This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to dale1968: not one i was expecting.
In reply to dale1968: Sounded like the poor bugger was in a shit storm a some of it rubbed off...
In reply to stonemaster:
You can't be serious?
I just don't get this how people lynch lance as they want him to be guilty, yet excuse others.. doping is doping.
No doubt he won't get sued to get back his winnings.. send back his medals.. the lack of consistency is a joke..
> (In reply to dale1968) Sounded like the poor bugger was in a shit storm a some of it rubbed off...
You can't be serious?
I just don't get this how people lynch lance as they want him to be guilty, yet excuse others.. doping is doping.
No doubt he won't get sued to get back his winnings.. send back his medals.. the lack of consistency is a joke..
In reply to stonemaster: You taking him on his word? The 'I tried it once but I didn't inhale' excuse? Hmmm
In reply to IainRUK: I half agree but I think the difference is how you go about things. In tri the odd tug kick or elbow in the swim can be forgiven but grabbing someone in a headlock and holding them under gets a different reaction.
Cheers
Toby
Cheers
Toby
In reply to Escher: O'Grady also wore the Yellow Jersey for three days, and won a stage in that Tour, so whether you believe his sob story or not, he benefited quite a lot from doping during that race.
In reply to IainRUK: Don't remember lynching Lance.
In reply to Escher:
Indeed, he claimed he did it just to survive, but did much more than survive.
However it must be put in the context of riders being under pressure from their teams to get results whilst it being common knowledge that EPO was undetectable.
This article by Vaughters, which we now know was an allusion to doping, was written in 99.
http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/jonathan-vaughters-crossing-t...
Indeed, he claimed he did it just to survive, but did much more than survive.
However it must be put in the context of riders being under pressure from their teams to get results whilst it being common knowledge that EPO was undetectable.
This article by Vaughters, which we now know was an allusion to doping, was written in 99.
http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/jonathan-vaughters-crossing-t...
In reply to IainRUK: Armstrong spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars persecuting anyone who accused him of doping. A huge difference
In reply to woolsack: he still doped.. they all denied it..
He's come out now because he was about to be exposed.. but his whole life was based on a fraud..
He's come out now because he was about to be exposed.. but his whole life was based on a fraud..
In reply to IainRUK:
I don't see that admitting to doping once in 1998 and then stopping is exactly 'his whole life' being 'based on a fraud'.
jcm
I don't see that admitting to doping once in 1998 and then stopping is exactly 'his whole life' being 'based on a fraud'.
jcm
In reply to IainRUK: I do feel there is a difference between O Grady and Armstrong when one sits quietly under the radar and the other goes out looking for fights and damages others in the process
In reply to woolsack:
To say nothing of 'seven-year campaign of industrial-scale doping' against 'isolated incident in 20-year career'.
I'm not sure what Iain's game is here. It's pretty obvious.
jcm
To say nothing of 'seven-year campaign of industrial-scale doping' against 'isolated incident in 20-year career'.
I'm not sure what Iain's game is here. It's pretty obvious.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Highly unlikely to be once..
To get EPO benefit you use it over time.. you also need medical support so I'd hazard a guess he's lying.. you are talking arund $25,000 for a season on the stuff according to a top runner I know.
I'd guess his team were involved.
In that year he had great success assisted by drugs...
To suddenly believe he was clean afterwards is just so so strange it is incomprehendable. Look at Lance's test results?
To get EPO benefit you use it over time.. you also need medical support so I'd hazard a guess he's lying.. you are talking arund $25,000 for a season on the stuff according to a top runner I know.
I'd guess his team were involved.
In that year he had great success assisted by drugs...
To suddenly believe he was clean afterwards is just so so strange it is incomprehendable. Look at Lance's test results?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: If only the world is black and white..
In reply to woolsack: But not the cheating.. JCM I'm gob smacked its an 'isolated case'...
So he was a top cyclist in an era dominated by drugs.. in which almost all competitors were serial dopers...
And you think he maintained the same level that he did on EPO when he was off it..
EPO works.. its why people dope.. so when someone maintains a similar level after doping.. it is highly suspicious.
So he was a top cyclist in an era dominated by drugs.. in which almost all competitors were serial dopers...
And you think he maintained the same level that he did on EPO when he was off it..
EPO works.. its why people dope.. so when someone maintains a similar level after doping.. it is highly suspicious.
In reply to IainRUK:
'In that year he had great success'.
'you think he maintained the same level that he did on EPO when he was off it'.
Well, which is it?
Fine, you're suspicious. but it's pretty obvious what the differences are between Armstrong and at any rate the public story with SO'G.
Incidentally, it seems to me that the probe which has brought this out rather gives the lie to the notion that everyone was at it. They've named 83 Tour riders that year whose retests are suspicious; presumably that means 115 weren't. Or don't they have samples for everyone? Without knowing what proportion 83 riders is, it's hard to assign much meaning to that figure.
jcm
'In that year he had great success'.
'you think he maintained the same level that he did on EPO when he was off it'.
Well, which is it?
Fine, you're suspicious. but it's pretty obvious what the differences are between Armstrong and at any rate the public story with SO'G.
Incidentally, it seems to me that the probe which has brought this out rather gives the lie to the notion that everyone was at it. They've named 83 Tour riders that year whose retests are suspicious; presumably that means 115 weren't. Or don't they have samples for everyone? Without knowing what proportion 83 riders is, it's hard to assign much meaning to that figure.
jcm
In reply to stonemaster: Poor guy.. So when it was Lance there was also anger that he cheated clean riders of winnings... yet not this guy.. as he only doped once.. which whilst doping he held the yellow jersey and won TDF stages.. and whilst clean he held the yellow jersey and won TDF jerseys, when its well documented most at that time doped...
So unless he suddenly realised he could be as fit off EPO as on.. and turned the world of PED's on its head.. I'd be very very suspicious he was clean.
So unless he suddenly realised he could be as fit off EPO as on.. and turned the world of PED's on its head.. I'd be very very suspicious he was clean.
In reply to dale1968:
And why is this probe only retesting the 1998 Tour? Presumably they can retest other Tours? Have they done that? With what result? If they haven't, presumably they will in the future, and if Iain is right SO'G is going to look a bit of a fool. And if they have already, presumably SO'G wasn't also suspicious in those tests - or is there some reason we aren't hearing about those?
jcm
And why is this probe only retesting the 1998 Tour? Presumably they can retest other Tours? Have they done that? With what result? If they haven't, presumably they will in the future, and if Iain is right SO'G is going to look a bit of a fool. And if they have already, presumably SO'G wasn't also suspicious in those tests - or is there some reason we aren't hearing about those?
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: WelL I'd say that was probably his career defining year.. getting the yellow jersey for 3 days..
Look at the list of winners of stages and the Tour... he was clean who wasn't....
And I can't believe you put so much faith in clean results.. come on you are smarter than that. Lance was tested and came out clean in 99.9% of tests.. it is perfectly obvious that testing was not rigorous or accurate enough to mean a clear result meant they did not dope...
All it did was confirmed when they did... all these results showed were suspicians...
Look at the list of winners of stages and the Tour... he was clean who wasn't....
And I can't believe you put so much faith in clean results.. come on you are smarter than that. Lance was tested and came out clean in 99.9% of tests.. it is perfectly obvious that testing was not rigorous or accurate enough to mean a clear result meant they did not dope...
All it did was confirmed when they did... all these results showed were suspicians...
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: I don't know.. but I'd expect a huge question mark over any result of his from then on and not just strike out those in which he admitted doping.
In reply to IainRUK: Maybe there's more to come? Hoping not though.
In reply to IainRUK:
Sure, but they didn't have an EPO test then and now they do. Isn't that right? At the very least whatever test they now do has shown up whatever SO'G (and LA) were doing in 1998. Is there an idea that the rest of the bunch were on stuff less effective but presently less detectable?
jcm
Sure, but they didn't have an EPO test then and now they do. Isn't that right? At the very least whatever test they now do has shown up whatever SO'G (and LA) were doing in 1998. Is there an idea that the rest of the bunch were on stuff less effective but presently less detectable?
jcm
In reply to stonemaster: Blood tests will show little now... it depends on team mates but he's been clever and implicated noone.. which to me suggests he's protecting counter-claims..
You don't do EPO in isolation. I know a banned runner and that was there excuse.. and its not something you do one off.. without a huge amount of medical support as the chance of death is pretty high.. during that time a fair few cyclists were found dead from using it...
You don't do EPO in isolation. I know a banned runner and that was there excuse.. and its not something you do one off.. without a huge amount of medical support as the chance of death is pretty high.. during that time a fair few cyclists were found dead from using it...
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: There was no EPO test until 2000 Olympics.. so I expect most were on it. They only banned them if blood tests showed inconsistencies so if carefully monitored thy shouldn't show that.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
And incidentally and off-topic, Iain, allow me to offer my commiserations on MU losing to a Japanese pub team, following their unlucky loss earlier in pre-season to a Thai beach XI....
jcm
And incidentally and off-topic, Iain, allow me to offer my commiserations on MU losing to a Japanese pub team, following their unlucky loss earlier in pre-season to a Thai beach XI....
jcm
In reply to stonemaster: I think fifteen names have been released, L jalabert and J Ullrich amongst them
In reply to IainRUK:
Well what is it that now enables this probe to say there were 83 'suspicious'/'positive' results by retro-testing when they couldn't in 1998?
jcm
Well what is it that now enables this probe to say there were 83 'suspicious'/'positive' results by retro-testing when they couldn't in 1998?
jcm
In reply to tim000:
Really? I was going to post that this might be up for a "No shit Sherlock award."
E
> (In reply to dale1968) not one i was expecting.
Really? I was going to post that this might be up for a "No shit Sherlock award."
E
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: They have the test now.. but this was 15 years ago. But they still never picked up Lance. They could and will have retested his, but they have never picked it up apart from that one sample which was never a proper drugs test.
Where there any others?
Where there any others?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: No test for EPO then these are retrospective
In reply to IainRUK:
I wondered why lots of them had their hair bleached blonde back in the late 90's.
E
I wondered why lots of them had their hair bleached blonde back in the late 90's.
E
In reply to dale1968:
Yes, I know that FFS.
My point is that according to this report
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/cycling/stuart-ogrady-admits-to-dopin...
the authorities reckon they have 83 'positive'/'suspicious' retests from 1998.
My questions are; (i) does that mean they're retested all 198 riders and only found 83 EPOs? and (ii) have they done other Tours also and if so with what result?
Someone must know who takes a more informed interest than me - Enty?
jcm
Yes, I know that FFS.
My point is that according to this report
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/cycling/stuart-ogrady-admits-to-dopin...
the authorities reckon they have 83 'positive'/'suspicious' retests from 1998.
My questions are; (i) does that mean they're retested all 198 riders and only found 83 EPOs? and (ii) have they done other Tours also and if so with what result?
Someone must know who takes a more informed interest than me - Enty?
jcm
In reply to Enty:
Why's that, then?
jcm
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> I wondered why lots of them had their hair bleached blonde back in the late 90's.
>
> E
>
> I wondered why lots of them had their hair bleached blonde back in the late 90's.
>
> E
Why's that, then?
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Well 98 was the Festina Affair Tour. Laurent Jalabert from the Once team was retrospectively busted for 98 in 2004. (Once were managed by Manolo saiz)
I think there was a dip in the 99 tour because the 98 affair shook everyone up......for a short while. Remember Willy Voets got jail.
E
> (In reply to dale1968)
>
>
>
> the authorities reckon they have 83 'positive'/'suspicious' retests from 1998.
>
> My questions are; (i) does that mean they're retested all 198 riders and only found 83 EPOs? and (ii) have they done other Tours also and if so with what result?
>
>
>
>
>
> the authorities reckon they have 83 'positive'/'suspicious' retests from 1998.
>
> My questions are; (i) does that mean they're retested all 198 riders and only found 83 EPOs? and (ii) have they done other Tours also and if so with what result?
>
>
Well 98 was the Festina Affair Tour. Laurent Jalabert from the Once team was retrospectively busted for 98 in 2004. (Once were managed by Manolo saiz)
I think there was a dip in the 99 tour because the 98 affair shook everyone up......for a short while. Remember Willy Voets got jail.
E
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Didn't hey take hair samples too back then? Might be me making things up but Virenque bleached his hair too one year.
E
> (In reply to Enty)
> [...]
>
> Why's that, then?
>
> jcm
> [...]
>
> Why's that, then?
>
> jcm
Didn't hey take hair samples too back then? Might be me making things up but Virenque bleached his hair too one year.
E
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: there is a bit of confusion over the numbers.
This report from Cycling News said they relied on testimony from 83 sportsmen and officials (I believe they looked into other sports as well, not just cycling) and identified 18 positive riders from the 1998 TdF and 12 suspicious riders.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-senate-releases-positive-epo-cases-f...
This report from Cycling News said they relied on testimony from 83 sportsmen and officials (I believe they looked into other sports as well, not just cycling) and identified 18 positive riders from the 1998 TdF and 12 suspicious riders.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-senate-releases-positive-epo-cases-f...
In reply to Bob Hughes:
OK, thanks.
Still just 1998, though. Is there any reason they couldn't do other Tours as well in future? If so then SO'G's taking a bit of a risk limiting his confession to just one year, isn't he?
It's an interesting question why they don't strip Pantani, Riis, Ullrich (if he won one), etc of their Tour wins. Riis at least has admitted it, hasn't he? Why Armstrong and not Riis? Anyone know?
jcm
OK, thanks.
Still just 1998, though. Is there any reason they couldn't do other Tours as well in future? If so then SO'G's taking a bit of a risk limiting his confession to just one year, isn't he?
It's an interesting question why they don't strip Pantani, Riis, Ullrich (if he won one), etc of their Tour wins. Riis at least has admitted it, hasn't he? Why Armstrong and not Riis? Anyone know?
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
98 was the year of the Festina doping scandal, that may have something to do with it.
> (In reply to dale1968)
>
> And why is this probe only retesting the 1998 Tour? Presumably they can retest other Tours? Have they done that? With what result? If they haven't, presumably they will in the future, and if Iain is right SO'G is going to look a bit of a fool. And if they have already, presumably SO'G wasn't also suspicious in those tests - or is there some reason we aren't hearing about those?
>
> jcm
>
> And why is this probe only retesting the 1998 Tour? Presumably they can retest other Tours? Have they done that? With what result? If they haven't, presumably they will in the future, and if Iain is right SO'G is going to look a bit of a fool. And if they have already, presumably SO'G wasn't also suspicious in those tests - or is there some reason we aren't hearing about those?
>
> jcm
98 was the year of the Festina doping scandal, that may have something to do with it.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: here's a full list of the 1998 tests
http://velorooms.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3086.0;attach=3457;ima...
it looks like they systematically tested the stage winner, then tried (but often failed) to test numbers 2 and 3 and 2 other randoms and didn't test any of the jersey wearers. So to find 18 positives and 12 suspicious is actually a pretty high percentage.
http://velorooms.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3086.0;attach=3457;ima...
it looks like they systematically tested the stage winner, then tried (but often failed) to test numbers 2 and 3 and 2 other randoms and didn't test any of the jersey wearers. So to find 18 positives and 12 suspicious is actually a pretty high percentage.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
2 reason why no-one can be sanctioned as a result of these test - 8 year statute of limitations and all the B samples were destroyed years ago.
I'm guessing samples from other years have also been destroyed - maybe the only reason the 1998 ones remained were due to criminal investigations that year.
Pat McQuaid did say that Pantani should be stripped of his title, but backtracked when most felt this was insensitive.
As to Riis - it is a bit odd that he is allowed to manage a world tour team (Saxo) whereas Armstrong is banned from everything.
> (In reply to Bob Hughes)
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> Still just 1998, though. Is there any reason they couldn't do other Tours as well in future? If so then SO'G's taking a bit of a risk limiting his confession to just one year, isn't he?
>
> It's an interesting question why they don't strip Pantani, Riis, Ullrich (if he won one), etc of their Tour wins. Riis at least has admitted it, hasn't he? Why Armstrong and not Riis? Anyone know?
>
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> Still just 1998, though. Is there any reason they couldn't do other Tours as well in future? If so then SO'G's taking a bit of a risk limiting his confession to just one year, isn't he?
>
> It's an interesting question why they don't strip Pantani, Riis, Ullrich (if he won one), etc of their Tour wins. Riis at least has admitted it, hasn't he? Why Armstrong and not Riis? Anyone know?
>
2 reason why no-one can be sanctioned as a result of these test - 8 year statute of limitations and all the B samples were destroyed years ago.
I'm guessing samples from other years have also been destroyed - maybe the only reason the 1998 ones remained were due to criminal investigations that year.
Pat McQuaid did say that Pantani should be stripped of his title, but backtracked when most felt this was insensitive.
As to Riis - it is a bit odd that he is allowed to manage a world tour team (Saxo) whereas Armstrong is banned from everything.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
>2 reason why no-one can be sanctioned as a result of these test - 8 year statute of limitations and all the B samples were destroyed years ago
But that must be true of Armstrong, too.
Anyway, what 8-year statute of limitations is this?
jcm
>2 reason why no-one can be sanctioned as a result of these test - 8 year statute of limitations and all the B samples were destroyed years ago
But that must be true of Armstrong, too.
Anyway, what 8-year statute of limitations is this?
jcm
In reply to Bob Hughes: Carried out about 100 tests.. and less than 10% negative.... 90% missed, adverse or positive....
> Anyway, what 8-year statute of limitations is this?
>
>
The WADA code has an 8 year statute of limitations. USADA argued that this didn't apply in the case of Armstrong because he "fraudulently concealed" his doping by lying under oath (when he sued SCA Promotions for his Tour winner bonus).
Lots of legal debate over whether that is a valid argument, but since Armstrong didn't appeal it wasn't tested.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Armstrong was not caught by testing, but by witness testimony which he chose not to contest.
As to the 8 year rule, I believe it's something I read in relation to this matter but god knows where, maybe it just applies to drug testing.
Armstrong was not caught by testing, but by witness testimony which he chose not to contest.
As to the 8 year rule, I believe it's something I read in relation to this matter but god knows where, maybe it just applies to drug testing.
In reply to Chris the Tall: It now says they have actualy re-tested LA's samples and found a positive test from 1999...
In reply to IainRUK:
Don't mix up missing data with missed tests
> (In reply to Bob Hughes) Carried out about 100 tests.. and less than 10% negative.... 90% missed, adverse or positive....
Don't mix up missing data with missed tests
In reply to IainRUK: O'Grady's story is looking a bit shaky. According to him he took EPO 2 weeks before the race but never during the race. But he had an adverse result 2 weeks into the race. How long is EPO detectable for once you've stopped taking it?
In reply to Chris the Tall: Ah.. I thought that was what missed was.. people not available...
Seems strange to lose so many? How do they get missed?
Seems strange to lose so many? How do they get missed?
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Not sure how long the actual EPO will remain for.
But red blood cell lifespan? well it takes 7 days for it to develop.. the 100 days lifespan..
Not sure how long the actual EPO will remain for.
But red blood cell lifespan? well it takes 7 days for it to develop.. the 100 days lifespan..
In reply to IainRUK:
EPO or Cortisone ?
I read that they have now acknowledged 4 failed tests for cortisone in 1999, all covered by the TUE which was back-dated and a sham anyway.
> (In reply to Chris the Tall) It now says they have actualy re-tested LA's samples and found a positive test from 1999...
EPO or Cortisone ?
I read that they have now acknowledged 4 failed tests for cortisone in 1999, all covered by the TUE which was back-dated and a sham anyway.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
The results came out of a French senate committee enquiry into how to improve anti-doping controls. The 1998 samples happen to have been re-tested with an EPO test (which didn't exist in 1998) in 2004 as part of a research project. The results were submitted to the committee as evidence in their inquiry and that evidence has now been published.
So this isn't a systematic retesting of past samples, it is just some results that were sitting in someone's filing cabinet that the Senate committee got hold of. I don't know if they still have samples from other Tours around that time, but I believe the current practice is to keep samples so that they can be retested (e.g. when there is a valid test for AICAR).
> (In reply to Bob Hughes)
>
> Still just 1998, though. Is there any reason they couldn't do other Tours as well in future?
>
> Still just 1998, though. Is there any reason they couldn't do other Tours as well in future?
The results came out of a French senate committee enquiry into how to improve anti-doping controls. The 1998 samples happen to have been re-tested with an EPO test (which didn't exist in 1998) in 2004 as part of a research project. The results were submitted to the committee as evidence in their inquiry and that evidence has now been published.
So this isn't a systematic retesting of past samples, it is just some results that were sitting in someone's filing cabinet that the Senate committee got hold of. I don't know if they still have samples from other Tours around that time, but I believe the current practice is to keep samples so that they can be retested (e.g. when there is a valid test for AICAR).
In reply to IainRUK:
I think "missed" covers a number of sins. In Boardman's case, for example, the report says the samples were too degraded to be tested.
> Seems strange to lose so many? How do they get missed?
I think "missed" covers a number of sins. In Boardman's case, for example, the report says the samples were too degraded to be tested.
In reply to HughM:
See this report from 2005 on the restesting of the 1998 and 1999 samples. I wonder why the 1999 samples weren't also submitted to the Senate?
http://velonews.competitor.com/2005/08/tour-de-france/lequipe-alleges-armst...
See this report from 2005 on the restesting of the 1998 and 1999 samples. I wonder why the 1999 samples weren't also submitted to the Senate?
http://velonews.competitor.com/2005/08/tour-de-france/lequipe-alleges-armst...
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...