Lance Armstrong Drops Fight Against Doping Charges

[csquare]

"Mr. Armstrong, we see that you blew a 0.0 on the breathalyzer. You're free to go."
Couple months later, police knock on his door "Mr Armstrong, we have ten people who say they saw you drinking that night. So we're here to arrest you"

But Kafka would be proud.....Guilty on the say so of people who failed the very drug testing procedures that he did not. By, once again, an agency that does not find it necessary to present it's evidence.
Murderers get a better process and a safer hearing.
A proud day for jurisprudence last week.
Is he guilty?, it no longer matters....................

[GratefulCitizen]

This whole thing reminds me of the movie Rollerball (1975 version).

[Buffalobob]

I have always believed he cheated and that was the cause of his cancer. The fact that he recovered so quickly from the cancer was a good indication to me that he was not playing by the rules. Drug use by endurance athletes is much harder to detect than for strength athletes.

Being as he has decided to not go forward when his teammates are willing to testify against him leaves him the window of deniability, whereas if he went forward to the conclusion and lost then everything is gone.

[TXGringo]

Originally Posted by Buffalobob

I have always believed he cheated and that was the cause of his cancer. The fact that he recovered so quickly from the cancer was a good indication to me that he was not playing by the rules. Drug use by endurance athletes is much harder to detect than for strength athletes.

Being as he has decided to not go forward when his teammates are willing to testify against him leaves him the window of deniability, whereas if he went forward to the conclusion and lost then everything is gone.

So doping caused his cancer, then helped him recover from it? If so, what secret does he have to passing the tests? The same tests that have ousted many a cyclist...

[azmg]

With all due respect BB, Lance was stricken with cancer prior to his cycling career being one of relevance. He has admitted that it wasn't until he contracted, treated and recovered from cancer that he was able to shed the body-weight necessary to truly be a competitive cyclist. Prior to his recovery he was a thicker, more muscular individual that you normally don't see winning bike races.

When I enter into discussion about his wins or whether I think he's guilty or what have you, I always ask if people think it's relevant that he has about the lowest resting heart rate I've ever heard of (even for an athlete), or that he has one of the highest V02 max numbers I've seen and if by chance he might just simply be better.

And to echo what some others have posted, he has been tested 500 times over a decade, if he had been cheating should the test's not have detected an abnormality in at least a single instance over that same period? It would stand to reason that if the sanctioning bodies are so eager to eliminate him as a champion they would go to any lengths necessary to advance the testing and detection protocols in order to be able to do so, no? Let's be honest science has come a long way over that same period and other athletes are caught every day.

I do want to say that I have no skin in the game and am glad he's decided not to participate in the foolishness any longer. He's proven his point, won his races and is now doing good work for others, good for him. On a side note, I did read that the governing bodies are having a hard time giving the championships to other racers as all of the one's immediately behind Armstrong have been caught for using banned substances so it looks like 10th place will be the Tour winner. for 2000,,,,2001......

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by azmg

When I enter into discussion about his wins or whether I think he's guilty or what have you, I always ask if people think it's relevant that he has about the lowest resting heart rate I've ever heard of (even for an athlete), or that he has one of the highest V02 max numbers I've seen and if by chance he might just simply be better.

Back in the late 80's Mark Hodges and Andy Jacob's came to town to talk about USCF and the OTC. Hodges did something with the US Olympic Cycling Team and Jacobs was a sport shrink. During this day long meeting, Hodges excitedly told us about this Triathlete in Texas who had this amazing MaxV02, who IF they could pull away from Triathlons would be the most amazing cyclist the world had ever seen.

His name Lance Armstrong.


Now if I read correctly, if Armstrong had agreed to the arbitration he would only have lost 2 tour wins, leaving him with a total of 5....the same number as Spain's Miguel Indurain who won an unbelievable 5 consecutive tours.


And according to Wiki:

Indurain had a physiology superior to fellow athletes. His blood took seven litres of oxygen around his body per minute,[25] compared to 3–4 litres for an ordinary person and 5–6 litres for fellow riders. His cardiac output is 50 litres a minute; a fit amateur cyclist's is about 25 litres. Indurain's lung capacity was 7.8 litres,[2] compared to an average of 6 litres. His resting pulse was as low as 28 BPM,[2] compared to an average 60–72 bpm, which meant his heart would be less strained in the tough mountain stages.[14] His VO2 max was 88 ml/kg/min; in comparison, Lance Armstrong's was 83.8 ml/kg/min and Greg LeMond's was more than 92 ml/kg/min.[26]

He consulted the Italian professor, Francesco Conconi, from 1987 and his weight dropped from 85 to 78 kg under his guidance,[5][6] "changing himself into an all-round rider", said Philippe Brunel in L'Équipe.[2] He was 10 kg lighter than when he was a junior.[27]

So apparently 5 tour wins is the magic number for humanly possible, and anything over 5 means you have had your performance enhanced.

[booker]

5 is the magic number only if you are an American. The world cycling community has been scrambling for years to do away from any real US presence in the big cycling races. Just wait, Tejay van Garderen will have the same issues in a few years. No one questioned the old riders as much, and it really wasn't until Lance started dominating everyone that the whole doping thing really took off. Hell, he was the Tiger Woods of the cycling world, no one in the US ever even really cared about the TDF until Lance really started kicking ass.

[Leozinho]

Originally Posted by azmg

With all due respect BB, Lance was stricken with cancer prior to his cycling career being one of relevance. He has admitted that it wasn't until he contracted, treated and recovered from cancer that he was able to shed the body-weight necessary to truly be a competitive cyclist. Prior to his recovery he was a thicker, more muscular individual that you normally don't see winning bike races.

Not true. Armstrong won the road World Championship at age 21. He also won a couple of stages in the TdF and some of the biggest races in the U.S. He was a very good one-day rider. (Plenty of lesser riders were caught doping back then.)

When he lost muscle mass due to the cancer, he became a better climber (due to a more favorable strength to weight ratio that is more important in the mountains than the flats). You can't win the big tours (Giro, Vuelta, TdF) without being a good climber.

The notion that he wasn't good before the cancer is false. He just wasn't good in the type of races that the casual cycling fan cares about.

[azmg]

Originally Posted by Leozinho

Not true. Armstrong won the road World Championship at age 21. He also won a couple of stages in the TdF and some of the biggest races in the U.S. He was a very good one-day rider. (Plenty of lesser riders were caught doping back then.)

When he lost muscle mass due to the cancer, he became a better climber (due to a more favorable strength to weight ratio that is more important in the mountains than the flats). You can't win the big tours (Giro, Vuelta, TdF) without being a good climber.

The notion that he wasn't good before the cancer is false. He just wasn't good in the type of races that the casual cycling fan cares about.

L, I should have been more specific as to what I see as "relevant". I have pretty high standards so while a World Championship is pretty impressive it's still not on my radar as impressive or legendary like say, 7 Tour victories. And you're spot on in regard to the casual cycling fan, which I admittedly am. I will say that after his first Tour post cancer I watched every year....

[Buffalobob]

I should have been more specific as to what I see as "relevant".

You posted up bullshit claiming it to be fact. You got called out for lying and had to admit it.

[azmg]

Originally Posted by Buffalobob

You posted up bullshit claiming it to be fact. You got called out for lying and had to admit it.

Ok, first off I take offense at the insinuation that I've been "posting BS and/or lying" so let's take it easy throwing stuff like that around.

What I posted was a summary of facts I picked up from reading Armstrong's book and some other misc. articles over the years pointing to accounts of his physiological advantages, accounts clearly supported by Paslode's post. I coupled that with what I, as a casual cycling fan find to be impressive or "relevant", which is not fact, but opinion and I stand by that opinion. Leozinho posted additional facts that he was able to contribute which lends itself to the conversation but still doesn't impact my opinion. A single UCI RWC does not a legend make......in one casual cycling fan's opinion.

[Pete]

It is interesting that as much as we are focusing on the individual who can win the TdF it is also a Team that wins it for the individual as much as it is the individual himself.

When Lance was on top the team's focus was on him. When Lance came out of retirement for his last ride - wished he'd have stayed retired - the team's focus was split for a while.

There was more than one good young rider who took one for the team this year.

[twistedsquid]

Lance was slaying the gods of triathalon at 14 when he turned pro.He never had a spike in performance. As a cyclist he was regarded as the hardest trainer with the most disciplined ethic. Cancer cut the weight and he climbed better. He transitioned from a one day rider to a stage racer. He is tactically brilliant and had expert handlers. He possesses superb physiological properties. And he probably doped. The anectodal evidence is overwhelming yet I hesistate to speak in absolutes. I have followed his case for many years and as a competetive cyclist have been inspired by his resolute determinations. But where is the proof and due process? This is the compelling issue in my view.

[sf11b_p]

I had wondered if there was a statute of limitations as is established regarding medal awards of the Olympics, eight years.

Armstrong, who retired from cycling a year ago, announced late Thursday that he would not go through arbitration to fight USADA’s charges, declaring he would always be the true winner of the Tours from 1999 to 2005. USADA acknowledged that it took Armstrong’s decision as an admission of guilt, which is why the agency moved so quickly on Friday to penalize him, even changing its own rules to wipe away an eight-year statute of limitations. - prospectusnews.com/questions-remain-on-agency-s-power-to-strip-armstrong-titles-1.2888153#.UD3XgaO5LeI

If they had not changed the rule only his awards after August 2004 would have been at risk, if USADA has any legitimacy.

[Stargazer]

I am not going to stand in judgment of Lance Armstrong beyond the facts. I've read a couple of his books and closed the covers with feelings of respect for all he had accomplished despite life's adversities. He 'never quit' and persevered. That stands on it's own IMV.

I wear on my wrist "livestrong" and have since my SIL died of cancer 7 years ago at the age of 53. My son who was 16 at the time, bought all the family members one to remind us of what Karen fought for. Lance Armstrong lives that way.. it's more than a slogan to many of us.. it's a reminder to seize the day.

IMO, this has become a witch hunt at this point. Why such disdain for Lance.. if he has been tested 500 times and results show no abuse.. why not leave it at that? Who gains from bringing Lance Armstrong down? Maybe he doped, maybe he didn't... but many others who have been at the top of their sport do too. If tested and caught cheating, they have to answer to it.

On a sidenote.. one of my first jobs was working for an amateur sports organization. In my position, I got an inside look at the politics / power grabs in amateur sports. I lost all respect for the USOC, IOC and NGB's ... it's all about power -- money and being the top dog and not grassroot / amateur sports (this does not apply to the countless wonderful volunteers that DO believe in grassroot sports -- they are the heart and soul).

Lance Armstrong knows the truth -- he'll be the judge of his character. I understand the toll both emotionally and financially litigation can cause. Sometimes, you have to cut your losses, regroup and focus on the next mission...