Lance Armstrong

[thebigfella]

Very disappointed about his comments on Landis and Millar. Clearly indicated that he thinks their biggest mistake was getting caught.

Amazing the way so many people deceive themselves into believing he's always been clean.

Whats the difference what your saying and here http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=8836.0 ?

It's pretty easy to make unfounded allegations on an "anonymous" forum.

[mick999]

Paul Kimmage questions Lance Armstrong about doping :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUAO7xmNKeA&feature=related

Some further commentary on Kimmage Vs Armstrong:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/article5750574.ece

[AbbeySider]

Whats the difference what your saying and here http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=8836.0 ?

It's pretty easy to make unfounded allegations on an "anonymous" forum.

What are you on about?

Im quoting what it says in wikipedia about Lance Armstrong. How is common knowledge making unfounded allegations?
Im was also quoting a Sports psychologist whom I was in direct contact with.

Are you for real?

Quotes from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong

Go read up on it good boy.

There is never any smoke without fire.

Specific allegations

    * In 2004, reporters Pierre Ballester and David Walsh published a book alleging Armstrong had used performance-enhancing drugs (L. A. Confidentiel - Les secrets de Lance Armstrong). It contains allegations by Armstrong's former masseuse, Emma O'Reilly, who claimed Armstrong once asked her to dispose of used syringes and give him makeup to conceal needle marks on his arms.[21] Another figure in the book, Steve Swart, claims he and other riders, including Armstrong, began using drugs in 1995 while members of the Motorola team, a claim denied by other team members.[22] Allegations in the book were reprinted in the UK newspaper The Sunday Times in a story by deputy sports editor Alan English in June 2004. Armstrong sued for libel and the paper settled out of court after a High Court judge in a pretrial ruling stated that the article "meant accusation of guilt and not simply reasonable grounds to suspect."[23] The newspaper's lawyers issued the statement: "The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression." (See also[24] in The Guardian). Armstrong later dropped similar lawsuits in France.[25]
    * On March 31 2005, Mike Anderson filed a brief [26] in Travis County District Court in Texas, as part of a legal battle following his termination in November 2004 as an employee of Armstrong. Anderson worked for Armstrong for two years as a personal assistant. In the brief, Anderson claimed that he discovered a box of Androstenine while cleaning a bathroom in Armstrong's apartment in Girona, Spain.[27] While Androstenine is not on the list of banned drugs, the substances androstenedione and androstenediol are listed. However, Anderson stated in a subsequent deposition that he had no direct knowledge of Armstrong using a banned substance. Armstrong denied the claim and issued a counter-suit.[28] The two men reached an out-of-court settlement in November 2005, the terms of the agreement undisclosed.[29]
    * On August 23, 2005, L'Équipe, a major French daily sports newspaper, reported on its front page under the headline "le mensonge Armstrong" ("The Armstrong Lie") that 6 urine samples taken from the cyclist during the prologue and five stages of the 1999 Tour de France, frozen and stored since at "Laboratoire national de dépistage du dopage de Châtenay-Malabry" (LNDD), had tested positive for EPO in recent retesting conducted as part of a research project into EPO testing methods.[30][31] For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, called erythropoietin, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen carrying red blood cells. The world governing body of cycling, Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001, two years after the samples were taken. This claim was based on an investigation in which they claimed to be able to match samples from the 1999 Tour that were used to hone the EPO test to Armstrong.[32] To establish a link between Armstrong and the samples, the LNDD matched the tracking numbers on the samples with those on Armstrong's record with the UCI during the 1999 Tour. Armstrong immediately replied on his website, saying, "Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and tomorrow's article is nothing short of tabloid journalism. The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself. They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant's rights cannot be respected.' I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs."[33]
    * In June 2006, French newspaper Le Monde reported claims by Betsy and Frankie Andreu during a deposition that Armstrong had admitted using performance-enhancing drugs to his physician just after brain surgery in 1996. The Andreus' testimony was related to litigation between Armstrong and SCA Promotions, a Texas company attempting to withhold a $5-million bonus; this was settled out of court with SCA paying Armstrong and Tailwind Sports $7.5 million, to cover the $5-million bonus plus interest and lawyers' fees. Armstrong suggested Betsy Andreu may have been confused by possible mention of his post-operative treatment which included steroids and EPO that are taken to counteract wasting and red-blood-cell-destroying effects of intensive chemotherapy.[34] The Andreus' allegation was not supported by any of the eight other people present, including Armstrong's doctor Craig Nichols, [35] or his medical history, although according to Greg LeMond (who has been embroiled with his own disputes with Armstrong), there exists a recorded conversation in which Stephanie McIlvain, Armstrong's contact at Oakley Inc., told LeMond, "You know, I was in that room. I heard it."[36]
    * In July 2006, the Los Angeles Times published a story on the allegations raised in the SCA case.[37] The report cited evidence at the trial including the results of the LNDD test and an analysis of these results by an expert witness.[38] From the LA Times article: "The results, Australian researcher Michael Ashenden testified in Dallas, show Armstrong's levels rising and falling, consistent with a series of injections during the Tour. Ashenden, a paid expert retained by SCA Promotions, told arbitrators the results painted a "compelling picture" that the world's most famous cyclist "used EPO in the '99 Tour." [39] Ashenden's finding were disputed by the Vrijman report, which pointed to procedural and privacy issues in dismissing the LNDD test results. The LA Times article also provided information on testimony given by Armstrong's former teammate, Swart, Andreu and his wife Betsy, and Instant messaging conversation between Andreu and Jonathan Vaughters regarding blood-doping in the peloton. Vaughters signed a statement disavowing the comments and stating he had: "no personal knowledge that any team in the Tour de France, including Armstrong's Discovery team in 2005, engaged in any prohibited conduct whatsoever." Andreu signed a statement affirming the conversation took place as indicated on the Instant messaging logs submitted to the court. The SCA trial was settled out of court, and the LA Times reported: "Though no verdict or finding of facts was rendered, Armstrong called the outcome proof that the doping allegations were baseless." The L.A. Times' article provides a review of the disputed positive EPO test, allegations and sworn testimony against Armstrong, but notes that: "They are filled with conflicting testimony, hearsay and circumstantial evidence admissible in arbitration hearings but questionable in more formal legal proceedings."
    * In September 2006, Andreu and another unnamed teammate were reported to have made statements that they used EPO during the 1999 Tour. This was the same tour, and the same drug, at issue in the controversy with the World Anti-Doping Agency. While both teammates are reported as saying they never saw Armstrong use EPO, Armstrong described the article as a "hatchet job". [3]

[edit] Investigation

In October 2005, in response to calls from the International Olympic Committee and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for an independent investigation, the UCI appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman to investigate the handling of urine tests by the French national anti-doping laboratory, LNDD. Vrijman was head of the Dutch anti-doping agency for ten years; since then he has worked as a defense attorney defending high-profile athletes against doping charges.[40] Vrijman's report cleared Armstrong because of improper handling and testing.[41][42] The report said tests on urine samples were conducted improperly and fell so short of scientific standards that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest they "constitute evidence of anything."[43] The recommendation of the commission's report was no disciplinary action against any rider on the basis of LNDD research. It also called upon the WADA and LNDD to submit themselves to an investigation by an outside independent authority.[44] The WADA rejected these conclusions.[45] The IOC Ethics Commission subsequently censured Dick Pound, the President of WADA and a member of the IOC, for his statements in the media that suggested wrongdoing by Armstrong

[magpie seanie]

Open questions.

(1) Did any of you recover from cancer of the testes, lungs and brain when your chances of survival were stated at 40% but really rated at closer to 10%?
(2) If yes, did it change your outlook on life and your ability to deal with problems?
(3) If no to Q1, do you think it would have an impact?
(4) Is the glass half full or half empty?

My answers:
1 - No
2 - N/A
3 - Yes, significantly I'd imagine
4 - Half full

[Doogie Browser]

Lance Armstrong is an inpsiration to all of us, a hero who has shown us all how to battle and fight.
The sport of cycling is badly tarnished by the many many cases of doping and cover ups in relation to doping, no one can dispute that.

[AbbeySider]

(1) Did any of you recover from cancer of the testes, lungs and brain when your chances of survival were stated at 40% but really rated at closer to 10%?

Where are you getting your Statistics?
Is it that tactful and sensitive of you to spell out peoples chances of survival at 10% in a general comment?
I have a good friend who survived testicular cancer. The survival rate is very high.

Your comment is a little off topic is it not??

[heganboy]

Im quoting what it says in wikipedia about Lance Armstrong. How is common knowledge making unfounded allegations?

Quotes from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong

first of all- wikipedia is a great source of information but far from definitive. especially in areas like the armstrong situation where there are 2 sides in a very hotly contested debate.

secondly- just because you know a sports psychologist and you quote him, what makes you think that he has the inside track on whether or not he took any substances?

It all boils down to the fact that he may or may not have taken drugs. Even with that allegation the guy managed to win the tour de france 7 consecutive times. That makes the guy an absolutely phenomenal athlete, even if he was the only professional cyclist in the world taking drugs (how likely) the fact that he managed to get 7 consecutive wins over a 2,200 mile race is absolutely mind boggling.

In addition to himself, there are also a handful of people that could actually definitively prove that armstrong did take drugs and none of them have come forward, unfortunately there is no-one that definitively prove that he didn't

[magpie seanie]

(1) Did any of you recover from cancer of the testes, lungs and brain when your chances of survival were stated at 40% but really rated at closer to 10%?

Where are you getting your Statistics?
Is it that tactful and sensitive of you to spell out peoples chances of survival at 10% in a general comment?
I have a good friend who survived testicular cancer. The survival rate is very high.

Your comment is a little off topic is it not??

Jaysus but we have a live one here!

The statisitics are as quoted in Lance Armstrong's book and I haven't heard anyone dispute them. I've no reason to doubt them. If you read what I posted instead of going off on (another) one you'd see I asked about a combination of testicular, lung and brain cancer. Of course you probably think he made it up so he could get the drugs!

Off topic? Surely you jest?

[Hound]

Open questions.

(1) Did any of you recover from cancer of the testes, lungs and brain when your chances of survival were stated at 40% but really rated at closer to 10%?
(2) If yes, did it change your outlook on life and your ability to deal with problems?
(3) If no to Q1, do you think it would have an impact?
(4) Is the glass half full or half empty?

My answers:
1 - No
2 - N/A
3 - Yes, significantly I'd imagine
4 - Half full

Admirable indeed. Although no excuse for his tolerance of drug cheats.

[AbbeySider]

Quotes from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong

first of all- wikipedia is a great source of information but far from definitive. especially in areas like the armstrong situation where there are 2 sides in a very hotly contested debate.

All the allegations on Wiki on the topic of Armstrong are very well referenced from sports journals, newspapers, interviews and publications.
I would describe those references as definitive.

secondly- just because you know a sports psychologist and you quote him, what makes you think that he has the inside track on whether or not he took any substances?

I dont know a sports psychologist but I did (in person) hear a leading one speak of not being wholly comfortable with using Armstrong as an example.
(for obvious reasons I thought at the time)

[AbbeySider]

(1) Did any of you recover from cancer of the testes, lungs and brain when your chances of survival were stated at 40% but really rated at closer to 10%?

...

The statisitics are as quoted in Lance Armstrong's book and I haven't heard anyone dispute them. I've no reason to doubt them. If you read what I posted instead of going off on (another) one you'd see I asked about a combination of testicular, lung and brain cancer. Of course you probably think he made it up so he could get the drugs!

Off topic? Surely you jest?

I misinterpreted your post there Seanie, I thought you were saying the survival rate for those you listed - separately - was 10% each.
Reading it again, and seeing that its from his book I can gather that you meant in a combination! 

[thebigfella]

Im quoting what it says in wikipedia about Lance Armstrong. How is common knowledge making unfounded allegations?

Yes, explain to me how so called "common knowledge" can be used as evidence?

un·found·ed (n-foundd)
adj.
1. Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See Synonyms at baseless.
2. Not yet established.

I can't remember Armstrong ever been found guilty of doping? The statement "Amazing the way so many people deceive themselves into believing he's always been clean." implies he his guilty. A statement which is based on no evidence or evidence that has not yet been established.

Im was also quoting a Sports psychologist whom I was in direct contact with.

Who cares  Also I don't have a clue what your on about.

Quotes from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong

Go read up on it good boy.

You don't really understand the concept of wiki's do you? I think someone has already explained that Wikipedia is not to be seen as a definative source of info.

There is never any smoke without fire.

Hmmm, i'm not even going to respond with what's wrong with that statement 

[ludermor]

I think people have a right to be sceptical when almost every single one of his major competitors over the past 10 years have been found guilty of doping, is it realistic to believe that he could beat them clean? 
While he was a very good rider before the cancer there was nothing really there to suggest he would dominate as he eventually did (in 4 tours he won 2 stages)
Maybe its just me ,but when the whole sport is/was tainted to the core i just cant bring myself to believe that such a superhuman man, back from the brink of death ( which is an inspiration in itself) can beat off all the doped cyclists.

[AbbeySider]

Cheers but I dont need you to explain what Wiki is.
I used Wikipedia as a reference point as it quotes various people alleging drug use by Armstrong.

These people include his closest aids, doctors, former team mates, employees, sports journalists, other cyclists and investigators. 

[Over the Bar]

In 1996 he admitted taking performance enhancing drugs after his treatment for cancer. Because of his treatments he was not allowed to be drug tested and took advantage.

Are you saying Armstrong was not tested for performance enhancing drugs during the time he won 7 Tours De France in a row??