Lance Armstrong cheated per ex teammate

[creekster]

So Hamilton says he saw Armstrong use EPO before the 99 tour, his first win. Andreu's says that Armstrong admitted to it before he was even sick. I'm curious when Hincapie says it occurred.

Armstrong went through seven tours with everybody trying to catch him cheating and he never tested positive. I'm not sure how you beat the best while they are cheating and you're not but how did he go all those years and not get caught. If I'm him I'm sticking by his story.

Testosterone was probably only used out of competition for building and recovery. EPO wasn't tested for in the first few years of his tour victories. In fact, even now most of the tests are only indirect. Later they started testing hematocrit levels and arbitrarily decided that your level could not exceed 50% (or some percentage) and if it did you were considered positive unless you could prove that your natural level was 50% or higher (which would be like having blood that had the viscosity of 10-40 motor oil). It was a pretty simple matter to avoid that positive even when they started testing because you would lay down some protocols for a base line in the off season and then make sure you didn't exceed them.

This was the controversy involving LA's 1999 samples; the French wanted to re-test them using the new protocols and LA objected. Some of them were tested and DID show evidence of EPO use, per the French newspaper L'Equipe, but the chain of custody was suspect as they were supposedly labeled with random Numbers that were not supposed to be tied to any athlete. (This is all from memory, and I could be off a little, but I think I am generally correct.)

Once they were able to test for EPO (still indirectly, as I understand it) the peloton emphasized use of autologous transfusions. Which they then developed tests for by lokoing for the chemicals that are found in the bags used to preserve the blood while it outside of your body. Hincapie supposedly said that LA used autologous transfusions. In that time frame, it was unlikely he would have seen a positive test becasue there simply were no tests. (remember the finnish cross country skiers in the SLC Olympics? They got caught using transfusions becasue the used blood from other people; here we are talking abotu using your own blood.)

All of the Tour winners starting with Indurain until LA were caught using or almost certainly used EPO or steroids. All of the Tour winners afterward haven been suspected of or caught using. All of LA's main rivals have been implicated, admitted use, or been caught using. It almost defies reason to hope LA didn't use. But who knows for sure? The thing is, LA was always talented and he always worked hard so it wouldn't take much to make a guy like that dominant.

[ERCougar]

Testosterone was probably only used out of competition for building and recovery. EPO wasn't tested for in the first few years of his tour victories. In fact, even now most of the tests are only indirect. Later they started testing hematocrit levels and arbitrarily decided that your level could not exceed 50% (or some percentage) and if it did you were considered positive unless you could prove that your natural level was 50% or higher (which would be like having blood that had the viscosity of 10-40 motor oil). It was a pretty simple matter to avoid that positive even when they started testing because you would lay down some protocols for a base line in the off season and then make sure you didn't exceed them.

This was the controversy involving LA's 1999 samples; the French wanted to re-test them using the new protocols and LA objected. Some of them were tested and DID show evidence of EPO use, per the French newspaper L'Equipe, but the chain of custody was suspect as they were supposedly labeled with random Numbers that were not supposed to be tied to any athlete. (This is all from memory, and I could be off a little, but I think I am generally correct.)

Once they were able to test for EPO (still indirectly, as I understand it) the peloton emphasized use of autologous transfusions. Which they then developed tests for by lokoing for the chemicals that are found in the bags used to preserve the blood while it outside of your body. Hincapie supposedly said that LA used autologous transfusions. In that time frame, it was unlikely he would have seen a positive test becasue there simply were no tests. (remember the finnish cross country skiers in the SLC Olympics? They got caught using transfusions becasue the used blood from other people; here we are talking abotu using your own blood.)

All of the Tour winners starting with Indurain until LA were caught using or almost certainly used EPO or steroids. All of the Tour winners afterward haven been suspected of or caught using. All of LA's main rivals have been implicated, admitted use, or been caught using. It almost defies reason to hope LA didn't use. But who knows for sure? The thing is, LA was always talented and he always worked hard so it wouldn't take much to make a guy like that dominant.

I don't know nearly as much about cycling or this whole story as you do, but from the beginning, I've thought that Lance's cancer has muddied the water with regards to drug testing, which must have made it much more difficult to catch him. Lance had a medical reason to use EPO following chemo, and thus, had the opportunity to become really familiar with it and make and maintain contacts with people who were very knowledgeable about its use. I'm surprised that people don't talk at all about this--maybe it's not as big of a deal as I would think.

Secondly, testing by hematocrit is ridiculous. I remember reading the same thing you say, only it seems like the cutoff was closer to 60. There might be a few people walking around with a 60, but everyone of them would be either severely dehydrated or diagnosed with a blood disorder. There is no way that an entire class of athletes would have hematocrits in the range I saw reported without cheating, and every doctor knows it (but can't prove it, and I bet there's some single counterexample out there being waved around as evidence that you can't lower the cutoff).

[creekster]

I don't know nearly as much about cycling or this whole story as you do, but from the beginning, I've thought that Lance's cancer has muddied the water with regards to drug testing, which must have made it much more difficult to catch him. Lance had a medical reason to use EPO following chemo, and thus, had the opportunity to become really familiar with it and make and maintain contacts with people who were very knowledgeable about its use. I'm surprised that people don't talk at all about this--maybe it's not as big of a deal as I would think.

This is discussed. The French harped on this when he won his first tour.

Secondly, testing by hematocrit is ridiculous. I remember reading the same thing you say, only it seems like the cutoff was closer to 60. There might be a few people walking around with a 60, but everyone of them would be either severely dehydrated or diagnosed with a blood disorder. There is no way that an entire class of athletes would have hematocrits in the range I saw reported without cheating, and every doctor knows it (but can't prove it, and I bet there's some single counterexample out there being waved around as evidence that you can't lower the cutoff).

I think the level was lower for the cyclists. I am pretty sure it was 50 absent evidence of a naturally occurring level that was higher. The pattern you describe is one of the things that led to the passport approach now being used where they develop a blood chemistry profile over time of each athlete and they are tested not only against objective standards but also against their own personal biology. If their hematocrit level is bouncing around 30-35 out of competition and then it suddenly shoots up to 49 and stays there throughout a grand tour, it is sufficient grounds for a positive (within certain protocols, but you get the idea). But it is still hard to prove, as you point out.

The irony is that we in CA are enjoying watching the Tour de CA and you know who sponsors it? Amgen. Amgen's signature product? Synthetic EPO. Go figure.

[ERCougar]

I think the level was lower for the cyclists. I am pretty sure it was 50 absent evidence of a naturally occurring level that was higher. The pattern you describe is one of the things that led to the passport approach now being used where they develop a blood chemistry profile over time of each athlete and they are tested not only against objective standards but also against their own personal biology. If their hematocrit level is bouncing around 30-35 out of competition and then it suddenly shoots up to 49 and stays there throughout a grand tour, it is sufficient grounds for a positive (within certain protocols, but you get the idea). But it is still hard to prove, as you point out.

The irony is that we in CA are enjoying watching the Tour de CA and you know who sponsors it? Amgen. Amgen's signature product? Synthetic EPO. Go figure.

Ha...that is funny.

Looks like you're right about 50 being the cutoff. That's reasonable, I guess, although still pretty high. I live at altitude and am in decent shape and not even close (nor do I really see anyone who's not either a smoker, has a blood disorder, or severely dehydrated who is close), although I suppose it's not completely out of the question. I think I first read about these cutoffs during the winter Olympics with cross country skiers and remember being surprised at how many were pushing the limit.

[TripletDaddy]

Floyd Landis: vindicated.

Turns out he really was Jose Canseco.

For cycling enthusiasts, do you want Lance to be punished and stripped of all his titles? Fndamentally, what is the difference between what he did and what Landis did? Wasn't it the same thing?

I'm not a cyclist obviously but I have to think that those that love the sport are torn....Lance brought cycling to an entirely different level, making it appealing to the everyday man and raising awareness to unprecedented levels, much like Tiger did with golf. On the other hand, Lance basically is a liar and a cheat and has also reinforced that already pervasive stereotype that cycling is possibly the most doped sport around.

I'm thinking of the greatest sporting achievements that I can remember since high school....the ones that were amazing, record breaking type deals, and pretty much every single one of them turned out to be a huge lie. Ben Johnson at the Olympics, Marion Jones winning all those medals, The summer of Big Mac vs Slammin Sammy, Bonds beating the Babe, Gagne's unbelievable saves streak, Lance winning 7 straight tours....all of them historic, unprecedented record breaking achievements. And all of them bogus. I guess there is a reason most of these records have stood for so long and why, generally, when a record is broken, it isn't obliterated into a million pieces.

Before anyone asks, yes, I think Michael Phelps probably cheated, too. What he did has only been done once before and cheating/doping is simply a part of life in today's athletic world. I hope he didn't, but it seems like everyone is a cheater now.

I'm puzzled a bit by hincapie...

''It's just unfortunate that that's all people want to talk about now,'' he said. ''I'm not going to partake in any cycling-bashing. I have done everything to be the best I can be.... I want the focus on the future of the sport, what it's done to clean itself up. I believe in cycling and want to support it.''

First, of course this is all everyone wants to talk about, dope (no pun intended). We are talking about 7 straight tour wins. And secondly, what exactly has cycling done to clean itself up? These guys are talking about a mass conspiracy that only recently too place. When was the last time a year went by without a cycling drug scandal?

[SteelBlue]

Somewhere Greg Lemond is smiling just a little. He's looking a lot less crazy now.

[Surfah]

Everyone was doping so in my mind it was a level playing field. Lance is still king.

[Coach McGuirk]

:rockon2:

The roll eyes wasn't about LA and PEDs. It was for you being concerned about something you have no concern for.

[TripletDaddy]

The roll eyes wasn't about LA and PEDs. It was for you being concerned about something you have no concern for.

I definitely am interested. It is on the home page of every major sports site today. It is a really important news development and one of the most compelling sports storyline of our lifetime. Lance was a big story and had massive crossover appeal. Everyone tuned in to watch him ride into Paris every year. And to compound it, he has spent years denying it.

Were you totally uninterested when Marion Jones admitted to cheating to win all those medals? I suppose the answer is yes because I've never heard you claim to run track, so why would you be interested in that story?

Why would it not concern you and not me? I don't get it.

[Donuthole]

Everyone was doping so in my mind it was a level playing field. Lance is still king.

You feel the same way about Bonds, i presume?

[myboynoah]

Anyone who has followed this story should not be surprised. LA cheated. Worse yet, he went about to destroy the professional lives of those who told the truth about him. He was ruthless.

While a great athlete despite his cheating, I have little respect for him as a person.

[EuropeanFootballMale]

It's weird how much this depresses me.

[Surfah]

You feel the same way about Bonds, i presume?

Pretty much actually. Bonds still had to put the bat on the ball.

[Viking]

They all likely cheated. Lance was still the best among the pharmaceutically enhanced cyclists.

Long live Lance.

[Katy Lied]

Anyone who has followed this story should not be surprised. LA cheated. Worse yet, he went about to destroy the professional lives of those who told the truth about him. He was ruthless.

While a great athlete despite his cheating, I have little respect for him as a person.

I forget. Which of the competitors who accused LA were clean themselves?