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

Pepital - I have Asperger's Syndrome I don't think I've fitted in anywhere. That probably makes the seeking for approval worse in my case. Some days I couldn't care less what people think of me other days I think everyone is out to get me. That's probably due to the Bipolar as well.

Don't get too excited about cortico-steroids. They sound a bit like anabolic-steroids but in some ways have opposite effects. Knowing what they are used for and what they do I do not know why they are banned. But, apparently, in super excess dose can give you a 'high'. They are widely used and easily obtainable; please do not be tempted, they are 'prescription only' because they not good for you....

Lacticlegs - the difference with David Millar is that he was caught with the goods necessary for doping and did the honorable thing and owned up. (Incidentally if we had automatic lifetime bans for doping there would have been no point in him doing so).

Lance has always maintained that he hasn't taken performance enhancing drugs other than to save his life. So far I am not convinced that he is lying about this.

I would admit that I even believed that Landis hadn't doped now I see he's admitted it. I once rode with Udo Bolts and I'm even more disappointed to see that he had taken drugs.

I have been following the case very closely. I'm still trying to find a reference that says that synthetic EPO is 100% out of the body a day after taking it. I really do doubt that figure even the food we eat takes about 3.5 days to pass right through. I do accept that it's possible for riders to use EPO to increase their fitness pre-race, but a "micro-dose" makes no sense. It's either a dose that works or doesn't.

If I'm wrong (and I'm prepared to accept that) then doping is far more widespread and hidden than any of us realise. Now hopefully this would lead to more people being caught, because with this amount of denial for this long a lot more people must be involved.

In any event unless there are some amazing drugs out there the performance benefit from performance enhancing drugs is small, but of course enough to mean the difference between victory and defeat. You still have to be an athlete in the first place.

I am hopeful that the truth will come out and I still believe that it will blow over. I am quite prepared to admit I could be wrong, something that those who assume Lance has been taking drugs because they don't like him aren't prepared to admit. (it'll only take one "Lance-hater" to prove me wrong on this).

I'm quite happy to read scientific papers, my degree is in Mathematics and Computer Science. Can anyone provide a link? What I do know is that drugs take a while to build up in your body and a while to leave, which is why your Doctor will ask you to complete a course of antibiotics.

Unfortunately posters are mixing up two things here. A test for synthetic EPO is not as far as I know testing for the presence of the drug but the effects of it. Therefore you cannot scientifically state that he has tested positive for EPO. False positives and false negatives do occur, ask Diane Modahl. So it's entirely acceptable for Lance to state that he hasn't failed a test. From what I understand they have never had to look at any of Lance's B samples.

Regarding TUEs, you are again assuming that the contents of the cream are properly listed. I recall one athlete failing a test for using the same nasal spray in a different country that had different ingredients. How do you fill in a TUE request in that case? Are we going to have to reach the stage where you have to ask for a TUE for everything that goes into your body? TUEs are usually granted for medicines that are taken on a long term basis, eg salbutamol. If you need the medicine and need to take it for less time than it takes to get a TUE, what can you do?

Also, the USADA has not published it's allegations so how everyone is such an expert on what the case is against Lance amazes me. Reading further into this story it appears some of those might even face criminal charges if it turns out they lied on oath to federal investigators.

I do wonder though whether the assumption that Lance has taken drugs is based on the fact that he is tactless, arrogant and obnoxious?

the first man to win the Tour five times.

Wrong !

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

Correction I meant 2.4 million cells per second.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.