Well, none of us here know the real story or have access to the factual data, so all we can do is speculate.
We can make various assumptions and stack them together to arrive at theories and explanations, but they remain hypothetical explanations, NOT fact. So, it's important to draw upon available facts whenever possible.
Timby wrote:
The USADA had George Hincapie -- the guy who was Armstrong's domestique through all seven Tour wins -- willing to testify against him. That means a lot. In any event, Armstrong's decision is probably more due to the real Feds now wanting to get a piece of him due to mounting evidence that he was essentially the ringleader of a distribution operation.
|
It means a lot if we can understand Hincapie's motivations. Is it possible to establish the real motive for why he is coming forth now, instead of volunteering earlier? He may have been asked before and declined. Why confess now? It could be for competitive motivations, or perhaps he is being given a deal, being shielded from incrimination to tell the truth.
Timby wrote:
The kind of numbers that Tour riders were putting up until just a few years ago are now believed to be physiologically impossible to do without doping. There's a legitimate reason cycling has, quite literally, slowed down since the '90s -- people are climbing Alpe d'Huez about 3-4 minutes slower than a decade ago, and that's an absolute eternity in cycling (and just over one climb) ... it's not an illogical theory that this is due to the sport slowly being cleaned up.
|
THIS is key. Unless there is a clear leap of bicycle materials technology that makes cyclists go faster and longer, then it all rests upon the human body. We have a very slow progression of improvement over time, but nothing substantial. Then in the 1990's that begins to change until we have Lance Armstrong and his team busting records like nobody's business. THAT is suspicious.
Timby wrote:
USADA claims it has 38 tests from 2009 - 2010 that show evidence of blood doping, plus the 2001 EPO test. I don't see a problem, here -- Armstrong shouldn't get a free pass just because he got millions of people to wear his bracelets, and with him being such a stubborn guy, I don't think he'd make this decision without believing that they finally had him dead to rights.
|
From what I'd read, the test results imply that there was blood doping based on the readings. It's more like there isn't a trace of the doping, but the effects of having doped are there. It's an important difference. If they have solid evidence of this, then it's very compelling.
So, with the addition of a key witness and several other important ones (10 altogether) and evidence of blood showing characteristics only possible with doping, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Now, the next question is, if he tried to fight it and LOST, would the damage be much worse than what he is doing now? He claims that he is tired of the fight. Who knows how much time and money it takes to fight it.
But the key thing is that if there is evidence that the USADA has been well behind the doping curve, that earlier samples are now being subjected to more effective tests that NOW show there has been doping (and there HAS been, at least once Armstrong tested positive for EPO, with a lame doctor's excuse to try explaining it away), then there isn't anywhere to hide.
It's interesting to consider the degree of doping. Clearly there isn't just one technique and supplement. There are at least several. Are some more invasive than others? Are some helping to speed up recovery and some actually boosting endurance? In any case, blood transfusions tear into the integrity of the sport. What's really sad is that there has been a recent rash of people being caught doping in the cycling sport. This is endemic of a breakdown in integrity across the board (sponsors, managers, doctors, pharmaceutical companies). If anything, maybe Lance should help be the mouth piece to help drive an important change. Otherwise... well, who is going to care about cycling, knowing that behind the scenes some crafty people are getting a very unfair advantage?