Lance Armstrong reaction round-up: Conflicting views from cycling and beyond as Texan gets back in saddle despite ban

Cue the comments from the Lance-trolls parroting Lance's blatant "Never failed a test" lie.

He tested positive for corticosteriods in the '99 tour. 6 of his samples from the '99 tour tested positive for EPO, when a test for EPO was later developed and retrospectively applied. He had a "suspicious result" for EPO in the '01 Tour de Suisse - before the EPO test had been fine-tuned. Though we don't know the details yet, USADA say they have blood data that indicates doping from his comeback.

Lance *has* tested positive alright, he's just never been *sanctioned* for these positives - big difference. For some reason the UCI tends to behave very strangely when it comes to Lance and doping allegations - unlike how it would behave with any other athlete. The large amounts of cash Lance has paid to UCI have nothing to do with that, no doubt...

First of all, I don't think I would get on socially with Lance Armstrong if I met him. He has an arrogance that is very unappealling (in fact, I think he makes Sheldon Cooper look like a potential best mate). Some of the stuff written in his books is damaging to the sport, eg claiming that he gave a win to Pantani. If you are going to be generous, don't boast about it and I think it hurt Pantani as well. Similarly he boasts about spending time with a cancer survivor. I think it's indicative of someone who is desperate for approval (which supposedly is a female trait but some guys look for it too. I know I do a bit!)

So it wouldn't surprise me that he has made a lot of enemies that would not hesitate to make false allegations against him. It's also not unlikely that allegations would be made against him to detract attention from other drug taking.

If there is evidence that riders have managed to disguise drugs then that should be published and other rider's samples retested. It would have to be something like an unknown diuretic that isn't being tested for that's removing a drug from the body quicker. Or perhaps an unknown performance enhancing drug? In other words, there has to be verifiable evidence of drug taking.

Lance has always said that he cannot prove a negative, ie he cannot prove he hasn't taken drugs but according to him he's had 500 tests none of which have been positive.

There are many that suggest that life bans are the only solution. I do not agree I think it would only push the problem further underground.

I think therefore if the USADA succeed in having his victories revoked in the absence of any failed tests it will be damaging for all sports. Yes, drug cheating is bad but to be entirely capricious helps no-one. I would hope that the UCI rejects what the USADA submit to them if it is indeed baseless.

It does not surprise me that the judge is wondering about the USADA motives it does look like a witchhunt against one rider. I think it's just a massive publicity stunt and I don't blame Lance for saying he won't play their silly game any more. As for those that claim that Lance has seen the evidence against him already I seriously doubt that he has. I also doubt that evidence will be published about drug-taking at any point.

There is far too much cynicism about drug-taking in cycling already this helps no-one. I certainly don't want to get into speculation as to who it is who is going to testify against him, that doesn't help either.

PaulJ - unlike other cyclists Lance was given EPO as lifesaving treatment. How long the amount he was given took to leave his body is difficult to calculate and I don't think five years post treatment is unlikely.

Oops, some little clarifications:

- The Tour de Suisse test was a early EPO test, which hadn't been refined to the point that it resulted in a clear outcome (IIUC). With more R&D the test was refined, and the retesting of the '99 B samples was to verify it worked. Refs obtainable by googling for "Saugy", "Armstrong" and "Tour de Suisse". And there's an interesting interview out there with Michael Ashenden, a scientist involved in the EPO test development.

- I meant to say Lance has never sanctioned for the tests he failed, prior to this USADA case. Obviously, he has now, at last, been sanctioned.

Five *weeks* post-treatment is unlikely. Five years is just crazy talk.

According to Electronic Medicines Compendium, EPO if given subcutaneously would not be present 24 hours post dose. Hence the reason Dopers can micro dose and apparently not be detectable at doping controls.

Man, I love how the 'Lance-Haters' drop out of the sky like paratroopers everytime his name is mentioned...now it's like D-Day for them.

So they have no problem finding 1/20,000,000,000 of a gram of clenbutrol in Contador's sample, can detect transfusion evidence in Vino, Hamilton, Landis, on and on and on...the dozens of riders over the years...but are completely stymied when it comes to Lance? So the only think to prosecute him with is hearsay and conjecture? All these other riders are just really unlucky?

Please. Show me the proof and I will believe. Until then - in this country anyway - until that happens, there is a presumption of innocence until guilt has been proven.

An open letter to Lance: I'm saddened that you have taken the worst possible way out of this situation. Defend yourself in the fitting legal arena and take the opportunity to establish why the evidence against you isn't credible. We could then finally say you've faced up to your accusers in court and convincingly demonstrated your innocence (as you know this is very different to protesting your veracity in the press conferences where you hold court, whilst deriding those who broke their silence against you). Or man up and fess up. Tell the world "I am the worst kind of cheat: the type that will encourage systematic doping, then scapegoat those who get caught in a noxious attempt to exonerate myself. I repeatedly castigated others, when I was the worst fraud of all. I berated cyclists and journalists who dared try to expose the corruption in the system and tried to snuff out their careers to keep my own shambling on. I am ashamed of my conduct and only hope now that the air has finally been cleared, and cycling exorcised of its most notorious cheat, that the sport I once loved can move on." But you didn't take either of these options. You have parted a coward and so turned the eye of suspicion back on the sport which, on either interpretation, didn't deserve you.

They need to put all the evidence in the public domain so that it's all clear.

Lance Armstrong was not sanctioned for doping during his career, therefore to bring these issues up now when there was evidence at the time questions the whole testing procedures at those times. I know that samples are sometimes saved to retest at a later date when more advanced tests have been developed, but most of these tests are claimed to have shown positive at the time. So they should have been addressed at the time. If they are not addressed at the time, then this suggests that the issue goes far beyond Lance Armstrong and the whole system should be questioned. If tests relating to Armstrong were not addressed at the time, how many others were missed?

I understand that the USADA believes that they have evidence to show that Lance Armstrong was involved in doping, but they do not appear to be going about it in a very open and fair way. If this is as extensive as they claim it to be, then there must be other cyclists that they should also be investigating in exactly the same way, though this does not seem to be the case.

bikeyourbest: The evidence is there, it's in the records of the UCI, of WADA. You just choose not to look.

As to why they can find clenbutoral in other riders. Well, clenbutoral is not a natural substance that you can find in the body, while EPO actually is. It's fundamentally difficult to differentiate the synthetic EPO the rider doped with from the natural EPO everyone produces. Further, different substances will be metabolised in different ways and at different rates.

To say "How come they catch other riders?" is a ridiculous defence, because very *few* riders get caught for EPO. And Lance *did* get caught using EPO! Unless you choose to be wilfully blind to what are recorded matters of fact.

The problem is guys that the case against Lance is so far conjecture. If I understand correctly there was synthetic EPO supposedly detected however his medical condition when he had cancer was such that he was given this to keep him alive. From his book neither his oncologist or team manager expected him to live. From doing more research on this it appears that there is still not an effective test for synthetic EPO it's either the change of Hematocrit or the rate of change of new cells created that are looked at. The same effects could be accounted for by altitude training or sleeping in a tent with reduced oxygen levels (which Lance used to do and maybe still does). I say could because the rate of change is not publicised, probably because they don't want to encourage people to evade the limit (which would be very hard given that we already produce around 2.4 million red cells every minute).

I really do not understand how you can claim that all of a substance given sub-cutaneously can leave the body within 24 hours. The purpose of giving it that way is so that it is absorbed into the bloodstream slowly. I don't have Lance's medical records for all I know he may have been given this via an IV drip. In any event drugs are absorbed into various tissues in the body so you just cannot expect 100% of the drug to leave that quickly. Ever heard of the expression "you are what you eat?"

I find it really sad that people presume that because someone is a great athlete they must therefore be taking drugs (The US did this with a Chinese swimmer too).

All I have managed to find so far are claims that Lance took drugs from someone who initially denied taking them himself but it appears has now admitted it. So not a very reliable witness then, and someone I'm ashamed to admit I initially supported too.

Supposing I am wrong in presuming the most obnoxious Lance Armstrong is not a drug cheat. In that case there will be a paper/electronic trail of drugs being supplied to his team somewhere. If he was doing it, so was everyone else.

I expect and hope it'll all blow over soon.

Correction I meant 2.4 million cells per second.

'I really do not understand how you can claim that all of a substance given sub-cutaneously can leave the body within 24 hours. The purpose of giving it that way is so that it is absorbed into the bloodstream slowly. I don't have Lance's medical records for all I know he may have been given this via an IV drip. In any event drugs are absorbed into various tissues in the body so you just cannot expect 100% of the drug to leave that quickly. Ever heard of the expression "you are what you eat?"'

Try looking at scientific papers rather than making assumptions. It's very easy.

The really scary thing is that agencies like the USADA csan not convict sports people with no evidence and no no court case. There is so much what if's and subjection that has not been tied in a court of law.

if the case was so strong the USADA should have gone to court but they pushed for a withdrawal its a game. lance is guilty of nothing until proven and as no judge has seen the evidence and come to a conclusion. that is why we have a judicial system, for a legally represented person to decided between two parties.

Look at the feeding frenzy above. It silly and pathetic. he avoided 500 tests and such if that was the case why not criminal procedures against the UCI or other bossies and people for supporting criminal acts and such.

No nothing else - this is a witchhunt to rival the macarthy era. There is no other way to see it. There is o way that some one can avoid 500 + tests without assistance from senior people but where is the prosecutions for this coming out. There isn't any.

Ciaran, yes he definitely has tested positive for prohibited and controlled substances. You lose all credibility in any debate when you try to deny what are matters of fact. He just had not been sanctioned for those positives, before the USADA case.

Ciaran, You're just factually wrong when you say that USADA chose not to present the evidence. Actually, the process is that Lance had the option to request an independent tribunal to review the evidence, hear arguments and cross-examination from Lance and USADA, and adjudicate on it. As part of that process Lance's side would have been given the evidence (if he hadn't already been given it). You can verify this by reading the USADA regulations, or if you're not bothered you can just take Judge Sparks word for it that the USADA process afforded Lance ample opportunity for fair, due process.

It was *Lance* who chose not to take this option.

Further, USADA are *required* to release a report to at least WADA and any governing bodies involved (i.e. US Cycling and UCI), detailing the grounds for their decision. So, *despite* Lance choosing not to contend it, we should still get to hear what evidence is, in time.

We should look at what Armstrong said "I never cheated AND gained an unfair advantage...". What he meant to say is that he doped no more than any other cyclist. It's the defence of "we were all at it so what's wrong with that?". He was right, it's not about the bike it's about your drug regime.

Shanghaied,

No, Armstrong's test wasn't "under the positive range". It was a full-on analytical fail for corticosteroids. And no, he didn't have permission for it. He *should* have requested a therapeutic use exemption for the saddle-sore cream he says he used, *before* having used it ideally, certainly before competing after having used it (if the cream existed).

*After* the failure notification from UCI, Armstrong produced a doctor's prescription for a saddle sore cream, claiming he hadn't known it contained corticosteroids (an amazing lapse from a rider famous for his attention to detail). As other's have noted, Lance's soigneur at the time does not consider the explanation for the failure plausible.

The UCI accepted the back-dated doctor's note. Though, some might say it should not have. Regardless, it's indisputable that Lance has had positive tests for substances that should not have been in his body at the time. Which means he's being quite economical with the truth when he says he never failed a test, to put it kindly.

Here's another cyclist who couldn't treat a bee string cause he didn't have a therapeutic use exemption for cortisone cream and didn't want to break the rules: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/tour_de_france/1456643.stm. There is also a "Mouvement pour un cyclisme crédible", which is a voluntary protocol some pro teams are signed up to it (E.g. Slipstream/Garmin and various french ones), and one of the conditions stipulated to is that no use of corticosteroidds is acceptable. Riders have to be withdrawn from competition if they require such treatment - they can't just get a TUE. I.e. corticosteroid use isn't a trivial thing.