USADA to strip Lance Armstrong of 7 Tour titles
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — With stunning swiftness, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency said Thursday night it will strip Lance Armstrong of his unprecedented seven Tour de France titles after he dropped his fight against drug charges that threatened his legacy as one of the greatest cyclists of all time.
..
"I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999," he said. "The toll this has taken on my family and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today — finished with this nonsense."
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/usada-strip-lance-armstrong-7-tour-titles-031949504--spt.html
i don't really blame him. the guy has had how many trials, how many drug tests and every single one he was found innocent. this is nothing but a witch hunt....note also the US lost their criminal case. i thought this comment after the article was poignant:
Nothing like being sent to trial over and over again till they get the verdict they want.
The problem is, is that the drug test Lance took were predominantly for PED's such as anabolic steroids, hgh, amphetamines, diuretics which were easily detected during his years in competition by immunoassay, HPLC and GC/MS. There was no reliable test for blood boosting drugs such as EPO or ways to detect illegal methods such as blood packing (except sit a rider down with a high hematocrit.).
Also in years past it was pretty much up to coaches, trainers and athletes as to what PED's they used, when they used them and dosing. With the arrival of EPO that had tragic consequences. There was a rash of cyclist, particularly in Belgium where drug laws were more lax, that died from using EPO. This lead to competative cyclist finding corrupt physicians who had the expertise to not only systematically apply all these groups of drugs resulting in substantial improvement in their preformances with little chance of detection. Particularly for blood boosting drugs and methods like blood packing. Those were the two main methods of performance enhancement for endurance athletes which were, at that time, virtually undetectable. Done right an athlete could see remarkable improvements in short spans of time. Done wrong and it could result in their death.
So from the mid 90 through the late 2000's you had a systemic culture of doping in cycling. As Lemond et el pointed out, you had athletes with VO2 Max in the 70's making climbs while sustaing power outputs of 600 watts. Which is physically/physiologically impossible. This became a very reliable indicator of just how systemic doping was across the peloton and how poor the methods were for detetcing blood boosting methods of performance enhancement.
Then things changed. The UCI started creating genetic/biological profiles for their licensed athletes. They also invested in developing a reliable method for detecting blood bosting drugs like EPO. Very quickly most of the top rated cyclist were busted including virtually every major domestiques on both Armstrongs US Postal and Discovery Channel teams. Some admited to doping after they retired.
So that boils down to what is the evidence against Armstrong. It's virtually all circumstantial but it is compelling. There's records of performance of Armstrong exceeding his biological profile (Armstrong's VO2 Max is in the high 70's to low 80's). There was his association as a patient with Michelle Ferrar, a corrupt doctor who supplied banned substances, including EPO, and provided blood doping services for elite athletes (which was virtually his sole practice). Then there's the very, very large number of Armstrongs associates who have also been busted for doping, who have given reliable, consistent and verifiable testimony of systemic PED use on Armstrongs team. They have also testified that Armstrong used PEDs.
So this all builds up to some very compelling circumstantial evidence that Armstrong did use PEDs. That's the problem though, it's circumstantial evidence. Having said that, had their been more or any reliable physical evidence that Armstrong had used PED's he'd be in far worse trouble than answering to WADA. He'd be facing criminal charges and the only reason he's currently not facing criminal charges is that the federal invistigators could only find circumstantial evidence. Probably the best shot they had at proving Armstrong was using PED's would have been obtaining Dr. Ferrar's medical records. Dr. Ferrar's office was raided but many of his records had been destroyed. Which is why Dr. Ferrar is now internationally banned as a sports physician.
So that leaves WADA, which is a professional association and not a legal or criminal court with it's case against Armstrong. Twice now Armstrong has sued WADA in Federal court claiming his due process rights were being violated. Both times federal courts have rejected Armstrongs case. Armstrong subsequently refused arbitration with WADA and so now they have stripped him.
What's my sentiment about this? I think the evidence is compelling that Armstrong used PED's. I think the evidence is equally compelling that virtually all of his major competitors were too. Pantani did. Ulrich did and so did most of his other major competitors. So if all of Armstrongs major rivals and their team mates and most of the peloton was systematicall doping does that justify Armstrongs alleged use of PEDs? Hell no.
Armstrong is retired now and WADA has no criminal or civil authority over him. He's free to thumb his nose at them. All WADA can do is revoke his wins (but can't take his winnings or earnings) for the record and suspend his license. Certainly a stain on his reputation but other than that, big deal. Armstrong damned well may walk away a serial cheater not that I really care.
What I care about is what this will do for the sport of cycling. I'm fairly sure given UCI's respons to WADA's allegations that their is substance to the charge that UCI did cover up doping allegations on Armstrong. That's understandable. Armstrong did for professional cycling what Michael Jordon did for the NBA. Having it known that their biggest star was a cheat would have be a serious blow to the UCI and professional cycling. Remember, cycling was going through a major doping crises in the late 90's when Aermstrong came back from his struggles with cancer and literally saved the sport and brought international attention and expenential growth and profits to the sport.
In the long run what this says is that if you're going to ride bikes competitively, don't cheat. The evidence is all ready comming in that the aggressive persuit of cheats, new drug testing methods and the biological profiling of licensed athletes has had a major impact. This year on the major climbs of the TdF most of the major competitors were only producing around 350 to 400 watts on major climbs. This is in line with normal physiological capacity and indicates to me that the measures for detecting cheats in the sport of cycling are working and that's what counts.
