Jump to content

Lance Armstrong: Guilty?

legend11

By legend11,
in College and Pro Sports

 Share

Recommended Posts

 
 

Deleted Account    5,203

Deleted Account
Posted

 

In cycling, if you aren't doping, you aren't trying. I've met people who've spent thousands on doping to win CHARITY races. It's that pervasive in the culture.

 

EVERYONE does it in that sport. EVERYONE. That includes Lance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 

Hacker    82

Hacker
Posted
In cycling, if you aren't doping, you aren't trying. I've met people who've spent thousands on doping to win CHARITY races. It's that pervasive in the culture.

 

EVERYONE does it in that sport. EVERYONE. That includes Lance.

 

True that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 

legend11    32

legend11
  • Author
Posted
In cycling, if you aren't doping, you aren't trying. I've met people who've spent thousands on doping to win CHARITY races. It's that pervasive in the culture.

 

EVERYONE does it in that sport. EVERYONE. That includes Lance.

The four most important words about Lance?

 

HE. NEVER. TESTED. POSITIVE.

 

Once a conclusive test comes out, then I'll believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 

Deleted Account    5,203

Deleted Account
Posted
The four most important words about Lance?

 

HE. NEVER. TESTED. POSITIVE.

 

Once a conclusive test comes out, then I'll believe it.

 

Except that he did.

 

1999. But it was thrown out for "lacking scientific method".

Which is code for "somebody got a nice kickback for breaking the chain of custody".

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2005-08-24-armstrong-samples-details_x.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 
 
 

legend11    32

legend11
  • Author
Posted
Except that he did.

 

1999. But it was thrown out for "lacking scientific method".

Which is code for "somebody got a nice kickback for breaking the chain of custody".

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2005-08-24-armstrong-samples-details_x.htm

Code? How can we argue on the basis of "code"? We can make up literally anything, argue that it's "code," and use it against someone.

 

What we KNOW is that there was shoddy science used to get the positive results in the first place, and that those results were confounded by a lack of sound methods. When it comes out that the methods were bad, then the results must be thrown out. That goes for any type of scientific research, whether it's an undergrad in Psychology 101 or a governing body trying to rid a sport of PEDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 
 

Deleted Account    5,203

Deleted Account
Posted (edited)
Code? How can we argue on the basis of "code"? We can make up literally anything, argue that it's "code," and use it against someone.

 

What we KNOW is that there was shoddy science used to get the positive results in the first place, and that those results were confounded by a lack of sound methods. When it comes out that the methods were bad, then the results must be thrown out. That goes for any type of scientific research, whether it's an undergrad in Psychology 101 or a governing body trying to rid a sport of PEDs.

 

There's one meaningful distinction here. There were a whopping 2 samples to test. 2 in the whole known universe as they pertain to Lance Armstrong.

 

If you're taking samples of core ice in Antarctica and the sample becomes corrupted, you go back out into the field and drill another core. If you're examining fin rot in a fish population and your sample becomes corrupted, you find another fish in the same population with suspected fin rot and test. With Armstrong, when (not if) someone is paid bribe money to tamper with a sample, that's it. There are no more samples. You cannot repeat the test, which I hear is a big deal in science.

 

Oh, one tiny, insignificant detail that oft gets overlooked: the fact that this focuses on Armstrong's B sample necessarily concludes that his A sample tested positive for a banned substance. You don't get to the B sample if the A is clean. BOTH samples tested positive, only the result doesn't count because the "sample of truth" got thrown out on a technicality. Excuse me for being skeptical.

 

Life isn't CSI, where there's always a smoking gun to link someone to a crime. Ignoring a mountain of circumstantial evidence to the contrary (and I might be understating that) for the sake of holding up the "HE DIDN'T TEST POSITIVE" banner is more than a bit myopic.

Edited by UVAObserver
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
 
 

legend11    32

legend11
  • Author
Posted
There's one meaningful distinction here. There were a whopping 2 samples to test. 2 in the whole known universe as they pertain to Lance Armstrong.

 

If you're taking samples of core ice in Antarctica and the sample becomes corrupted, you go back out into the field and drill another core. If you're examining fin rot in a fish population and your sample becomes corrupted, you find another fish in the same population with suspected fin rot and test. With Armstrong, when (not if) someone is paid bribe money to tamper with a sample, that's it. There are no more samples. You cannot repeat the test, which I hear is a big deal in science.

 

Oh, one tiny, insignificant detail that oft gets overlooked: the fact that this focuses on Armstrong's B sample necessarily concludes that his A sample tested positive for a banned substance. You don't get to the B sample if the A is clean. BOTH samples tested positive, only the result doesn't count because the "sample of truth" got thrown out on a technicality. Excuse me for being skeptical.

 

Life isn't CSI, where there's always a smoking gun to link someone to a crime. Ignoring a mountain of circumstantial evidence to the contrary (and I might be understating that) for the sake of holding up the "HE DIDN'T TEST POSITIVE" banner is more than a bit myopic.

 

If the method of testing caused the results to get thrown out, it's far more than a technicality. Being that there is a fundamental flaw in the way the testing was conducted, we have to conclude that the test results cannot be trusted. With that said, is there any evidence of Armstrong or others tampering with his sample? Because if there was, then he'd be in more trouble than just doping. And if not, that's a harsh allegation to hold against someone.

 

Also, if those happen to be the only samples, then so be it. The people testing should have been more careful.

 

In regards to the sample size though, didn't he get randomly tested hundreds of times? Where is the urine and blood from those tests, and can anti-doping agency get their hands on those results?

 

If we make a judgement on circumstantial evidence, I think it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. Circumstances say that he was better than a lot of cheaters; does it necessarily follow that he was also a cheater? No, it does not. It may be highly likely, but it doesn't necessarily follow.

 

The reason for drug testing is to have objective, conclusive information about the athlete's body chemistry. If we disregard these tests, then it's a subjective decision whether or not we think someone is performing a certain way. Talk about confounding a decision; any sort of bias can present itself when we're speaking and deciding things on a subjective basis. That's why "HE NEVER TESTED POSITIVE!" is so important. It passes the only objective measure we have to see if he cheated or not. And until there is a smoking gun, I think it would be prudent to respect that Armstrong is telling the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 

Deleted Account    5,203

Deleted Account
Posted
If the method of testing caused the results to get thrown out, it's far more than a technicality. Being that there is a fundamental flaw in the way the testing was conducted, we have to conclude that the test results cannot be trusted. With that said, is there any evidence of Armstrong or others tampering with his sample? Because if there was, then he'd be in more trouble than just doping. And if not, that's a harsh allegation to hold against someone.

 

Also, if those happen to be the only samples, then so be it. The people testing should have been more careful.

 

In regards to the sample size though, didn't he get randomly tested hundreds of times? Where is the urine and blood from those tests, and can anti-doping agency get their hands on those results?

 

If we make a judgement on circumstantial evidence, I think it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. Circumstances say that he was better than a lot of cheaters; does it necessarily follow that he was also a cheater? No, it does not. It may be highly likely, but it doesn't necessarily follow.

 

The reason for drug testing is to have objective, conclusive information about the athlete's body chemistry. If we disregard these tests, then it's a subjective decision whether or not we think someone is performing a certain way. Talk about confounding a decision; any sort of bias can present itself when we're speaking and deciding things on a subjective basis. That's why "HE NEVER TESTED POSITIVE!" is so important. It passes the only objective measure we have to see if he cheated or not. And until there is a smoking gun, I think it would be prudent to respect that Armstrong is telling the truth.

 

To answer the many points you've made here:

 

1. Yes, in fact, Armstrong has a history of strong-arming and intimidating people who have claims that affect his credibility. Many of those involve blood doping, too. I implore you to read about the Lance Armstrong-Greg LeMond feud. Armstrong's done everything to LeMond from making veiled threats referencing sexual assault against LeMond in his childhood, to sabotaging contractual relations with LeMond's sponsors. Yes, it's a serious allegation I've made against Armstrong, but Armstrong is certainly not above conniving to get his way.

 

2. "Random" testing in the world of sports is a colossal joke. It's not as if some guy dressed in a suit from MLB comes to your door one day and commands you to immediately take a leak in the Solo cup. Athlete's have PLENTY of advance notice about "random" tests. At least a week by normal protocol, or if you have contacts in the underground, as many as 6 months in advance. And that's aside from slipping the test administrator a Benjamin while an athlete "gets something from his locker real quick".

 

3. I go back to my previous statement: in life, most often all you have are piles and piles of circumstantial evidence. Imagine the chaos there'd be if the legal system couldn't rely on circumstantial evidence to convict! We sentence people to death based upon circumstantial evidence, but we can't hold Armstrong responsible for his misdeeds based upon it? Let me list some here for Armstrong:

 

A. One of Armstrong's doctors is Italian Michele Ferrari, a NOTORIOUS supplier of EPO.

B. Astana's team founder, Armstrong's team in the 2009 TDF, has been banned for life for enabling doping.

C. Fabian Cancellara, 2009 Tour winner and Armstrong teammate, has been banned for doping.

D. Floyd Landis's testimony.

E. Greg LeMond's testimony.

F. A list of confirmed blood dopers in cycling that is so long that I exceed the posting limit for this website by posting it here, which shows the pervasiveness of doping in cycling.

 

And for the coup-de-grace:

G. http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-armstrong-cycling-usada-20120824,0,2152391.story?track=rss

 

"USADA claimed “the evidence against Armstrong arose from disclosures made to USADA by more than a dozen witnesses who agreed to testify and provide evidence about their first-hand experience and/or knowledge of the doping activity of those involved in,” the U.S. Postal Service team “conspiracy, as well as analytical data.”"

 

But hey. We have no objective proof that O.J. Simpson killed his wife. Definitely innocent, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 
 
 

legend11    32

legend11
  • Author
Posted

 

3. I go back to my previous statement: in life, most often all you have are piles and piles of circumstantial evidence. Imagine the chaos there'd be if the legal system couldn't rely on circumstantial evidence to convict! We sentence people to death based upon circumstantial evidence, but we can't hold Armstrong responsible for his misdeeds based upon it? Let me list some here for Armstrong:

 

A. One of Armstrong's doctors is Italian Michele Ferrari, a NOTORIOUS supplier of EPO.

B. Astana's team founder, Armstrong's team in the 2009 TDF, has been banned for life for enabling doping.

C. Fabian Cancellara, 2009 Tour winner and Armstrong teammate, has been banned for doping.

D. Floyd Landis's testimony.

E. Greg LeMond's testimony.

F. A list of confirmed blood dopers in cycling that is so long that I exceed the posting limit for this website by posting it here, which shows the pervasiveness of doping in cycling.

 

I think D and E are the only important factors here. Landis would have testified saying that not only did Armstrong dope, but he taught some of his teammates how to dope as well, gave them drugs, told them about blood transfusions, etc.

 

A, B, C and F points toward a dirty sport and not necessarily a dirty individual.

 

I think this is the most important quote from the USADA coming from the article you linked: “Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.â€

 

What I'm still confused about is why the USADA is putting out statements like the one above, making it sound like these data against Armstrong are well known and public. What did these scientific data show? Have they released those results? Surely this statement isn't in regarding the botched tests, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 

Deleted Account    5,203

Deleted Account
Posted
I think D and E are the only important factors here. Landis would have testified saying that not only did Armstrong dope, but he taught some of his teammates how to dope as well, gave them drugs, told them about blood transfusions, etc.

 

A, B, C and F points toward a dirty sport and not necessarily a dirty individual.

 

Major League Baseball is a dirty sport. Cycling is an epidemic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

 

When you build a case for or against a position, it's a piece-by-piece framework. Just as an architect doesn't build a house out of 1 piece of wood, neither is a case that simple. The "cycling as dirty sport" is one piece of the case, one brick which shows that Armstrong (1) had the connections, (2) had the opportunity, and (3) had the pressure to compete with everyone else that was doing it.

 

When combined with all the evidence, it is too farfetched to be a reasonable doubt that "Armstrong didn't dope". At least, in my mind.

 

I think this is the most important quote from the USADA coming from the article you linked: “Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.”

 

What I'm still confused about is why the USADA is putting out statements like the one above, making it sound like these data against Armstrong are well known and public. What did these scientific data show? Have they released those results? Surely this statement isn't in regarding the botched tests, right?

 

You bring up a good point here, and it's one I didn't ponder on my first couple of readings. Apparently, the USADA has the evidence. The sports media, while enamored with Armstrong to a degree that merits several dirty euphemisms, would at least have reported it were this information known.

 

It couldn't be about the botched tests, either: those were years removed from the 2009 comeback attempt. I believe the USADA is showing just one of the cards in their hand. For Armstrong not to fight it says a lot to me. As I said above, he's been a junkyard dog to anyone who's questioned him before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 

VHSLhelper    571

VHSLhelper
Posted

I always thought the "Golden Rule" of racin' was....

"It ain't cheatin' if you don;t get caught".

Or is that only in NASCAR?????

I'm pretty sure, in a career of a dozen years or so (don't rem. how long the break was), Lance had more than 2 samples taken and tested.

USADA SHOULD have given him immunity to tell them what was wrong with their testing. Instead, they're ticked they couldn't figure it out and decided to punish him with ZERO REAL proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...