Skip to main content

View Diary: Armstrong - Winning in an Age of Liars (132 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Richard Virenque, about the 1998 Tour, (4+ / 0-)

    had used the exact same line. How could he be a doper, he asked. He had never tested positive. This was after 250 bottles of EPO had been discovered in his support car.

    An EPO test was invented in 2000. L'Equipe got ahold of results on Lance Armstrong's 1999 blood samples. The results show that Armstrong had used EPO, very specifically, for his spectacular performances such as the mountain victory at Sestrières, and the time trials.  

    •  yes but most of his wins were post 2000 (0+ / 0-)
      •  That's what the whole (3+ / 0-)

        carefully controlled microdosage is about. Occasionally a spike would still occur (in Armstrong's case in 2002 at least) but then those would be challenged as an outlier or false positive. As the tests got better the peloton increasingly went to autologous blood packing. Neither Operation Puerto nor the Festina scandals were a consequence of positive tests, BTW -- the quality of testing just wasn't very good. 96 Tour winner Bjarne Riis passed all of his tests -- and owned up 10 years later (returning his yellow jerseys, BTW).

        Even with widespread doping, it's no level field. Different riders respond differently and have differing levels of compunction. Not all can afford the top doctors. Some doctors are better than others at pushing limits, at disguising drugs. Since the early 90's the best of the best has been Michele Ferrari, whom Armstrong actively sought out and paid over $1M for services, one of which apparently was to be too busy to provide services to too many other riders. UCI saw Armstrong as their golden goose and really really didn't want to hear about possible doping.

        •  No one seems to be blaming the tour itself (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VeloDramatic, Garrett

          and the various agencies tasked with keeping doping and drugs out of cycling and sports. Why were they so incompetent at this? Was it truly incompetence? Was Lance really that much smarter in his cheating? Or did they partly look the other way, because what Lance was doing was great for cycling PR and ad revenue?

          I have to wonder how much revenue Lance has generated, both for his sponsors and others, in terms of bikes, bike parts, accessories, clothes, tours, training, etc., when he  was at his peak. It must be in the multi-billions. So I can see how they'd want to look the other way so long as their cash cow kept producing.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:48:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site