Landis admits doping, points finger at LA - Please read Mod Warning post 1

Chips Lovell

There's also a well known Italian doping doctor who was fond of juicing himself up on EPO for gran fondos.

Undercover Elephant

TinyExplosions wrote: »

at least in my mind there's 2 'types' of cheating -the kind where you do a bit of diving, or ruck on the wrong side, or butt heads with a rival in a sprint, and then there's the chemical advantage that doping gives you, be it steroids in baseball/rugby, or EPO in Cycling. They are very different

Why?

Beasty

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Why?

One is less likely to be premeditated and there are many shades of grey involved

The other is black and white

TinyExplosions

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Why?

Beasty wrote: »

One is less likely to be premeditated and there are many shades of grey involved

The other is black and white

^^What he said, and also because one is 'playing the referee' and has limited consequences, and one is trying to change your physical makeup in order to gain an advantage

Beasty

... and one is far more likely to result in long-term health issues, as well as encouraging others to undertake activities with the same potential consequences

a148pro

petethedrummer wrote: »

I wouldn't agree, the more Armstrong knows about what was said in front of the Grand Jury, the more he can prepare his position. Its not going to help the FEDs having all this leaked.

If he hasn't received a copy of the testimony already he would undoubtedly, as a matter of fair procedures, be entitled to it in advance of any hearing.

petethedrummer wrote: »

Landis and Hamilton were either lying about all the doping before or lying about it now.

If no doping went on, what reason in the world would George Hincapie have to say that it did? How could it possibly do him any good?

I've little doubt he was doping, and maybe Hincapie is going to be the best witness. I'm just saying that Hamilton, on the strength of that interview, is a crap witness, and Landis, on the strength of the charade of a book he waltzed around with for a few years, is also unreliable. And more importantly, the evidence of anyone testifying under effective duress of a jail sentence if they dont, and with the clear incentive of immunity if they do, should be approached with caution.

petethedrummer wrote: »

How is this system supposed to develop? Most of the Cycling press have turned a blind eye towards doping. The UCI want to keep their heads in the sand. A bit of encouragement from the FEDs would speed the whole thing along nicely.

Apart from these factors, is the science actually capable of detecting these things. Blood doping in particular?

What if each rider was effectively chaperoned for the entire tour, required to sleep in pre-designated lodgings, accompanied 24 / 7, watched taking a dump (:D)? Is this the only way we could be sure there was no doping during the race (but not before it)?

petethedrummer

a148pro wrote: »

If he hasn't received a copy of the testimony already he would undoubtedly, as a matter of fair procedures, be entitled to it in advance of any hearing.

I don't know if he is. I wouldn't have thought so. But I'm not a law talking guy and I'd like to know the answer to this.

a148pro wrote: »

Apart from these factors, is the science actually capable of detecting these things. Blood doping in particular?

The cheaters are always ahead, but the noose is tightening it seems. There aren't as many ridiculous performances as before...I haven't been watching the giro, so I can't comment there.

If former riders detail how they cheated it makes it easier for testers. I think it was Landis' account (and Thomas Frei) of how he would micro dose with EPO that alerted the experts that it was still being used during the race season. You just need to be sufficiently hydrated for any markers to leave the system within a few hours. Thomas Frei said that not drinking enough water after micro-dosing EPO is what lead him to get caught. Its still cheating but its not like they're jacking themselves up with impunity as before.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/biological-passport-expert-taking-landis-seriously
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5222488

ednwireland

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-lab-director-confirms-meeting-bruyneel-and-armstrong-over-suspect-samples

Martial Saugy, the current director of the renowned Swiss Anti-Doping laboratory in Lausanne, has confirmed that four of the urine samples taken at the 2001 Tour de Suisse were labeled "suspect" and that he later met with former US Postal sports director Johan Bruyneel and Lance Armstrong to discuss details of the early EPO test method. It is the first time Saugy has reacted publicly to last week's accusations made by Tyler Hamilton, according to which the UCI and the Swiss laboratory covered up "suspect" samples of the seven-time Tour de France winner.

Saugy, who was the lab's scientific director at the time, told Swiss newspaper Neue Züricher Zeitung that he remembered four "suspect" samples from the 2001 Tour de Suisse but did not know whether they belonged to Armstrong.

"They were taken at four different stages, so I don't know whether they were from four different riders or all of the same athlete," said Saugy. "But the tests were not covered up, and it is also not correct that they could have been interpreted as positive. They were suspect, and you wouldn't stand a chance at all with that sole argument in front of a court."

It was during the 2001 season that the first anti-doping test for EPO was introduced, and the scientific community was still arguing on the validity of the test. "The Paris laboratory of Chatenay-Malabry fixed the criteria for a positive test result," he continued. "An athlete was positive only if 80 percent of the signs typical for the use of synthetic EPO were found."

A sample was considered "suspect" when "it showed between 70 and 80 percent of the typical EPO parameters. That meant that the probability of doping was high. But because such a result can also be produced naturally, it was all about excluding false positives."

a148pro

petethedrummer wrote: »

But I'm not a law talking guy

I am , if he's ever charged with anything he'd get a full transcript of any evidence / statements made by persons giving evidence against him. Not sure exactly how the Grand Jury system works but I imagine if LA was to be compelled to attend there to give evidence he would be entitled to know the full nature of the allegations against him, and to know the evidence his accusers had already given, so as not to be presented with it for the first time in the witness box.

The yanks are pretty right wing and hardcore, but the rule of law is also quite strong and he should be entitled to full fair procedures, before they lock him up for a long time....

petethedrummer

a148pro wrote: »

I am , if he's ever charged with anything he'd get a full transcript of any evidence / statements made by persons giving evidence against him.

Ah yeah, in a regular trial.

a148pro wrote: »

Not sure exactly how the Grand Jury system works but I imagine if LA was to be compelled to attend there to give evidence he would be entitled to know the full nature of the allegations against him,

I thought you just went in and load of people popped questions at you all day and you aren't allowed get represented by a lawyer. You answer or plead the 5th. You lose the right to plead the 5th if you want immunity. Thats my best guess.

I hate that plead the 5th phrase. And all my law knowledge is gleaned from films.

Lumen

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
III. GRAND JURY, INDICTMENT, INFORMATION > Rule 6.
Rule 6. The Grand Jury

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule6.htm

Undercover Elephant

Edit: ^^^ This is more likely to be accurate.

petethedrummer wrote: »

I thought you just went in and load of people popped questions at you all day and you aren't allowed get represented by a lawyer. You answer or plead the 5th. You lose the right to plead the 5th if you want immunity. Thats my best guess.

I think if you're just a witness they can do pretty much what they like and don't even have to tell you what the case is about. If you're the defendant I'm fairly sure you at least get to see the charges.

You right that you can't take the 5th if you've been granted immunity because it's not possible to expose yourself to prosecution, but not taking it isn't a condition of being granted immunity later. Not sure whether Hamilton or anyone else has actually been formally granted immunity.

TinyExplosions

Armstrong's attorney Tim Herman, however, recently said in a statement that "neither Armstrong or Bruyneel have any recollection of meeting [Saugy] for any purpose at any time," and "Armstrong was never informed by anyone in 2001 or any other time about either a positive or 'suspicious' test".

So it's either the Swiss Lab Director, or Lance that's lying is it...

Lumen

TinyExplosions wrote: »

So it's either the Swiss Lab Director, or Lance that's lying is it...

Not at all. He has no recollection of it. Sure, we all forget stuff - he's a busy sort of a guy. Cancer isn't going to aware itself.

TinyExplosions

Lumen wrote: »

Not at all. He has no recollection of it. Sure, we all forget stuff - he's a busy sort of a guy. Cancer isn't going to aware itself.

It's that damn doublespeak again... I've really got to get the hang of that

ROK ON

manwithaplan wrote: »

What?

I am obviously screamingly naive but what sort of dimwit sportive or lower cat rider would even contemplate doping.

But I can't understand how some soft ****e of a weekend warrior would sit back in satisfaction having knocked some time of a TT personal best or having crossed the line first in some mickey mouse race, knowing that they had cheated and risked their health in the process. They don't even have the comfort of the misguided belief that everyone else was at it so the victory still means something.

May their brakes squeal in protest and may the wind be always at their front.

I guess some people are simply curious as to what the impact would be. I along with another present here have spoken about what the potential benefits of EPO would be for a fat mamil like myself. I mean, would it be possible with say 2 years training hard and a course of doping to say win the RAS, without ever having raced seriously?
It is something that I think is worthy of an experiment at the very least.

ROK ON

a148pro wrote: »

The yanks are pretty right wing and hardcore, but the rule of law is also quite strong and he should be entitled to full fair procedures, before they lock him up for a long time....

They are in their hole right wing. What has gone on in the USA since the subprime crisis first exploded is nothing short of the nanny state gone out of control. (Sorry, couldnt resist).

manwithaplan

ROK ON wrote: »

It is something that I think is worthy of an experiment at the very least.

MAMIL+^BMI+EPO=RÁS

lescol

@ROK ON

This was linked to by someone on Bikeradar, it's originally from 2004 but is interesting http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/anabolic-steroids/aas-epo-article-outside-magazine-552736.html

Inquitus

ROK ON wrote: »

I guess some people are simply curious as to what the impact would be. I along with another present here have spoken about what the potential benefits of EPO would be for a fat mamil like myself. I mean, would it be possible with say 2 years training hard and a course of doping to say win the RAS, without ever having raced seriously?
It is something that I think is worthy of an experiment at the very least.

Someone posted a link on here to an article by an amateur Mamil type in the US who went on a doping program as some sort of investigative trip. I can't find the link but it was a good read and yielded huge improvement.

That would be it above.

ROK ON

lescol wrote: »

@ROK ON

This was linked to by someone on Bikeradar, it's originally from 2004 but is interesting http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/anabolic-steroids/aas-epo-article-outside-magazine-552736.html

Thats where the idea came from.

TinyExplosions

ROK ON wrote: »

I guess some people are simply curious as to what the impact would be. I along with another present here have spoken about what the potential benefits of EPO would be for a fat mamil like myself. I mean, would it be possible with say 2 years training hard and a course of doping to say win the RAS, without ever having raced seriously?
It is something that I think is worthy of an experiment at the very least.

ROK ON wrote: »

Thats where the idea came from.

And I still think we could give it a go! (I have no problem being identified as the other party in the discussion -if I could get funding, I'd be happy to give it a go

dave2pvd

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

You right that you can't take the 5th if you've been granted immunity because it's not possible to expose yourself to prosecution, but not taking it isn't a condition of being granted immunity later. Not sure whether Hamilton or anyone else has actually been formally granted immunity.

As I understand it, TH has been granted immunity as long as he tells the truth. If he is found to be lying, game over.

It's for that very reason that I believe his 60 Minutes interview was him repeating parts of his truthful deposition from the grand jury appearance.

Anyone of these guys called to testify have a LOT to lose by lying. Hincapie knows that. He is the last guy I would ever have expected to turn on LA.

a148pro

ROK ON wrote: »

They are in their hole right wing. What has gone on in the USA since the subprime crisis first exploded is nothing short of the nanny state gone out of control. (Sorry, couldnt resist).

Feck, my political compass is obv all askew, is the nanny state not right wing? Gotta start reading the Spectator

Chips Lovell

a148pro wrote: »

Feck, my political compass is obv all askew, is the nanny state not right wing? Gotta start reading the Spectator

It's very simple really. If you regard yourself as right wing, the state spending you disagree wtih is nanny stateism or pinko socialism. The government spending you agree with is an economic stimulus.

Lumen

el tonto wrote: »

It's very simple really. If you regard yourself as right wing, the state spending you disagree wtih state spending is nanny stateism or pinko socialism. The government spending you agree with is an economic stimulus.

A spoon-ful of su-gar helps the me-di-cine go down, the medicine go dow-own, the medicine go down. Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. In a most delightful way.

joker77

The Onion

AUSTIN, TX—Embattled seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong held a press conference this morning to sternly reiterate that during his career he passed every easy-to-mask, ineffective doping test he was ever given. “Let me be entirely clear about this: I, like the hundreds of obviously juiced cyclists who also passed them, never failed one of those ****ty tests that you can basically learn how to beat by reading Internet message boards,” Armstrong said. “I repeat: Those tests—which were easily defeated by such simple means as, say, injecting a chemical masking agent, re-transfusing blood, or creating a urine sample out of toilet water and a drop of yellow food coloring—always said I was clean. And anyone who says otherwise is a slanderer.” Armstrong concluded the press conference by challenging his accusers, saying he would retake any of his previously defeated doping tests “anytime, anywhere.”

leftism

Hermy wrote: »

I think professional cycling has spent far too long rewarding dishonesty. I don't know how you fix it but there needs to be a way of rewarding, highlighting and publicising those who play fair in the sport. All the talk at the moment is about Alberto Contador and Lance Armstrong and all for the wrong reasons while those people in the peloton who are riding clean hardly get a mention.

I'd agree 100% with this! Even more than that, it seems like the UCI and race organisers are actually punishing or at least ostracising clean riders. An example of this would be the situation with Carlos Sastre who's team were not given a spot on the TDF's starting roster for this year. Sastre is the only former winner of the race currently riding who has not tested positive for a banned substance. In fact he's possibly the only *clean rider* to win the race in a very long time. Why would the sport turn its back on someone like this??? He should be held up as an example of what can be achieved!

(* unfortunately, speculating that a rider is clean can often more difficult that speculating that he is dirty! But the fact is that he's never tested positive and as far as i'm aware there has never been any major suspicion surrounding him. Although i'm open to correction on that)

Captain Havoc

leftism wrote: »

But the fact is that he's never tested positive

Neither has Lance

Pisco Sour

Reading through Lance Armstrong's utterly sickening facebook page of nonsense propaganda and came across this piece of drivel lol........ "Hang in there Big Tex! Everyone here knows that while the team you built around you for the 7 tour victories were filled with confessed dopers, you did the right thing and didn't! Livestrong my friend!".......hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

A part of me thinks it may be sarcasm, but then I remember how Americans don't get sarcasm!