Lance's Tour Titles are Stripped - Banned from Cycling For Life

[canjond]

Sad day for cyclists... I'm not a fan of dopers, but I certainly agrees this was a USADA witch-hunt...

[Touch'EmAll]

I remember how both A-Rod and Andy Petite were charged with using performance enhancing drugs. However, both came forward quickly, admitted to using, said they were wrong for taking the drugs, said they will not ever do it again, AND ALL WAS FINE - both got back into ball and continued playing, no public unrest and no discipline actions taken. ??????????????

Then the other extreme - McGwire, Clemens & Bonds - all three got wrung out.

Where and how do we draw the line? I just don't know what to think anymore.

[Runscott]

I think cycling is even worse than baseball - too many years without adequate testing, resulting in 'everyone' feeling they had to do it in order to compete. It might actually be true that if you didn't dope, you couldn't compete at the top - blood-doping gave an incredible advantage to cyclists, and it was easy to cheat and get away with it.

[alanu]

I think I mentioned this in another thread, but if they give Lance's titles to the 2nd place finishers, Jan Ulrich, a cyclist who was banned for doping will get one.

[steve B]

I think cycling is even worse than baseball - too many years without adequate testing, resulting in 'everyone' feeling they had to do it in order to compete. It might actually be true that if you didn't dope, you couldn't compete at the top - blood-doping gave an incredible advantage to cyclists, and it was easy to cheat and get away with it.

Cycling was among the first sports to test for drugs, and has one of the most stringent programs there is. In competition testing that's daily or nearly daily during a big race like the TDF, and the riders must submit a schedule of where they'll be, what they're doing and with who during the offseason. Offseason testing is random, and done at least once, more if the rider is suspect. If they're not available tor that test within 24 hours it;s considered a positive test. If they are someplace they didn't have listed on the paperwork shown that's considered as a positive test.

The Lance thing isn't over yet. The international governing body -UCI- still has to make their ruling, which relies on the evidence put forward by USADA. The backstory that's not making headlines is that the UCI told USADA to drop the investigation partly because they were ignoring their own rules and partly from lack of any hard proof. All they really have is stories from disgruntled former team members who made deals to avoid their own suspensions.

Also the WADA has to recieve and approve the USADA report and make their ruling.

Finally, the group that runs the tour will review those decisions and THEY decide if the wins get taken away and who gets them.

Part of Lances claims are that USADA is way overstepping their authority in going after him. And from all I've read they are. Wether the UCI and WADA will go along with what they've got isn't a foregone conclusion for a few reasons.
If they accept whatever report they get they appear to surrender authority to USADA, a bad precedent.
If they accept the stories as the only evidence, they open the door to serious questions about their entire testing program. The stuff Lance was supposedly using was tested for with accurate tests during the time he was supposed to have taken it. So how did he pass literally hundreds of tests that caught other riders?
If that is the case, then either the tests weren't much good, or his doctor was incredible, or the tour promoters were allowing him to continue racing by concealing positive tests. I can see that for maybe the 7th win, but certainly not the first or the record breaking 6th. And it's unlikely for the others. Why would a French organization be part of helping an american cheat at a historic level?

So their choices don't look very appealing unless there's some very solid evidence there.

And remember, the feds went after him for 2 years, found essentially the same evidence, mostly supplied by USADA, and declined prosecuting him in any way.

Steve B

[Leon]

The whole debacle is just sad. Lance is a home town guy and I hope it all works out for him.

[Runscott]

Cycling was among the first sports to test for drugs, and has one of the most stringent programs there is.

Steve, I understand what you are saying, but I've re-read what I posted and can stand by it 100%. Cycling might have started testing early, but blood-doping was rampant and testing still inadequate during the Armstrong years. Yes, the testing might be one of the most stringent NOW, but it was inadequate for a very long time: The end-result kind of proves it - too many guys got away with it for too long, despite all the eyes on them. Part of it was just the fact that blood-doping was too difficult to prevent - some of the tactics the cyclists used were very creative.

From the late '90s until about eight years ago, as a marathoner, I trained with triathletes who were, of course, heavy into cycling. We all closely followed the cycling debacles year after year. You can say what you want, but we were all pretty much ashamed of the professional end of the sport of cycling. I think catching a few stars recently will help the sport in the long run.

Just my opinion, of course - add $2.20 and you can get a 12-oz cup of drip coffee.

[steve B]

Steve, I understand what you are saying, but I've re-read what I posted and can stand by it 100%. Cycling might have started testing early, but blood-doping was rampant and testing still inadequate during the Armstrong years. Yes, the testing might be one of the most stringent NOW, but it was inadequate for a very long time: The end-result kind of proves it - too many guys got away with it for too long, despite all the eyes on them. Part of it was just the fact that blood-doping was too difficult to prevent - some of the tactics the cyclists used were very creative.

From the late '90s until about eight years ago, as a marathoner, I trained with triathletes who were, of course, heavy into cycling. We all closely followed the cycling debacles year after year. You can say what you want, but we were all pretty much ashamed of the professional end of the sport of cycling. I think catching a few stars recently will help the sport in the long run.

Just my opinion, of course - add $2.20 and you can get a 12-oz cup of drip coffee.

I can see why you'd think that, but they were testing for EPO starting in 2000. At the time the test was a combined blood and urine test. They have since moved to just urine as the science improves. Blood testing for HGH began in late 2004. As did testing for homologous blood doping (Using your own blood instead of random blood.)

So He passed the tests for EPO (and a huge list of other stuff) starting in 2000, and All 3 plus the other stuff in 2005. There are apparently ways of beating the tests which I wasn't aware of. They're all pretty gross so I'll spare us all the details. They're out there if you look for them like I just did.I was actually trying to get the actual degree of testing. I know it's all stage winners, and a random sampling at the least.

The politics of it still bothers me though.
The French anti doping agency was aware of the ways of beating the test, and catching him at any of them would have led to an immediate ban. Why they didn't pursue that when they had plenty of reason to is bothersome.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls

Warned presumably by his team. But where did the info come from? The inspectors who were supposed to do surprise testing. There's precedent for the inspectors turning a blind eye towards some positives. One rider claimed that the hematocrit tests were often over 50, but the testers would announce in the team tent "49.9 you're all ok"

There's also this
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-armstrong-could-have-retained-five-tour-wins
Yep, the group that just gave him the lifetime ban would have followed their own rules and let him slide on 5 tour wins by following their own statute of limitations if only he'd cooperated. That looks pretty poor in my book. Make rules, then apply them if someone cooperates but ignore them if they won't. I can't imagine that going over well in a criminal case.
I'm also somewhat against having a statute of limitations at all. Either he cheated or he didn't.

He was ok while he was making money everyone, now that he's doing stuff that won't make that money he's fair game. Guilty or not that feels wrong, maybe more wrong than a cyclist taking some performance enhancers. A single guy cheating is wrong, a whole organization looking the other way until the money stops coming in.....

Steve B

[Runscott]

As always, Steve, your insights on the world of cycling are appreciated and respected - I can only offer the 'fringe participant' perspective, but you know tons more about this than I do.

I visit my cycling buddies every summer, so I'll be interested to hear their thoughts on this.