Lance Armstrong to be charged with doping offences - Washington Post

[Spoony]

They've got his blood samples... it's not as if they're taking a wild stab in the dark.

 

[Sylar]

He's clearly guilty. He'd never give up the fight if he was innocent and stood a chance. Just trying to spare himself the embarrassment. And to all of you saying well, all the top ones are cheats etc; that may be true but there are clean riders out there and these cnuts are stealing their chances of ever challenging for the major honors. Game over, Lance. You might be a decent man but you're just another bastard of an athlete.

Simplistic view as well. Whilst theres no smoke without fire, the fact is hes 40 and has been subject to these claims and accusations for a few years now. Having to deal with this every day is surely not an easy thing on him or his family.

Especially as he has passed every single test that has been thrown at him. This whole thing is bizarre

 

[swooshboy]

They've got his blood samples... it's not as if they're taking a wild stab in the dark.

If they found any traces of drugs in his samples, then that would be the story and there would be no hiding from it.

But they have not.

 

[King_Eric]

EPO? I read somewhere it's easy to test negative despite being on the stuff. Blood samples are the only way to detect the use of EPO, thanks to an increase in red blood cells.

Indeed. And that's why the fact that Armstrong has never tested positive, despite his many tests, is actually no argument in favor of his innocence. EPO was untraceable in the 90s and 00s if you were carefull.

EPO doping usage has always been ahead of the detection methods and the only way people have been caught in the past was because they made mistakes in their planning or if the products (or empty packages) were found in the garbage of the teams.

Even when EPO became detectable, the peleton was already using new methods for a while (blood doping, so no extragenous EPO, but EPO from your own body). It's only now with the blood passport that the use of EPO has become quite difficult.

 

[Spoony]

If they found any traces of drugs in his samples, then that would be the story and there would be no hiding from it.

But they have not.

Er...no as I said, the use of EPO can be detected by an abnormal increase of red blood cells... and that's where that blood sample comes in. EPO is very easy to cycle, as he and the likes of Marion Jones who tested negative around 200 times, are examples of this. I suppose he could be asking... why now? It's not as if the sport is particularly clean.

 

[Jippy]

The claims about using blood transfusion seems pretty extreme. Amazing the lengths they go to if true.

 

[King_Eric]

If they found any traces of drugs in his samples, then that would be the story and there would be no hiding from it.

But they have not.

Actually, they have. Or at least that's what has been leaked in the French media some time ago. When developing the new EPO tests years ago, they are said to have tested one of Armstrong's old 1999 urine samples and it tested positive for EPO. The problem however is that this was not admissable as evidence because they were not to be used for doping enforcement at the time. The tests done at that time were purely scientific and the lab never confirmed the identity of the urine samples.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2005-08-24-armstrong-samples-details_x.htm

 

[Spoony]

Indeed. And that's why the fact that Armstrong has never tested positive, despite his many tests, is actually no argument in favor of his innocence. EPO was untraceable in the 90s and 00s if you were carefull.

EPO doping usage has always been ahead of the detection methods and the only way people have been caught in the past was because they made mistakes in their planning or if the products (or empty packages) were found in the garbage of the teams.

Even when EPO became detectable, the peleton was already using new methods for a while (blood doping, so no extragenous EPO, but EPO from your own body). It's only now with the blood passport that the use of EPO has become quite difficult.

Yeah, they only have to stop usng EPO 9 days before competition. It's that easy to flush out of the system.

 

[King_Eric]

The claims about using blood transfusion seems pretty extreme. Amazing the lengths they go to if true.

The blood transfusions are real and proven. Many have been suspended for it the last few years. Also the whole Eufemenio Fuentes case revolved around blood transfusions. And not only cyclists were involved there. The whole top of Spanish sports was. When it became clear that also some of the top Primera Division clubs were involved, the Spanish justice system quickly put a lid on the whole thing though, unfortunately. Fuentes himself once made some accusations towards Barcelona and Real Madrid for example.

Some accidents have also happened. Vinokourov almost lost his life because of a blood doping mistake (he got the blood of a teammate transfused instead of his own). And also Ricardo Ricco almost lost his life because of a transfusion mistake.

Edit: the Vinokourov story isn't correct apparently. He did however got caught for blood doping, but the mixing of blood has never been proven.
Ricardo Ricco however did end up in the hospital with kidney failure. Apparently he tried to do the transfusion by himself and used 25 days old blood which didn't go well...

 

[Spoony]

Eric, how does blood transfusion work? I mean why have they been doing it?

 

[Spoony]

Ahhh I understand. And yeah, extreme.

 

[Stretch]

This is all stupid and silly.

1. The testimony which this based on comes from fellow riders who are going to walk away free themselves if they testify. The feck?

2. You might as well go and re-test every single rider since who knows when.

I'm not saying he never cheated but for goodness sakes, the man passed all official doping tests when he competed alongside others. Are they going to do the same for all the other riders who rode with him?

This really is daft.

 

[King_Eric]

Eric, how does blood transfusion work? I mean why have they been doing it?

The principle is that you take blood from yourself in a period where you have a very high red blood cell count (and high in EPO levels also I assume) and administer it when it is very low (during a Tour, Vuelta or Giro for example).

The blood can be taken after an altitude stage, or even after taking EPO outside of competition. The reason they had to resort to this is because EPO that is not made by your own body is detectable, but your own EPO isn't.

But now that all transfusions are banned, there are a lot of rumours about gene doping already as well, where they try to upregulate the EPO (or other proteins) gene expression as well.

 

[Spoony]

The principle is that you take blood from yourself in a period where you have a very high red blood cell count (and high in EPO levels also I assume) and administer it when it is very low (during a Tour, Vuelta or Giro for example).

The blood can be taken after an altitude stage, or even after taking EPO outside of competition. The reason they had to resort to this is because EPO that is not made by your own body is detectable, but your own EPO isn't.

I see. I suspect the only way to detect blood doping is through an increase of red blood cells?

 

[King_Eric]

I see. I suspect the only way to detect blood doping is through an increase of red blood cells?

Yes indeed. That's the basic idea of the blood pasport as I understand it.
In the past, they tried to do something similar by enforcing a general hematocrite maximum (50). The only problem is that the natural hematocrite a person has can vary greatly from rider to rider. For example, someone who had a natural hematocrite value of 40, could use EPO up until his hematocrite was around 49 and then he was 'clean'.

On the other hand, there is evidence of people who have a natural hematocrite of 50+ as well. So the old general 50-rule was not really that usefull.

That's why they introduced the so called blood passport. The UCI has a set of natural blood values of the riders and these can be compared at any time during their whole career. Of course there is a certain variation of these values possible through training and how exactly they decide what is and what's not 'natural', I don't know.

Edit: some more info on this biological passport: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_passport

 

[swooshboy]

This is all stupid and silly.

1. The testimony which this based on comes from fellow riders who are going to walk away free themselves if they testify. The feck?

2. You might as well go and re-test every single rider since who knows when.

I'm not saying he never cheated but for goodness sakes, the man passed all official doping tests when he competed alongside others. Are they going to do the same for all the other riders who rode with him?

This really is daft.

Agree 100%.

Not sure why they are trying to hold him to a higher standard of testing than what was being conducted in his sport.

So will they go after Flo-Jo next? Who else will they turn their attention to??

 

[King_Eric]

It's not that difficult to understand why they want to go after him of course. It's the same in every criminal branch. They always want to catch the 'big fish'. And often that means granting people who can testify immunity. I don't see what's so different about this case.

In the end, Armstrong is the rider who gained by far the most from his alleged cheating. So I can understand why they want to catch him before any others.

That said, I'm also convinced that at least half of the riders who will get the victory on their name after it's taken from Armstrong (Zulle, Ullricht, Kloden, Beloki), were also doped at that time (all of them ar dodgy at least and have been caught in the past or have had accusations made against them)

 

[Gio]

Armstrong must be the most tested athlete in the history of sports. If he is not he is certainly up there.

The fact that they havent found anything positive over his whole career is evidence enough, no?

Yet someone like Ben Johnson who never failed a test in his career before Seoul - when in all likelihood his sample was sabotaged - is regarded as the greatest drugs villain in the history of sport. It's rarely testing which exposes drug-taking athletes given that historically most testing has either been ineffective or, in the rare event it did present a positive, covered up depending on the status and nationality of the athlete. For example, almost every single women's track and field record is quite possibly drugs-assisted. Yet as far as I know none of those athletes have tested positive during their careers.

 

[Elliott]

None of us know what USADA has on him. Lance does and suddenly Mr. Never-Say-Die gives up a fight for the first time in his life, a fight that could've made all the difference as to how history will judge him as an athlete and man. As much as I loved him way back when, yeah, I stand by my statement that there's very little doubt about his guilt. Anyway, Travis Tygart has stated that all evidence will be publicized. Until then I'll let you fanbois enjoy your naïveté.

 

[SteveJ]

I don't have enough knowledge of the sport to consider whether Armstrong is guilty or not, but what's with this 'anonymous witnesses' thing? This, and other factors, make the business seem like a witchhunt or kangaroo court.

 

[swooshboy]

Yet someone like Ben Johnson who never failed a test in his career before Seoul - when in all likelihood his sample was sabotaged - is regarded as the greatest drugs villain in the history of sport. It's rarely testing which exposes drug-taking athletes given that historically most testing has either been ineffective or, in the rare event it did present a positive, covered up depending on the status and nationality of the athlete. For example, almost every single women's track and field record is quite possibly drugs-assisted. Yet as far as I know none of those athletes have tested positive during their careers.

Sabotaged? Seriously?

On the second part - why just women's - surely "almost every single" men's record is "quite possibly" drug assisted also.

 

[Gio]

Sabotaged? Seriously?

On the second part - why just women's - surely "almost every single" men's record is "quite possibly" drug assisted also.

Given that he'd passed every test during his career up to that point despite taking steroids, the various security breaches when his post-Seoul-100m test was carried out, and the nature of the metabolites contained in his sample, the possibilty of sabotage is quite likely.

As for the women's records, many of these have come from athletes operating under countries notorious for their drug regimes and the gulf between those records and what clean athletes seem to be capable of is huge.

 

[swooshboy]

Given that he'd passed every test during his career up to that point despite taking steroids, the various security breaches when his post-Seoul-100m test was carried out, and the nature of the metabolites contained in his sample, the possibilty of sabotage is quite likely.

As for the women's records, many of these have come from athletes operating under countries notorious for their drug regimes and the gulf between those records and what clean athletes seem to be capable of is huge.

But he has admitted using steroids.

Thanks for adding the second part - makes sense what you wrote in that context - was just the phrasing in the original that seemed strange!

 

[Stretch]

It's not that difficult to understand why they want to go after him of course. It's the same in every criminal branch. They always want to catch the 'big fish'. And often that means granting people who can testify immunity. I don't see what's so different about this case.

In the end, Armstrong is the rider who gained by far the most from his alleged cheating. So I can understand why they want to catch him before any others.

That said, I'm also convinced that at least half of the riders who will get the victory on their name after it's taken from Armstrong (Zulle, Ullricht, Kloden, Beloki), were also doped at that time (all of them ar dodgy at least and have been caught in the past or have had accusations made against them)

But that's not right, is it? The agency charging him is the USADA, note the USA part. Armstrong is not the only US cyclist who race during this time. And this is sport, not a mafia. USADA's mandate is to ascertain if athletes competing have gained an unfair advantage by using illegal means through banned substances and practices, whether you finished 1st or last. They are all professionals, and even if you finished something like 199th out of 200, if you used performance enhancers, you might not even have been able to compete which means you'd not have gotten paid a 'salary/stipend' etc. Meaning you still benefited from 'cheating' since you got paid to your job which was assumed you could do without cheating. So that argument of 'go for the biggest fish' doesn't hold up. IF USADA are really serious about rooting out 'cheats' then they shouldn't give anonymity nor immunity to ANYONE!!! Armstrong makes a valid point when he points it out. It smells a of a kangaroo court.

None of us know what USADA has on him. Lance does and suddenly Mr. Never-Say-Die gives up a fight for the first time in his life, a fight that could've made all the difference as to how history will judge him as an athlete and man. As much as I loved him way back when, yeah, I stand by my statement that there's very little doubt about his guilt. Anyway, Travis Tygart has stated that all evidence will be publicized. Until then I'll let you fanbois enjoy your naïveté.

Good to hear the evidence will be publicised. Will be interesting to see. Keep in mind Armstrong's been fighting for the last 3-4 years on this very issue. Maybe he should've stuck it out but then as I've pointed out above, the whole affair smells of a kangaroo court in the way they've gone about it.

Also, I don't think there are any 'fanbois who are naive' here. Just people are saying this is rather silly.

 

[gooDevil]

Jesus, is it really worth all that trouble to cheat at freaking cycling? Makes you wonder, if they'd go to these levels for cycling, what about football, what about American football and the NBA? There has to be so much more money at stake in those sports, surely the motivation would be that much greater?

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out Barca have been using blood transfusions or something quazi-legal, the amount of running they do over so many games with so few backups is as mind blowing as their technique.

 

[King_Eric]

Jesus, is it really worth all that trouble to cheat at freaking cycling? Makes you wonder, if they'd go to these levels for cycling, what about football, what about American football and the NBA? There has to be so much more money at stake in those sports, surely the motivation would be that much greater?

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out Barca have been using blood transfusions or something quazi-legal, the amount of running they do over so many games with so few backups is as mind blowing as their technique.

The motivation would be greater, but the gain by using doping is much smaller in those sports. Many other aspects are important besides having a high stamina level (intelligence, technique). In cycling (and mainly the GC guys) it's all about stamina and recuperation.

That being said, I'm quite sure there is or has been doping in football as wel. But until recently, the testing in football was just amateuristic and more for show than anything else I guess. And that's still not really changed if you compare it with other sports.

The Barça case is an interesting one, since Eufemenio Fuentes is a Catalan doctor and has implied himself having been involved at some of the biggest Spanish football clubs.

This is a piece about an article in the French newspaper Le Monde during the hight of the Operacion Puerta case.

Top football clubs Real Madrid and FC Barcelona used the services of Dr Eufemiano Fuentes, according to a report in
Eufemiano Fuentes
French newspaper Le Monde. Fuentes is at the centre of Operacion Puerto, which up until now has widely been reported as another cycling doping scandal. However, Dr Fuentes has always maintained that he treated other top sportspeople, such as footballers, tennis players, athletes, handball players and boxers.

"I worked with Spanish first and second division clubs," he said in an interview to the French newspaper. "I worked with several clubs at the same time, sometimes directly with the footballers themselves, sometimes by sharing my knowledge with the teams doctors. I was the doctor of the Las Palmas team in 2002 during a year when it player in first division... I had an offer from an Italian club but I turned it down.

Death threats

Fuentes was asked directly which football clubs he had worked with. "I can't tell, I have received death threats," he said. "I was told that if I told certain things, my family and myself could have serious problems. I've been threatened three times and it's not going to happen a fourth time.

"There are sports against which you cannot go against, because they have access to very powerful legal means to defend themselves. And it could also cost the current chief of the sport his post."

Outside Puerto

Le Monde interviewed Dr Fuentes at his home in Las Palmas in the Canary Islands. It based another story on two A4 sheets it obtained that were not seized in Operación Puerto. The paper underlined that the Guardia Civil did not search Dr Fuentes' Canary Islands residence - only his apartments in Madrid. And that there were some of his clients that the police did not discover.

The documents, in Dr Fuentes' handwriting, allegedly detail the preparation plans for the two clubs for the 2005-2006 seasons. The plan showed that the main objective of FC Barcelona was the Champions League in May, which it won, as well as having the players peak for the World Cup.

The training programs include circles and 'IG' symbols that correspond to preparation or rest periods. These are the same symbols used by Dr Fuentes in his plans for the Liberty Seguros riders, according to Le Monde. The Spanish Guardia Civil believe that these symbols correspond to anabolic steroids (circle) and Insulin Growth Factor - IGF-1 (IG).

Other symbols are used in the team plans, including a rounded 'e', and a circle with a dot in it. These are supposed to correspond to blood transfusions and the administration of EPO. Some individual players had tailored programs, in case they were injured or tired.

Eufemiano Fuentes did not have a formal relationship with either FC Barcelona or Real Madrid. His plans were allegedly sent via the team doctor or one of the players. Ex-pro Jesus Manzano, who first alerted police to the dealings of Fuentes, said that he saw a Real Madrid player while visiting the doctor. Nevertheless, FC Barcelona did try to hire Dr Fuentes in both 1996 and 2002, but both times he refused.

"I committed no crime"

Fuentes is adamant that in providing his services to athletes, he was fulfilling his role as a doctor. "I have committed no crime against public health," he said. "In 29 years of practicing, none of my clients have ever had a health problem.

"If an athlete endangers his health by practising his discipline, I react first as a doctor. If the medicine used to protect him is on the list of banned substances, it's of secondary importance. Doctors should have the freedom and sufficient autonomy to be able to decide how to manage a particular treatment, regardless of whether it's a drug or not."

Fuentes defended his methods, taking a more liberal view towards doping than various sports governing bodies. "I consider doping as the use or the abuse of a substance or drug by a person who doesn't have the knowledge or experience or the ability to use them… Medicine doesn't kill if it's in the right hands."

"Top level sport is unhealthy," he stated. "When I did my doctoral thesis, I determined the muscular damage done to a cyclist in a stage race. This is what's dangerous for the health of the athletes, the overloaded calendars, the criminal courses designed by the organisers for the benefit of a spectacle."

He also argued against the 50% hematocrit limit set by the UCI. "Now, it's healthier to do the Tour de France with a hematocrit of 53% rather than one of 31%. Let a rider attack the Alps with a hematocrit of 31. That is putting his life in danger."

 

[mjs020294]

Jesus, is it really worth all that trouble to cheat at freaking cycling? \

Armstrong has over $125 million in the bank so I guess the answer is yes.

He isn't contesting the charges now and will be found guilty. All his record will be stripped from the record books.

A pretty sad end and even more shame for the sport of cycling. Lance is set for life but I hope his charity doesn't suffer because it does a lot of good work.

 

[Rooney24]

Under what authority have the USADA the right to strip him of his Tour de France titles anyway?

Even if he were found guilty wouldnt this be a matter for the organisers of Le Tour?

 

[Marcosdeto]

i understand Armstrong should be regarded innocent till proven guilty

but seriously, if you had achieved something no one else has in the history of your sport, and that's being challenged by proof that "doesnt exist", would you act as Armstrong and quit fighting?

not only he is going to lose the 7 Tour de France Titles -most ever won by a single cyclist- but he'll always be labeled as a cheat

that's not the reaction of an innocent

 

[kouroux]

Let's say he's charged.What will happen then ? Losing the titles (obviously) and paying a huge fine ?

 

[Stretch]

Under what authority have the USADA the right to strip him of his Tour de France titles anyway?

Even if he were found guilty wouldnt this be a matter for the organisers of Le Tour?

But Armstrong said his decision did not mean he would accept USADA's sanctions. His lawyers threatened a lawsuit if USADA proceeded, arguing the agency must first resolve a dispute with the International Cycling Union (UCI) over whether the case should be pursued.

"You are on notice," Armstrong attorney Tim Herman said in a letter, "that if USADA makes any public statement claiming, without jurisdiction, to sanction Mr. Armstrong, or to falsely characterize Mr. Armstrong's reasons for not requesting an arbitration as anything other than a recognition of (International Cycling Union) jurisdiction and authority, USADA and anyone involved in the making of the statement will be liable."

Armstrong says they can't strip him, they don't have jurisdiction to do so and if they do, he will sue according to this

 

[mu77]

so who gets the wins? other dirty riders that's who. the sport had become a joke yrs ago. what about other riders fom the past like in the rain and he know. they won shed load - each at 5 , mike did his in a row. dirty as armstrong no one can tell me different. they were the best of the dirties.

 

[CheadleBeagle]

I was a huge admirer of Armstrong and have only followed the Tour when he was in it as I thought he was such a great story. I hate to think he cheated. But I have 2 concerns; if so many of his contemporaries were caught why was he never caught? Was he that much cleverer than the rest or was he indeed clean? And also having survived cancer would he risk damaging his body again by taking drugs etc? It is strange that he has given up the fight though.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Don't think many could forgive him for what he did to Simeoni.

 

[Zen]

I like that Cyclings a joke for actively going after dopers hard, they can't control how many people actually dope, that's not within their hands, they can only punish hard enough to make cylists not even bother from here on, and this is a monster statement, especially if they just write off these 7 tours instead, can't really give them to Jan.

You'b be surprised by how clean this years tour was, Contadors thing was tiny compared to how much stuff was in the bodies 5-10 years, and he still lost a tour for it. The statement is simple, no compromise, no leeway whatsoever. It's better than doing tons of soft punishments in the vein hope that'll do anything.

Lance is also very lucky to have had 2 big shining lights on his record, and losing this one won't really effect what he's done for cancer research and stuff, maybe taints it a little, but so what. Cancer research is far bigger than sports.

 

[Liam147]

Found guilty, huge punishment.

 

[Nucks]

This is absolutely a witch hunt. Now before I proceed let me say, doping in cycling at the highest levels is in my opinion systemic.

Where is due process? In my opinion Lance has stepped down from defending himself, because he cannot defend himself. This doesn't mean the USADA has irrefutable proof, it means that they don't have to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. They are literally judge, jury and executioner and they already have decided he is guilty.

Lance played the game fairly, and he won. He deserves his titles. There is a reason why we have legal procedures, which are not being followed here. Lance never tested positive, but because they are pretty sure he was doping anyways, they are going to railroad him regardless.

As I said before, the problem is systemic. If Lance was doping, and we already know all of his main rivals were doping, who becomes the winner of the Tour for those 7 years? How many of the racers off the podium were routinely tested? Do we have a statute of limitations on those guys? Do we have urine and or blood samples to test?

In my opinion it is absolutely absurd to award a trophy in that situation to someone that wasn't even on the podium, but most likely wasn't even in the top 5 or 10. The race would need to be rerun because the precise circumstances of the race were defined by a core group of riders who in all but one case failed doping control.

 

[Count Orduck]

This is absolutely a witch hunt. Now before I proceed let me say, doping in cycling at the highest levels is in my opinion systemic.

Where is due process? In my opinion Lance has stepped down from defending himself, because he cannot defend himself. This doesn't mean the USADA has irrefutable proof, it means that they don't have to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. They are literally judge, jury and executioner and they already have decided he is guilty.

Lance played the game fairly, and he won. He deserves his titles. There is a reason why we have legal procedures, which are not being followed here. Lance never tested positive, but because they are pretty sure he was doping anyways, they are going to railroad him regardless.

As I said before, the problem is systemic. If Lance was doping, and we already know all of his main rivals were doping, who becomes the winner of the Tour for those 7 years? How many of the racers off the podium were routinely tested? Do we have a statute of limitations on those guys? Do we have urine and or blood samples to test?

In my opinion it is absolutely absurd to award a trophy in that situation to someone that wasn't even on the podium, but most likely wasn't even in the top 5 or 10. The race would need to be rerun because the precise circumstances of the race were defined by a core group of riders who in all but one case failed doping control.

Well, except it looks like he didn't...

I understand that Armstrong was a hero to a whole generation of American kids, but really if he cheated then he cheated. That everyone else might well have also been cheating doesn't make it right.

Don't think many could forgive him for what he did to Simeoni.

What's this about? I don't speak French, and the Youtube comments were just a load of people calling him a cnut.

 

[Count Orduck]

Oh wow, I just read about that. Seems like Simeoni was testifying in a doping case so Armstrong and his mates treated him like shit and abused him?

 

[Zen]

Just for the record, testing was a fecking joke up until like 2007 or so. Marion Jones failed in 06 or something, despite the fact she's openly admitted she was a bigger user in the early 00's. It's a lot better now, but they will always be one step behind.

For some, because tests were so bad, it's all about making them public enemies by getting endless evidence against them from colleagues and others involved in the hope they might eventually break down like others have. Bonds won't budge, and I doubt Armstrong ever will either.