France v. Lance Armstrong, Round 7863

[albionmoonlight]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/more/06/23/bc.cyc.armstrong.doping.ap/index.html

The French obsession with Lance Armstrong and doping reminds me of WrongWay's obsession with Michelle Wie.

Whether you agree with these French papers or not, the real story to me is the manic obsession they have with the issue. Far be it from me to squelch journalism. But sometimes, you just have to let go and move on with life.

[QuikSand]

I yawn not because I don't think the issue is of any importance, but the chances of this sort of thing arising from a French paper leading to anything but more bickering is so very remote.

[cartman]

I might be mistaken, but didn't he mention in one of his books that he took EPO as part of his regimen of drugs during his chemo phase?

[Maple Leafs]

Whether you agree with these French papers or not, the real story to me is the manic obsession they have with the issue. Far be it from me to squelch journalism. But sometimes, you just have to let go and move on with life.
It's their biggest sporting event, he's the event's biggest star, there's plenty of (purely circumstantial) evidence that he cheated, and if he did it would be one of the biggest sports scandals in history. They shouldn't be reporting the story? Why, because he's a nice guy?

[Honolulu_Blue]

The French obsession with Lance Armstrong and doping reminds me of WrongWay's obsession with Michelle Wie.

A very apt analogy.

[spleen1015]

It's the French.

Pfft.

[albionmoonlight]

It's their biggest sporting event, he's the event's biggest star, there's plenty of (purely circumstantial) evidence that he cheated, and if he did it would be one of the biggest sports scandals in history. They shouldn't be reporting the story? Why, because he's a nice guy?

Actually, I hear that he's kind of a jerk. Sort of in the Michael Jordan mold. The same hyper-competitive obsession that drives him to succeed prevents him from being able to relate well with others and give much of himself.

But that is beside the point. I am simply commenting on how it seems, to me, like this is the 10,000th story coming out of the French press filled with rumor, innuendo, and hearsay indicating that Armstrong doped.

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. It just seems like the French REALLY want him to have.

[Maple Leafs]

But that is beside the point. I am simply commenting on how it seems, to me, like this is the 10,000th story coming out of the French press filled with rumor, innuendo, and hearsay indicating that Armstrong doped.
That's at least partly because there is a lot of very circumstantial evidence that he did. And each time new information comes up, the French press runs with it because attacking Lance sells papers. And then the US press rushes to his defence, because squeaky clean Lance sells papers. It's somewhat ridiculous on both sides.

It just seems like the French REALLY want him to have.
That much is definitely true.

[Glengoyne]

I might be mistaken, but didn't he mention in one of his books that he took EPO as part of his regimen of drugs during his chemo phase?

I think it was EPO, but yes you are correct. He did undergo some EPO/transfusion treatments as part of his cancer treatment.

He had a doctor's note. I also believe that he made all of that clear to US Postal and the Cycling Authorities before he returned.

[kcchief19]

It's their biggest sporting event, he's the event's biggest star, there's plenty of (purely circumstantial) evidence that he cheated, and if he did it would be one of the biggest sports scandals in history.
Imagine the circus if in the United States there was a significant amount of circumstantial evidence that someone rewriting the history books of our national pastime was doing it thanks to performancing-enhancing drugs. Wait a minute ...

I have not doubt that some of the French obsession with Armstrong and doping is that they don't like that Armstrong has rewritten the record books of cycling, just as there are people obsessed with Bonds because they don't like him rewriting the home run record book.

But I think some of the obsession is that there are people -- Dick Pound comes to mind -- who are completely convinced that Armstrong cheated and they he should be brought down. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but they've never found the smoking gun. Until someone does, it will get seem like sour grapes.

[panerd]

Imagine the circus if in the United States there was a significant amount of circumstantial evidence that someone rewriting the history books of our national pastime was doing it thanks to performancing-enhancing drugs. Wait a minute ...
.

But why would the French government have any part of this? It's not like the US government would get involved with taxpayer money in something that is really only a smear campaign with circumstantial and illegal evidence. Oh wait. :)

[Franklinnoble]

I think it's more analagous to the obsession we have with Barry Bonds. I have no doubt Bonds did steroids, and it wouldn't shock me at all to find out Armstrong cheated.

[Maple Leafs]

But I think some of the obsession is that there are people -- Dick Pound comes to mind -- who are completely convinced that Armstrong cheated and they he should be brought down. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but they've never found the smoking gun. Until someone does, it will get seem like sour grapes.
True, but you have to remember that when it comes to elite level atheletics there's almost next a smoking gun. That's why the old "I never failed a test" excuse rings so hollow. Bonds has never failed a test either. Marion Jones never failed a test. Tim Montgomery never failed a test. Ben Johnson was juiced full of just about everything known to man and passed tests for years until his trainers slipped up. Heck, Carl Lewis failed three tests but we never knew about it because it was covered up at the time.

But in many of these cases, there was a huge amount of circumstantial evidence -- much more than there is against Armstrong, but that's really all you're ever going to have to go on in these cases.

[Easy Mac]

I think it's more analagous to the obsession we have with Barry Bonds. I have no doubt Bonds did steroids, and it wouldn't shock me at all to find out Armstrong cheated.

Subtlety again goes unnoticed at the FOFC

[kcchief19]

But in many of these cases, there was a huge amount of circumstantial evidence -- much more than there is against Armstrong, but that's really all you're ever going to have to go on in these cases.
I largely agree. I think there is more circumstantial evidence against Armstrong than we Americans care to admit. We dismiss a lot of it as a fabrication of the French -- witness the early tone of this thread.

[Maple Leafs]

I largely agree. I think there is more circumstantial evidence against Armstrong than we Americans care to admit. We dismiss a lot of it as a fabrication of the French -- witness the early tone of this thread.
Right... which is always sort of odd. As a non-American, I can't say there's much difference between Americans talking about Armstrong and Giants fans talking about Bonds. It's pretty much all from the same songbook.

The most damning circumstantial evidence against Armstrong is that he was involved in a sport that was absolutely rife with doping (including by many of the French stars, by the way). And he still dominated against all the cheaters. It would be like a baseball player hitting 100 HRs a year during the late 90s claiming to be clean. And unfortunately there's not much he can do about that, even if he was clean. People will always assume.

[flere-imsaho]

Whomever wins the Tour this year is going to be a little pissed off when this is still the big story amongst the French press.

[bulletsponge]

Whomever wins the Tour this year is going to be a little pissed off when this is still the big story amongst the French press.

unless its another american, then he will be thier target!

[BreizhManu]

Well being french here is my point of view :

You people seem to think it is mainly an anti-american bias, you're wrong (probably not completely but still).

The fact is ALL riders have been suspected for cheating since the 50's, of the last 29 winners of the Tour only 2 (Lucien Van Impe and Greg Lemond) have never been involved in any kind of doping suspicion.

And the suspicion has been increasing since the Delgado/Indurain era (end of the 80's).
Most people think Indurain was not that clean.
It is obvious that Bjarne Riis was a cheater (he was known as mister 60%, relative to his hematocrit level) and this guy is now the manager of team CSC.
Richard Virenque was convicted of doping, so was Jan Ullrich.

And you know the best part of it ? Nobody cares... For many many years, the public thinks that there is a culture of enhancing performance drugs in cycling and it is now use to it.
Any rider that competes at any level (professional or not) is always considered a cheater by 90% of the population.

People don't really care about Armstrong doping but about him refusing to admit he did it (which is understandable) while there are many facts (dr Ferrari, Roberto Heras etc...) that make think he is a cheater just like the others, and that's the important thing : "just like the others", people would still think he is the best.
Look at what happened to Virenque, the guy thought that if he admited his career was going to come to an end, that was not the case, he remained admired by many people.


All this just to say that the only ones interested in this story are the medias, most people really don't give a f**k about this even if it is true.

[BreizhManu]

Right... which is always sort of odd. As a non-American, I can't say there's much difference between Americans talking about Armstrong and Giants fans talking about Bonds. It's pretty much all from the same songbook.

The most damning circumstantial evidence against Armstrong is that he was involved in a sport that was absolutely rife with doping (including by many of the French stars, by the way). And he still dominated against all the cheaters. It would be like a baseball player hitting 100 HRs a year during the late 90s claiming to be clean. And unfortunately there's not much he can do about that, even if he was clean. People will always assume.

that's exactly my point of vue

[Desnudo]

I'm convinced 99% of cyclists use/have used performance enhancers to succeed. I think it's such core part of cycling that anyone who wants to win must do it.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Plus it's the World Cup, so nobody gives a damn about cycling right now!

at least until next week when the Tour begins.

[ISiddiqui]

Now Armstrong and LeMond are fighting:

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2501235


AUSTIN, Texas -- Lance Armstrong denied Monday that he threatened three-time Tour de France champion Greg LeMond, calling the allegation "ridiculous.''
"Greg is just not in check with reality,'' Armstrong said Monday from New York City. "It's ridiculous. Greg is obsessed with foiling my career.
"I'm apoplectic when I read stuff like that,'' Armstrong said.
LeMond was the first American to win the Tour de France with victories in 1986 and 1989-90. Armstrong came back from life-threatening testicular cancer that had spread to his lungs and brain to win seven in a row from 1999-2005 before retiring last year.
LeMond told the French weekly edition of L'Equipe Dimanche that he had testified in a recent legal dispute involving Armstrong.
"He threatened my wife, my business, my livelihood,'' LeMond told the newspaper. "His biggest threat consisted of saying he would find 10 people to testify that I took EPO. Of course, he didn't find a single one.''
America's top cyclists have had a public feud since 2001 when LeMond said he was unhappy about Armstrong's association with Italian doctor Michele Ferrari, who had been linked to doping accusations but later was cleared by an appeals court.
Armstrong cut ties with Ferrari before the 2005 Tour.
Armstrong was involved in a battle over a $5 million performance bonus owed to him after winning the Tour de France in 2004. Dallas-based SCA Promotions had withheld the money under allegations Armstrong was doping, which he denied.
After three weeks of testimony from dozens of witnesses, the three-member arbitration panel ruled in Armstrong's favor and ordered the company to pay him $7.5 million.
Betsy Andreu, the wife of Armstrong's former teammate, Frankie Andreu, claimed that Armstrong, days after he underwent brain surgery in 1996, told a doctor he had used the blood-boosting hormone EPO and other drugs. Frankie Andreu also gave similar testimony before the panel.
Armstrong denied those claims and his lawyer released an affidavit from the doctor who led his chemotherapy treatments saying there is no medical record of any such admission.
"I would have recorded such a confession as a matter of form, as indeed, would have my colleagues,'' Dr. Craig Nichols said. "None was recorded.''
Armstrong, who has shifted his career to promoting cancer research, said he would continue to aggressively fight allegations he used performance-enhancing drugs.
"We have won them all,'' Armstrong said. "I never run from anything. If you've got stuff to hide, you wouldn't do like I've done.''

[bulletsponge]

at least until next week when the Tour begins.


the tour starts next week?! damn ill have to remember not to watch it again

[Kodos]

The saga continues.

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090424/sp_nm/us_cycling_armstrong_1

Armstrong cleared by French Anti-Doping body

MONTPELLIER, France (Reuters) – American Lance Armstrong has been cleared of any wrongdoing by the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) over a random test conducted last month, the AFLD said in a statement.

"The AFLD has decided to take into account the athlete's written explanations and, consequently, not to open a disciplinary action against him," the statement read.

Seven times Tour de France winner Armstrong also said he had been cleared, writing on his Twitter feed: "Just got the word from the French agency AFLD on the shower-gate incident. Case closed, no penalty, all samples clean. Onward."

The AFLD had said earlier this month Armstrong could face disciplinary action because he "did not respect the obligation to stay under (the) direct and permanent observation" of a drugs tester who came to his southern France residence in March.

Armstrong said he went to shower while Astana team manager Johan Bruyneel was checking the tester's credentials with the International Cycling Union (UCI).

The Texan, who made a comeback to the sport in 1998 after treatment for testicular cancer, was asked to provide urine, blood and hair samples when returning from a training ride around Beaulieu-sur-Mer.

"The analysis of the urine and blood samples from Mr Lance Armstrong did not reveal any abnormality. His hair sample has not been tested," the AFLD said.

Armstrong broke his collarbone during the Tour of Castilla y Leon last month but expects to be fit for the Giro d'Italia, which starts on May 9.

He said earlier this month he feared the AFLD would bar him from competing in the Tour de France.

Armstrong has had a difficult relationship with Tour organizers, the Amaury Sport Organization (ASO), who said last year the 37-year-old's return to the race would be "embarrassing."

In 2005, the French sports daily L'Equipe, owned by ASO's parent company EPA (Editions Philippe Amaury), claimed samples of Armstrong's urine from the 1999 race showed traces of the banned blood-boosting substance erythropoietin.

However, Armstrong, who has never tested positive, was cleared by a Dutch investigator appointed by the UCI.

AFLD president Pierre Bordry last year invited Armstrong to have his 1999 samples re-tested but the rider declined, arguing they could have been compromised.

[AlexB]

It's the French.

Pfft.

QFT

[gstelmack]

Armstrong has had a difficult relationship with Tour organizers, the Amaury Sport Organization (ASO), who said last year the 37-year-old's return to the race would be "embarrassing."

Because all efforts to implicate him have continued to fail?

Or because he might dominate all the younger racres again?

Or because they've created a media circus that will interfere with the other riders?