not been made officially public, that he is being stripped of his titles. It would not work in a court of law. It would likely not work in CAS and probably not elsewhere or in front of the UCI. it works in front of USADA because USADA says it is good enough. Seriously, it is almost that simple.

None of this means he DIDN'T dope, of course, but it is a far cry from saying he was 'nailed to the wall.'

Btw, how's the search for my posts going? I am good to my word; if I need to apologize I will.

[creekster]

I believe UCI has already asked USADA for their evidence.

They asked and USADA refused toi give it to them, last I heard.

[pelagius]

LA has not been accused of using testosterone.

The the letter from USADA to Armstrong accuses him of use and/or attempted use of EPO , blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids, and masking agents. So they were accusing him of test this time.

See here for the whole letter: http://timewellness.files.wordpress....arging0613.pdf

[TripletDaddy]

Nailed him to the wall? Thats sort of funny. The summary of the evidence is this:

1. Results from two years of testing that are 'fully consistent with" EPO use. As I posted elsewhere, this likely means that his hematocrit levels were suspiciously even and close to but not over the line. I have read a couple of articles by one of the guys who created the hematocrit testing protocol and he makes a pretty persuasive case that such results are, in fact, indicative of doping. But the thing is the results do not prove doping. They don't even qualify as a violation. they are just "consistent with" such practices based on a series of assumptions.

2. Testimony from team members and perhaps others who claim to have been aware of his use of drugs. It is on the basis of this testimony, which has not been made officially public, that he is being stripped of his titles. It would not work in a court of law. It would likely not work in CAS and probably not elsewhere or in front of the UCI. it works in front of USADA because USADA says it is good enough. Seriously, it is almost that simple.

None of this means he DIDN'T dope, of course, but it is a far cry from saying he was 'nailed to the wall.'

Btw, how's the search for my posts going? I am good to my word; if I need to apologize I will.

He was banned for life and stripped of all his titles today. Odd time to be arguing that he wasn't nailed to the wall.

If he were innocent, he would continue to fight the charges. If you want to continue to defend him, of course that is your prerogative. It is going to take a lot of energy and effort, so you might want to start doping up in preparation for the long uphill climb.

[pelagius]

I am not sure this conclusion stands to scrutiny. The range of possible doping methods is broad. It is unlikely that all of the cheaters were cheating the same way or with similar effectiveness. Many would have been limited by resources and access, among other things. Moreover, its not like a bike, where everyone can see some new innovation. It is done is secret, without discussion, under no scrutiny, and without consideration by the sports' governing bodies. IOW, the field isn't level for the cheaters. It is very uneven among them.

Another issue with PEDs is that there is also significant variance in how people respond to them. This is well known for steroids. Some people are what they call hyper-responders. This is pretty well understood in bodybuilding circles. To be an elite bodybuilder you need have both great genetic structure and great response to steroids. So even if everyone has the same access and took the exact same drugs it wouldn't get you to the same ranking of riders as a non-drug equilibrium.

[Jeff Lebowski]

He was banned for life and stripped of all his titles today. Odd time to be arguing that he wasn't nailed to the wall.

If he were innocent, he would continue to fight the charges. If you want to continue to defend him, of course that is your prerogative. It is going to take a lot of energy and effort, so you might want to start doping up in preparation for the long uphill climb.

From what I have heard on the radio, the USADA has no authority to strip his titles. The group that does has promised to take a look at their evidence and then make a decision.