Armstrong stripped of 7 TdF titles

[Shaytan]

B.J. wrote:

---

Well, they'll always have Jerry Lewis!

Who ?

[MacLeod]

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.

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.

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.

And we are two thirds into 2012. If the tests returned positive results in 2001 why wasn't something done about it then? If the tests returned positive results in 2009-2010 why wasn't something done then?

[Defcon]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

So, anyway - does stripping this guy of his titles mean that they go to whoever was the runner-up or their team?

FWIW Jan Ullrich, who was second in three of Armstrong's TdF "victories" and was stripped of all results post-2005 because of doping (they couldn't proove anything before that) obviously has already told reporters he doesn't want those TdF wins if it comes to that, because and I'm going from memory here because I can't find the quote at the moment: "Lance was stronger than me. That was true then, and it's true now".

I guess you have to read that as Lance had the better doping techniques then, and he respects that.

[NCC1701]

Shaytan wrote:

---

His case was suspicious since the beginning in 1999. Surviving cancer and coming back stronger ?

It does happen. Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Cruden

Although Armstrong's decision to drop the challenge is very suspicious to begin with, sounds like a former sporting hero has been dethroned, what a shame on his part.

[Gil T.Azell]

[Timby]

MacLeod wrote:

---

And we are two thirds into 2012. If the tests returned positive results in 2001 why wasn't something done about it then? If the tests returned positive results in 2009-2010 why wasn't something done then?

... because testing methods don't remain static over time? Here's a really great read.

Some cancers - including the type Lance Armstrong had - cause enormously elevated levels of human chorionic gonadotropin hormone (hCG), a naturally occuring hormone in the body, but at low levels in males. Now, there are rules for the amount of HCG permitted in an athlete, because it offers a competitive advantage - not enough to overcome the deficiencies cancers cause, but a good advantage in a healthy human being, because it produces testosterone. An athlete is often considered to have failed a drug test if the urinary T/E ratio is greater than 6. So the UCI would have been testing for it.

But Armstrong never produced a positive sample. Compare that with Jake Gibb whose life, it could be argued, was saved by USADA’s testing, when it detected those enormously elevated levels in an anti-doping test, and advised him to see a doctor. That ultimately led to the discovery of testicular cancer, and Gibb recovered. Lance Armstrong wasn’t so lucky - so we can assume one of two things. Either the UCI’s anti-doping measures were woefully below standard, and didn’t detect Armstrong’s elevated levels of hCG, allowing his cancer to worsen while competing, or the UCI’s anti-doping discovered Armstrong’s elevated levels and didn’t report them. Either way, it’s a massive condemnation in the UCI’s ability to validate itself as a serious entity in drug testing. At best it’s woefully ineffective, at worst it’s simply corrupt.

The other, seemingly more likely, answer is that Armstrong was using a masking agent.

[Alidar Jarok]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Pretty much, yeah. It'll be interesting to see for how long this damages his "brand," if much at all.

Apparently donations to his charity are up. I'd call that a win-win. People who think Lance Armstrong cheated get to see him stripped of his medals, people with cancer benefit, and people who support Armstrong can still believe that he didn't cheat because they aren't going to be convinced by pretty much anything but an admission. As for Mr. Armstrong. If he didn't cheat, he can take solace in his charity doing well, if he did cheat he can still take solace in his charity doing well and will just have to suck it up over the fact that he was caught.

There was some guy on ESPN the other day who reported on most of Armstrong's career. He said he's convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Armstrong cheated. He also pointed out that every single person who finished second has either tested positive, admitted cheating, or has been implicated in cheating scandals. What an odd little sport.

[Gary7]

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?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

Apparently donations to his charity are up. I'd call that a win-win. People who think Lance Armstrong cheated get to see him stripped of his medals, people with cancer benefit, and people who support Armstrong can still believe that he didn't cheat because they aren't going to be convinced by pretty much anything but an admission. As for Mr. Armstrong. If he didn't cheat, he can take solace in his charity doing well, if he did cheat he can still take solace in his charity doing well and will just have to suck it up over the fact that he was caught.

There was some guy on ESPN the other day who reported on most of Armstrong's career. He said he's convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Armstrong cheated. He also pointed out that every single person who finished second has either tested positive, admitted cheating, or has been implicated in cheating scandals. What an odd little sport.

Yeah, it sounds a little like pro bodybuilding. Except, you know, it's a sport.

I've no reason to doubt that Armstrong cheated. But how much does it matter, if everyone eligible to replace him in in the amended record books doped as well?

I noticed seven or eight guys in the gym this afternoon wearing those yellow Livestrong bracelets. I can't say I pay enough attention, usually, to know whether that's an unusual number; I do know I've seen them before, and frequently.

[Deckerd]

That's the attitude all cheats have: everyone else is doing it so I'll have to do it too. It might have taken a long time to come out in the wash but come out it did.

[Deckerd]

Well USADA have come out with all guns blazing. Apparently he spent his career dismissing claims that he was cheating as malicious envy. The sworn testament of 11 of his team mates is a bit hard to dismiss.

[Roger Wilco]

A good day for clean sports. No real surprises there for anyone who's followed cycling through the years (although I'm happy to see people like Hincapie admit their guilt; unfortunately history has shown that you don't have to be a jerk to dope, nice guys do it too, given the "right" environment...).

The USPS/Armstrong doping conspiracy is the the worst cycling has ever seen, and that says a lot, maybe the worst one in general next to the East German track&field program, and it's good that this information finally gets mainstream attention after all those years.

[Jono]

We're seeing some of the others involved start to pay. Bruyneel has stood down from Radioshack, though I haven't read anything to say he is admitting his alleged very substantial role in the doping at Postal Service. Though of more interest for myself is that Matt White who rode with Armstrong at PS and was the director of the Australian pro-team, Orica-GreenEDGE and very involved in the Australian national mens road team over the last few years was linked to doping in the report and today admitting his cheating and has stood down.

[JarodRussell]

Frau Blucher wrote:

---

That's the attitude all cheats have: everyone else is doing it so I'll have to do it too. It might have taken a long time to come out in the wash but come out it did.

Asterix said that since all the Gaulish drink the magic potion, it doesn't matter who wins and that they just draw lots after the contest.

That's how they should do it in that sport as well. Maybe it's just the concentrated media attention, but it seems like bicyclists are a special breed of sportspersons that will cheat no matter what. It doesn't matter to them one bit that there's no personal achievement whatsoever. They could ride on e-bikes as well, wouldn't make a difference.

[Roger Wilco]

Aaaaand it's done. UCI confirms USADA's recommended penalties. No recourse against that decision from what I understand, it's final: Armstrong has never won the Tour de France.