Live Doped?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

nbcrusader

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
22,071
Location
Southern California
Kernal of truth?
Sour French grapes?

Tour Chief Says Armstrong Owes Explanation

PARIS (AP) - The director of the Tour de France claims Lance Armstrong has "fooled" the sports world and that the seven-time champion owes fans an explanation over new allegations he used a performance-boosting drug.

Tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc's comments appeared in the French sports daily L'Equipe on Wednesday, a day after the newspaper reported that six urine samples provided by Armstrong during the '99 Tour tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO.

"For the first time - and these are no longer rumors, or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts - someone has shown me that in 1999, Armstrong had a banned substance called EPO in his body," Leblanc told L'Equipe.


I love the classic political argument tool: you doped, prove us wrong.

"The ball is now in his court. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour. Today, what L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled."
 
I love that they use a sample from six years ago. It makes me a little suspicious. Some people really have it out for Lance.
 
I really hope it isn't true. Lance is a hero to so many people, myself included. I would really hate to see anything tarnish his image.
 
Without singling out any individual cyclists, I have no faith that doping has been cracked down on in professional cycling.

I believe the practise is rife, that is why I no longer watch the Tour.
 
nbcrusader said:
I love the classic political argument tool: you doped, prove us wrong.

It might be because a lot of Europe's justice system is based on presumption of guilt, rather than innocence; and, as such, the burden is placed on the defense to prove that they are not guilty.

Anyway, it's all kind of silly in the end.

Melon
 
The lab that performed these tests can't confirm which ones are Armstrong's because the samples are unnamed. They could belong to anyone. The French newspaper making these claims, L'Equipe, says they got a hold of documents that match the numbers to Armstrong's name, but really, come on. How many times has this paper done things like this in the past? They've always tried to find some way to discredit him, and it's never worked.

The French media, and L'Equipe in particular, are frustrated that nobody from their own country has won the Tour de France for 20 years now, and that an American has dominated their race for the last seven. Do you think we'd see this type of journalism if a Frenchman had won the last seven in a row? I seriously doubt it.
 
phanan said:
Do you think we'd see this type of journalism if a Frenchman had won the last seven in a row? I seriously doubt it.

Oh I'd agree that there is an element of Armstrong being singled out for special treatment by the French media (I don't remember them being particularly diligent in investigating doping during the 1980's, when French cyclists were on top) but that doesn't really answer the broader question as to whether professional cycling (and athletics for that matter) has cleaned up its act.

Do people think professional cycling as a whole is clean? I don't.
 
I really, really hope this isn't true. I've had a fierce admiration for Lance Armstrong for a looooong time. He always just seemed so classy and steady and levelheaded compared to other professional athletes; for me, he's in a class with people like Mario Lemieux and Cal Ripken, Jr. and a precious few other athletes that I really think are still good role models.

I still :heart: Lance and I truly think he's clean.
 
This sounds like some real objective reporting on the part of the French Newspaper.


L'Equipe is owned by the Amaury Group whose subsidiary, Amaury Sport Organization, organizes the Tour de France and other sporting events. The paper often questioned Armstrong's clean record and frequently took jabs at him -- portraying him as too arrogant, too corporate and too good to be real.

"Never to such an extent, probably, has the departure of a champion been welcomed with such widespread relief," the paper griped the day after Armstrong won his seventh straight Tour win and retired from cycling.


Will they stop at nothing to destroy this man's image?
 
Re: Re: Live Doped?

melon said:


It might be because a lot of Europe's justice system is based on presumption of guilt, rather than innocence; and, as such, the burden is placed on the defense to prove that they are not guilty.

Anyway, it's all kind of silly in the end.

Melon

You got me thinking about this - so I looked it up. The French have a presumption of innocence:

In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says "Every man is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty." and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says "any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until his guilt has been established". The jurors' oath reiterates this assertion.
 
If you guys truly believe that someone can win seven Tours in a drug infested sport without ever having 'dabbled', then that's your look out. I call it naive, but that's just me.

But as I said, the French media are hypocrites regarding the wider issue.
 
financeguy said:
If you guys truly believe that someone can win seven Tours in a drug infested sport without ever having 'dabbled', then that's your look out. I call it naive, but that's just me.

what he said.

also, doesn't he only train and race one event per year? i never thought that was very classy.
 
Professional cycling has never been clean, so why should it be clean now??? Or why should Armstrong havebeen clean.. I don't believe he's totally clean, many of the riders aren't, but that doesn't make the sport any easier...
 
financeguy said:
If you guys truly believe that someone can win seven Tours in a drug infested sport without ever having 'dabbled', then that's your look out. I call it naive, but that's just me.

The testing for EPO began in 2001, and Armstrong hasn't tested positive for it during that time. Five tours right there.

Whether he did it beforehand or not, who knows? But I certainly don't regard what L'Equipe says as the truth, either.
 
Se7en said:


what he said.

also, doesn't he only train and race one event per year? i never thought that was very classy.

He usually would do smaller tours or one day events as part of his prepartion for the Tour, so to say he only did one event each year isn't exactly correct.

It would have been nice to have seen him in the Giro or Vuelta every now and then, though.
 
phanan said:


He usually would do smaller tours or one day events as part of his prepartion for the Tour, so to say he only did one event each year isn't exactly correct.

It would have been nice to have seen him in the Giro or Vuelta every now and then, though.


I recall the commentators on OLN saying that participating in the Giro d'Italia is possibly what cost Ivan Basso winning the tour this year.

I don't fault Lance for skipping out on the other big races. He was after the top prize and went about getting it the the way that best suited him.
 
EPO is used to combat anemia for people undergoing chemotherapy. Must be some connection there.
 
Last edited:
joyfulgirl said:
EPO is used to combat anemia for people undergoing chemotherapy. Wasn't he still undergoing chemo when he competed in 1999?


No, he was done with chemo in 1997, when he returned to cycling.
 
joyfulgirl said:
EPO is used to combat anemia for people undergoing chemotherapy. Must be some connection there.

EPO increases the amount of red blood cells in the body. More RBCs mean more hemogloblin (molecule that binds to oxygen for use in the body) and increased oxygen carrying capability. The more oxygen you carry, the longer you can go without fatiguing. For endurance sports like Cycling and Cross Country Skiing, this drug would be a major enhancer.
 
"I believe it was very disconcerting for the French to have had their national sports event usurped by the man affectionately dubbed "The Uniballer"... At first I think they thought ti was a scaml the chemotherapy was an elaborate ruse to mask some performance enhancing drug. "It's only chemo, my little snail snackers." They held his urine and blood for a year, like a vintage Chardonnay that needed to be sampled by candlelight at a great restaurant."

- Robin Williams
 
The thing I like best about lance is:

Winning a bunch of yellow jerseys! yay!
Beating cancer! yay!

Leaving his wife of many years and children to have sex with cheryl crow! yay!
 
Yeah well he's not perfect, and as far as I know his marriage had split up long before he started a relationship w/ Sheryl. Marriages split up for many reasons, it doesn't make the people involved bad people.

Lance Armstrong Goes on the Counterattack

By JIM LITKE, AP

Lance Armstrong climbed down off his bike a month ago. His counterattacking skills, though, remain as sharp as ever. A day after the director of the Tour de France said the seven-time champion "fooled" race officials and the sporting world by doping, Armstrong responded to the growing controversy with harsh words for everyone connected to a report in L'Equipe, the French sports daily that made the original accusation.

"Where to start?" Armstrong mused during a conference call Wednesday from Washington, D.C. "This has been a long, love-hate relationship between myself and the French."

He went on to lambaste L'Equipe and question the science and ethics of the suburban Paris laboratory that stored frozen samples from the 1999 tour, tested them only last year and leaked the results used in the newspaper's report. He even suggested that officials of the Tour and sports ministries who were involved in putting the story together could wind up facing him in court.

"Right now," Armstrong said, "we're considering all our options."

But a moment later, he added, "In the meantime, it would cost a million and a half dollars and a year of my life. I have a lot better things to do with the million and a half ... a lot better things I can do with my time. Ultimately, I have to ask myself that question."

What convinced Armstrong to go on the offensive were remarks earlier Wednesday by tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc. He said L'Equipe's report that six urine samples Armstrong provided during his first tour win in 1999 tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO had convinced him the cyclist had cheated.

"The ball is now in his court," Leblanc told the newspaper. "Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the Tour. Today, what L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled."

But in one sense, Armstrong felt the same way, saying he talked to Leblanc on the telephone after the tour director spoke to L'Equipe, but before those remarks were published.

"I actually spoke to him for about 30 minutes and he didn't say any of that stuff to me personally," Armstrong said. "But to say that I've 'fooled' the fans is preposterous. I've been doing this a long time. We have not just one year of only 'B' samples; we have seven years of 'A' and 'B' samples. They've all been negative."

Armstrong questioned the validity of testing samples frozen six years ago, how those samples were handled since, and how he could be expected to defend himself when the only confirming evidence — the 'A' sample used for the 1999 tests — no longer existed. He also charged officials at the suburban Paris lab with violating World Anti-Doping Agency code for failing to safeguard the anonymity of any remaining 'B' samples it had.

"It doesn't surprise me at all that they have samples. Clearly they've tested all of my samples since then to the highest degree. But when I gave those samples," he said, referring to 1999, "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that."

EPO, formally known as erythropoietin, was on the list of banned substances when Armstrong won his first Tour, but there was no effective test to detect the drug. But Armstrong's assurances he never took performance-enhancing drugs has been good enough for his sponsors. A previously scheduled meeting with several brought him to Washington, and he said afterward, "We haven't seen any damage."

But Armstrong acknowledged the same was likely true at L'Equipe.

"Obviously, this is great business for them," he said. "Unfortunately, I'm caught in the cross-hairs.

"And at the end of day," he added, "I think that's what it's all about ... selling newspapers. And it sells
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Yeah well he's not perfect, and as far as I know his marriage had split up long before he started a relationship w/ Sheryl. Marriages split up for many reasons, it doesn't make the people involved bad people.




it's true.

Lance left his wife to have sex with Sandra Bullock.

;)
 
Seriously, I never heard he was involved w/ anyone, that had nothing to do w/ his marriage splitting up. Whatever happened, it is sad and between them.

You can't blame these famous women (or non-famous) for being attracted to him, I think he's an amazing man


he's so amazing I got carried away there :wink:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom