Only Thing "Scientifically Proven" About Lance Armstrong...

[Bill Murphy]

..is that French men are as bad at the Tour de France as English men are at Wimbledon.

I'm not a big Lance fan, but six year old pee whining is pretty weak, even for the French.

[The Armchair]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not a big Lance fan, but six year old pee whining is pretty weak, even for the French.

[/ QUOTE ]

[McGahee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not a big Lance fan, but six year old pee whining is pretty weak, even for the French.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[PTjvs]

Meh, this is the biggest sporting event in France. Imagine if, for instance, in the heydey of Boxing in the US, when it really was a big deal, if Pierre St. Louis came in and dominated all of the greatest American boxers, under a cloud of suspicion that he was cheating the entire time. You don't think the media here would have an absolute field day about something like this?

I'm to the point now where I'm more likely to believe that everyone who dominates their sport these days is on steroids of some sort, given how many track & field athletes have been caught, SO many of the big baseball stars under a cloud, and NFL players for who were subscribed steroids by some quack in NC & apparently never caught, despite the NFL having a reputable drug testing policy. How in the world can we NOT think Lance was blood doping?

jvs

[Voltron87]

your point about what would happen if a frenchman came to a us sport and dominated for 7 years is a good one.

[ QUOTE ]
How in the world can we NOT think Lance was blood doping?

[/ QUOTE ]

but this, this is stupid. maybe because he's been tested almost non stop for the last 7 years? because he's had an entire national media on his back for the better part of a decade and they barely have scraps on him?

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
your point about what would happen if a frenchman came to a us sport and dominated for 7 years is a good one.

[ QUOTE ]
How in the world can we NOT think Lance was blood doping?

[/ QUOTE ]

but this, this is stupid. maybe because he's been tested almost non stop for the last 7 years? because he's had an entire national media on his back for the better part of a decade and they barely have scraps on him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention that the company that owns the lab that did the test also owns the paper in which these alegations were published. That's a bit of a conflict of interest.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your point about what would happen if a frenchman came to a us sport and dominated for 7 years is a good one.

[ QUOTE ]
How in the world can we NOT think Lance was blood doping?

[/ QUOTE ]

but this, this is stupid. maybe because he's been tested almost non stop for the last 7 years? because he's had an entire national media on his back for the better part of a decade and they barely have scraps on him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention that the company that owns the lab that did the test also owns the paper in which these alegations were published. That's a bit of a conflict of interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am really not convinced at all about the rabble raised in the last week.

If lance had failed a drug test, we would have found out about it a little earlier. It doesn't make any sense. Plus they're 6 year old B samples, and with the number of people who want to frame Lance youre going to need more than that to convince me. Why would there be 6 year old positive samples lying around? makes no sense...

[Roy__Batty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your point about what would happen if a frenchman came to a us sport and dominated for 7 years is a good one.

[ QUOTE ]
How in the world can we NOT think Lance was blood doping?

[/ QUOTE ]

but this, this is stupid. maybe because he's been tested almost non stop for the last 7 years? because he's had an entire national media on his back for the better part of a decade and they barely have scraps on him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention that the company that owns the lab that did the test also owns the paper in which these alegations were published. That's a bit of a conflict of interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am really not convinced at all about the rabble raised in the last week.

If lance had failed a drug test, we would have found out about it a little earlier. It doesn't make any sense. Plus they're 6 year old B samples, and with the number of people who want to frame Lance youre going to need more than that to convince me. Why would there be 6 year old positive samples lying around? makes no sense...

[/ QUOTE ]
unfortunately, the fact that nothing has ever been proven against armstrong previously doesn't prove he was clean.
The tour de france is such a big event, the organisators have never tried to to fight doping seriously.

When the festina affair occured, it's been the result of the work of french policemen. They found suspect products in trashcansn cars, hotels and then their investigations led to the discovery of a major organized doping in the tour de france.
Had the french policemen never investigated, we would never have heard of the festina affair and the epo scandal.
During police investigations, french director of the tour de france was furious of this "brutal" behaviour of the policement, he always tried to stop the investigations. Always claimed the tour de france direction could fight by itself against doping. But they never did anything.
So, after the festina scandal, almost nothing was done to try to detect epo.
And armstrong could use epo to win his fist tour.
the next years, of course he still used epo and a couple of other products. But then he learnt how to use it without being detected (he had too, because the new tests could detect epo). Instead of massive doses for weeks, you have to stop treatment before the tour de france and take a small dose of epo everyday before the race. After the race, all epo have disappeared from you blood. Had the doping tests been made before the race (in the morning), without warning the cyclists, armstrong 's doping would have proved a couple of years before. In fact, the chance is high that, among the 10first people at the tour de france, all are under doping. It would such a scandal to learn that 50% of the peloton is under heavy doping, these random tests will never be done (or they will be annonced months before the event so that cyclists can change the way they take doping substances).

Doctors know how to detect epo (by random test, not just at the end of the day), a lot of people have ideas to fight doping but, at the end, nothing is done because it's so much money for the amaury group (organizer of the tour de france).

And, what is even more sad, people don't care about cheaters in sports. People in france, those who follow the tour de france in camping cars to see the champions in the alps, they don't give a damn about doping. They are in holidays, they want to see "champions", preferably french ones, no matter if they cheat.
Richard virenque is a famous cyclist in france. During the festina affair, it has been proven he was under epo, but, still, he's very popular in france. That's so sad.
So, when i hear that espn watchers voted at 72% that they think that armstrong didn't use epo well it makes me think that people in france or in the usa, as in the rest of the world, are mainly the same: all that cares is that they have THEIR champion, someone of their country, who did "great accoplishments".

I've read tens of articles concerning doping and it's now obvious for me that no tour de france winner has been "clean" for at least the last 30 years. People alerady cheated 50 years ago.

It's sad but, when the sport events organisators lies to sport fans, when the "champions" cheat and lie, and when, and that's the saddest part, people don't give a damn about it, nothing's going to change quickcly.

You know, there are some products that still can't be dectected. So, the organizers imagined (they were "forced" to imagine) another way: to test their effects. If you have too many hematocrit in the blood , then you'r not said to be doped, but you can't race (you'r banned) because you'r supposed to be in a unhealthy condition. That sounds stupid, but it works sometimes, as you can catch people who don't know which sucbstances you have to avoid/take in smaller quantities. Former tour de champion bjorn riis is known in his country to have a very high hematocrit rate in his blood. Which means eveybody know he used doping. But at the time he used to compete, this was not a factor to bann people from the race.
And the hematocrit limit is very high (50) to insure very few people will be banned. The greatest champion can't go over 46 without doping.

And when i hear that people say armstrong is unpopular in france because he's american well, it makes me sad too because those who say that must not have travelled much in europe.

[Voltron87]

prove to me you didnt beat your wife last night.

see? you cant prove armstrong didnt dope.

[ QUOTE ]
And, what is even more sad, people don't care about cheaters in sports.

[/ QUOTE ]

that just isnt true. look at the boos giambi and palmeiro got. look at how many people despise barry bonds (though thats not just for him using steroids. if armstrong was found guilty there would be a big outcry in the US about it. a big one.

[ QUOTE ]
And when i hear that people say armstrong is unpopular in france because he's american well, it makes me sad too because those who say that must not have travelled much in europe.

[/ QUOTE ]

youre sort of right, there are people who like lance in france, but a ton of them hate lance because he is american and want to see him caught.

[Roy__Batty]

[ QUOTE ]
prove to me you didnt beat your wife last night.

see? you cant prove armstrong didnt dope.

[/ QUOTE ]

the blood analysis is actually proving he took epo.
that's years there are suspicions on him, among professionals and among his relations.
Young professionals have been banned (no team wanted to contract them) because they told what they thought and what they saw. Some accused armstrong namely.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And when i hear that people say armstrong is unpopular in france because he's american well, it makes me sad too because those who say that must not have travelled much in europe.

[/ QUOTE ]

youre sort of right, there are people who like lance in france, but a ton of them hate lance because he is american and want to see him caught.

[/ QUOTE ]
if american television says so then...
Why professionals don't like armstrong? They are not french. He's said to be arrogant and selfish. Maybe french people doesn't like him for these reasons and not because he's american. Greg lemmond was very popular in france. Wasn't he american?
Most tour de france winners weren't french. Most of them were popular. Armstong is not. It's the easiest solution to think people don't like armstrong because he's american. That was the original poster idea, i guess it took him years to come to that powerfull conclusion.
I'd like the world to be that clear cut. The rest of the world don't like the usa, the usa don't like the rest of the world. Black hate white... That's what tv shows you.

There are so many things that make it almost certain that armstrong cheated. But, yes, there was no absolute proof. It's because the tour de france organizers have been so tolerant with doping.
Now there's that blood analysis. Blood from the last year there was no epo test during the tour, the last year cyclists had not to change the way they used to take their epo (a small dose every race day, bigger doses off season). And that blodd contains epo.
How can someone say the analysis is flawed by the fact it's a french lab that made the analysis? I guess they think people in french labs do their work singing "the marseillaise" and always try to favor france over the rest of the world whent they do their work, and it's no pb if they have to lie/cheat to achieve this goal. The blood contains epo, that's a proof. Some say the lab and the french newspaper that revealed the result of the analysis are in the same group. Then? How can it mean the analysis was flawed? The first thing that armstrong will ask is that the analysis be done again by another lab. And then , if the first analysis is proven to be flawed, that's gonna be a very difficult situation for the newspaper, which is very famous in france, and which has a good reputation, like the lab. There's not much to win and very much to lose if they lie as concerns the blood analysis. Because the two are in the same group, it's been easy for the newspaper to get the news. That's all, that doesn't tell the analysis was flawed.

There are many other ways to prove armstrong has cheated. Measure his hematocrit today. It's gonna be far lower than a few weeks ago. It would be interesting to get his past hematocrit. I guess it was arount 49, to be sure that he wouldn't be banned for the tour de france. Had the limit been 49 and not 50, his hematocrit rate would have 48 etc...

Indurain has been said to be a heavy user of doping substances. Nobody's taking his defence here. May be because he isn't american?

It's gonna sound arrogant, i know, but i suggest for anyone interested to search the web for articles concerning doping. A couple of them concern cycling. There's much to learn about the ways organizers always tried to hide doping. There are so many liars in sports, it's just disgusting. People are treated like idiots by media and sometimes i think people like being treated like idiots, that way they don't have to use their brains. I guess it's the same in politics.