AP: Armstrong won't challenge doping allegations; loses Tour titles (Lance to confess)

[Corcaigh]

You ignored one MAJOR factor here. There is test evidence that he didn't cheat.

Not quite. He didn't fail a doping test administered under the regulations. But he has had a number of tests with very suspect results, that suggest blood transfusions during the tour, among others.

There are many, many smoking guns is support of the accusations. But Armstrong can still respond with "I passed the tests that were administered".

Some of the case is here:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...arging0613.pdf

[Popeman38]

A valid point and that would have to weigh against the other evidence they were presenting and how strong it was and how well it all corroborated. And Lance would have the chance to go in and contest their evidence and make his case about the evidence of him not doping vs the evidence they had. He decided not to.

And the USADA discounts every single one of his passed tests, only taking into consideration what they deem relevant. They choose what is used and what isn't used. They frame the argument. It is a non-profit organization. The ICU told them to pound sand about stripping the Tour de'France titles as they have no jurisdiction.

[MattFancy]

Really good read about all things Armstrong vs USADA. I'd encourage you to read it: http://deadspin.com/5937611/what-the...tions-answered

[Elessar78]

I could understand this line of thinking more if he hadn't been so aggressive in defending himself over the past decade plus despite the monetary cost. I find the notion that he just suddenly now, on the eve of this particular investigation by a new body, decided that "eh, it's not worth the money anymore" and called it quits a bit dubious. After years of being incredibly aggro about defending himself to the point of lawsuits and borderline bullying? Yeah, a bit out of character.

That's exactly what would drive me to rethink my pursuit. A whole new body investigating means investigating old ground that was more than likely gone over in previous investigations. At that point, I would just say "take the trophies" (as long as I could keep my money of course).

[AsburySkinsFan]

How long should he devote to this fight? 20, 30 years? The rest of his life? It's been 10-15 years already. It's very easy for us to say he should spend all this time and money defending himself because it's not our time or money.

It's also easy to say what you'd do with someone else's money, when we're also looking for any shred of "evidence" to prove the guilt about him that we already believe, and since there is no tangible source of evidence, we then have to infer guilt. Sounds like a great society we live in.

[Elessar78]

Federal investigation? One think I'm sure of is federal investigators don't **** around. If they thought it was a dead end, then there probably wasn't enough to convict. Not innocent, just not enough for a conviction.

---------- Post added August-24th-2012 at 01:42 PM ----------

Is this tax payer funded? If so, then it needs to stop. I love sports as much as the next guy but this is a waste of time and money.

[Popeman38]

Not quite. He didn't fail a doping test administered under the regulations. But he has had a number of tests with very suspect results, that suggest blood transfusions during the tour, among others.

There are many, many smoking guns is support of the accusations. But Armstrong can still respond with "I passed the tests that were administered".

Some of the case is here:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...arging0613.pdf

Incorrect. A lab in France that admitted their testing methods did not meet the scientific standard and that allowed no room for rebuttal because they destroyed the remaining sample, said his blood showed trace evidence of EPA and transfusions. These tests were not authorized by the ICU or the USADA, nor by Armstrong. There was no oversight of the tests. None of the tests would hold up to a challenge because they were not sanctioned testing methods. But other than those points, yeah, he might have some test results that are suspicious.

Come on Corcaigh, you normally side on the sane side.

From the link:

With the exception of Mr Armstrong, every other U.S. rider contacted by USADA regarding doping in cycling agreed to meet with USADA and truthfully and fully describe their involvement with doping and all doping by others which they were aware.

Really? The USADA met with all USPS/Radio Shack riders and they were "truthfully and fully" describing doping? How do you verify that?

[Corcaigh]

Incorrect. A lab in France that admitted their testing methods did not meet the scientific standard and that allowed no room for rebuttal because they destroyed the remaining sample, said his blood showed trace evidence of EPA and transfusions. These tests were not authorized by the ICU or the USADA, nor by Armstrong.

I'm not talking about the French lab. There are multiple blood tests where his hematocrit levels are completely abnormal.

[Popeman38]

I'm not talking about the French lab. There are multiple blood tests where his hematocrit levels are completely abnormal.

Where? Why have these not been used BY ANYONE over the years. Every blood test he has been subjected to passed all recognized standards for doping and transfusions. If they hadn't, SOMEONE would have used that as a positive test and have this done years ago. Every resource available online states that all blood tests have returned within normal ranges.

[Corcaigh]

How do you test for transfusions using your own blood?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...levels-debated

[mattsb84]

Reading this wiki;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_...Tour_de_France sums it up...It's a pretty solid collection of the tours and those who doped. You'll notice a recurring theme amongst the top cyclists. So if you think someone can beat a bunch of dopers cleanly..ok, you're entitled to your opinion. I think he cheated based on the evidence out there. I also don't think athletes who are clean have any possible way of keeping pace with those that dope. Especially in cycling. The advantages are just too great. Nothing against Lance, I think what he did with his exposure is great, so I don't really care too much about this. It certainly isn't surprising. Somehow, not sure what it is, it's kind of sad to see him give up after all this time. It kind of reminds me of the Pete Rose incident. Deny deny deny and then basically throw up your hands and say "Yep, I did it". Just quitting. I guess if you're guilty, it starts to weigh on you more and more. I know if it were me, and I were innocent, I'd keep fighting out of principal. Cost be damned. Reputation is worth more then money at the end of the day for me.

I really wish I still had a link to it (perhaps it was in a magazine), but there was a fantastic article I read a few years back, written about some no-name cyclist in his mid 30s who did a clinical trial with a cocktail of doping agents (under medical supervision). He spelled out his routine, the cost and how it made him basically feel like a 20 year old. It also made HGH sound like a wonder drug.

[Popeman38]

How do you test for transfusions using your own blood?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...levels-debated

Well, your link suggests just that, so not sure why you're asking. Also from your link, the scisntists are very careful to say they have no proof, and that what they are questioning is not evidence that any transfusions took place, just that they find the results suspicious.

---------- Post added August-24th-2012 at 02:30 PM ----------

Reading this wiki;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_...Tour_de_France sums it up...It's a pretty solid collection of the tours and those who doped. You'll notice a recurring theme amongst the top cyclists. So if you think someone can beat a bunch of dopers cleanly..ok, you're entitled to your opinion. I think he cheated based on the evidence out there. I also don't think athletes who are clean have any possible way of keeping pace with those that dope. Especially in cycling. The advantages are just too great. Nothing against Lance, I think what he did with his exposure is great, so I don't really care too much about this. It certainly isn't surprising. Somehow, not sure what it is, it's kind of sad to see him give up after all this time. It kind of reminds me of the Pete Rose incident. Deny deny deny and then basically throw up your hands and say "Yep, I did it". Just quitting. I guess if you're guilty, it starts to weigh on you more and more. I know if it were me, and I were innocent, I'd keep fighting out of principal. Cost be damned. Reputation is worth more then money at the end of the day for me.

I really wish I still had a link to it (perhaps it was in a magazine), but there was a fantastic article I read a few years back, written about some no-name cyclist in his mid 30s who did a clinical trial with a cocktail of doping agents (under medical supervision). He spelled out his routine, the cost and how it made him basically feel like a 20 year old. It also made HGH sound like a wonder drug.

This theme keeps getting repeated. It is nice in theory, but if your faced with losing everything you have ever earned, or losing titles, most people would choose losing titles in reality. If he fought this tooth and nail until he was broke, the USADA would just keep milking the govt teet and take away his titles after he was either broke or dead.

[Elessar78]

Someone already covered this but, 2nd place finishers to Armstrong: Alex Zuelle, Joseba Beloki, Andrea Kloden, Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso all at some point had doping allegations or admissions in their career. Add to that Tyler Hamilton and the other $@%!$@. So how come other guys have not had clean tests in the same eras for EPO but not Armstrong?

[Corcaigh]

Well, your link suggests just that, so not sure why you're asking. Also from your link, the scisntists are very careful to say they have no proof, and that what they are questioning is not evidence that any transfusions took place, just that they find the results suspicious.

That's my point. That's all they can say as there are no definitive tests. And Armstrong has been very aggressive legally, suing those who crossed him.

All we have are smoking guns. And other anomalies, and eyewitness testimony, and discarded medical waste, and a long association with medical staff who are cheaters.

And another area of suspicion that plays into this is that the governing bodies of many sports organizations are corrupt and heavily under the influence of the superstars of their sport. WADA and USADA fight this all the time. Carl Lewis is alleged to have had three test failures at the '88 Olympic Trials, but USATF as the governing body did not pursue. Independent national doping agencies such as USADA were set up on the requirement of the IOC because of this.

[MattFancy]

Someone already covered this but, 2nd place finishers to Armstrong: Alex Zuelle, Joseba Beloki, Andrea Kloden, Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso all at some point had doping allegations or admissions in their career. Add to that Tyler Hamilton and the other $@%!$@. So how come other guys have not had clean tests in the same eras for EPO but not Armstrong?

That's a good point. How come tons of others tested positive but not Lance?