USADA's Travis Tygart received three death threats during Armstrong case

Maybe not 13 years but Barry Bonds did 8 years from becoming under formal investigation but I'm aware people talked about steroid taking from the late 90s onwards so probably close to 13 years of it for him.

Atlaz - you are assuming that the US is the same as the UK. I believe that contempt of court is much weaker in the US so that anything published isn't considered as prejudicial to a fair trial. Contrast that to how easy it is to be convicted of contempt of court in the UK. I recall two DJs who went to court for contempt after commenting on the evidence in a case. I'm being deliberately vague here!

Also, if it really were the case that USADA were held up by other cases there is no way they could give a definite time for publishing.

I still don't think I'd have Lance as a friend though, he's just too arrogant. I could not handle that. I'm only a fan of his because of his achievements, not his personality. I do not know of another sportsman who has been part of an investigation that goes back 13 years and probably further. If I'm wrong about that, I'd like a counter-example.

Why is USADA delaying publishing? If they have information that is 30x worse than that already released, why wait?

Well, there are these cases against other people that need to be heard and perhaps dumping all the evidence out in public before that might compromise the case both for and against these people? It's not just about Lance.

I'm even more convinced that this was a witch hunt against Lance and that it will backfire against the USADA when the UCI tells them to get lost.

Out of interest, did you think the BALCO investigations were a witch hunt too? Do you think Ferrari, Johan and the others are also victims of a witch hunt (especially as at least one of those will lose his livelihood if found against) or is it just because you're a Lance fan that you feel he's been singled out?

It just dawned on me "the end of the year" probably means during the Christmas holidays when there's hardly any news coverage. It's so bad round Christmas for news I've even been on TV then!

Why is USADA delaying publishing? If they have information that is 30x worse than that already released, why wait?

I'm even more convinced that this was a witch hunt against Lance and that it will backfire against the USADA when the UCI tells them to get lost.

It seems odd that USADA are mentioning death threats now. I think they are milking the publicity for all it's worth and will no doubt look for "a good day to bury bad news".

As for the prevalence of asthma in Olympic athletes http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/46/6/413.abstract?sid=dc03353f-d7f5-42c4-840...

These are links to the articles for and against in the British Journal of Sport Medicine; December 2008. You can view an extract free online but the journal is pay to view. http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/42/12/944.extract and http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/42/12/946.extract As you say it's complicated!

SideBurn: Have any particular articles in mind on cortico-steroids and doping? Be as interested as you in informing myself further.

Regarding being allowed to take them, yes indeed they can. IF they are for a "documented medical condition" AND the rider applies for a therapeutic use exemption in advance, in accordance the regs of their governing body (WADA Code art 4.4).

I've read suggestions that a large proportion of the pro peloton have TUEs for bronchial dilutors such as salbutamol - a larger proportion than in the general population (though, TUEs are no longer needed below a certain level anymore, since 2010). I havn't found an authorative source for this claim yet though, so be sceptical of it. Kind of weird to think asthma sufferers could be over-represented in elite sport if it's true, either that or some number of them are abusing the TUE system. Indeed, the TUE system seems generally ripe for abuse, particularly when the prescribing doctors can be employed/retained by the team or rider concerned. Reading the likes of the CyclingNews clinic forum, it seems not all elite riders are completely happy with TUEs.

Re blood doping, havn't read up much on haemotology myself to be honest, but yeah, it does seem to be very hard to reliably detect, doesn't it. The biological passport at the moment basically comes down to a panel of 3 odd experts coming up with a somewhat subjective opinion and reconciling them into a finding. To me it sounds like the biological passport could do with more data (particularly from elite athletes) and application of statistical analysis, to determine more rigorously what is and what is not normal. Be interesting to see how it develops. Dr. Michael Ashenden resigned from the biological passport programme because he was disappointed with it (not sure he fully explained why).

It's an interesting and constantly evolving subject, isn't it? Both in terms of the morals, enforcement, the abuse and the science of detection.

Paul I know exactly what cortico-steroids are and what they do. If you read the British Journal of Sports Medicine there are articles both for and against banning cortico-steroids; suggesting their performance enhancing effects/side effects are dubious. Furthermore you can take them if they are prescribed. The point of reading the article is to show that the science involved in did he or didn't he blood dope is extremely complex.

SideBurn: Cortico-steroids cover a wide family of chemicals, with many potent effects. Effects such as weight loss, reduction of inflammation. These certainly can contribute towards performance and endurance. Further, there are many side-effects, particuarly with chronic abuse - and it is that which the riders are being protected from. Also, I would be just a little sceptical with any advice on the effects of drugs from a man who is famous for having said EPO was as safe as water. Finally, that link is Ferrari trying to rebut a blog on detecting autologous transfusions. It has nothing to do with the r-EPO test, or the '04 results on Armstrong.

Dave: Yes, there were lots of quibbles and reasons why the '04 results from the '99 samples could not be used by UCI to sanction Armstrong. Note that /some/ of those reasons have in fact been dealt with through revisions to the WADA Code. E.g. retrospective testing is definitely, 100% allowed now.

That the UCI found a multitude of procedural and (bizarely) motivational reasons why they couldn't use the results to sanction Armstrong does not detract from the fact that all the scientists stand by the validity of them, and that the UCI paperwork connecting them to Armstrong is not disputed by UCI.

And, again, it sounds from this story like these same results are (at last) getting used in a case against Armstrong!

Edit: Dave, I didn't read your last comment in full. Glad we're actually mostly in agreement.

Paul; have a look at this, and other articles on 53x12.com. http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=119 It puts the other side of the story, from, admittedly the person who supposedly doped Lance. Also Cortico-steroids are banned, but why? They sound a bit like Anabolic-steroids but are not performance enhancing. The science is complex as the article above illustrates; I want to see Lance hung out to dry as much as you seem to, but I also want to see justice done and I would like to know how he passed so many tests despite being doped. If this secret dossier is so clear and compelling then why not just publish it?

I love the 'thirty times' worse quote. Who measures it - and how I wonder? As an old cynic I can only imagine the facts on Armstrong to be 25% worse that the current rumours. . Maybe he's an international war criminal, strangled kittens for kicks on the team bus, and is a close personal friend of Chris Moyles?? Even such sick revelations as that would only take me up to 50%.

One thing that's been missing up until now in investigations regarding Armstrong is any documentary, test-based evidence of doping to back up the mounting testimonials.

What about the '99 positive result for corticosteroids in that year's Tour de France? What about the positive results for EPO in 6 samples which were from the '99 tour, discovered as part of EPO test research done in '04? That's been public knowledge since L'Equipe published about it in '05! (Those '04 research results were anonymous - at least, the lab only had sample numbers, but L'Equipe later asked UCI for the doping paperwork which recorded which riders gave which samples). What about the '01 Tour de Suisse EPO test which the head of that lab, Saugy, says was a "suspicious result"? (Unfortunately, the EPO test was still in its infancy). Landis and now Hamilton say that Armstrong said that UCI covered up that result, and Saugy has confirmed his lab informed UCI, that he spoke to UCI officials, and that later Armstrong and Bruyneel had a meeting with him at the lab.

To say that there's been no test-based evidence to date suggests the reporter has overlooked some of the biggest stories in the Armstrong saga!

PS: The 6 positives in '99 which Tygart refers to must surely be the same 6 positives found in '04 and connected to Armstrong in '05 by L'Equipe.