dope ><

I'm skeptical, to be honest. An awful lot of the French HATE Lance Armstrong, for obvious reasons.
 
It's a clear case of sour-grapes....France lost for the 7th year in a row I believe and it's obviously too much for their national ego. Like so many cowards and poor sports in the past they have fallen back on false accusations and cheap shots. Let's ignore the fact he survived a terminal cancer diagnosis and hauled himself from his death-bed that first year to win the world's most famous bike race. Tell me I'm wrong but without hard and fast scientific proof from a totally independent lab I refuse to take the word of a bunch of people make this same cry at every Olympic Games.

And one last point....He was on cancer treatment for a very long time and those drugs and chemicals stay in your system for a very long time....a false positive is entirely possible.

Thank you.
 
I'm not going to bother reading it, but an example of how France reacts to some things:

Mid-90s, the taxes on higher-income residents was raised. Laetitia Casta, whom any red-blooded carbon-based heterosexual male will instantly recognize for her fantastic boobies, was upset with this and moved out of France (her native homeland).

The people bitched and complained that she left (seriously), as I suppose she was their only mobile claim to fame. Hearing this, the government removed the tax raise they had just implemented and asked her to come back.

She did, but you can see the moral... I know some french people and they're alright, but that country as a whole just seems to be filled with cowards and whiners who will go to any non-aggressive extremes to defend themselves. I guess that counts as some demented form of pride, but jesus christ.

France, grow a pair.
 
Yeah, The cancer drugs combined with the fact he most likely trains in the mountains (which causes red blood cell production due to less oxygen in the atmosphere - which is what the drug synthesyses.) are probably the reason.

And yes the french have been cowards for many years....they also smell of garlic and dont shave enough :P
 
Typical, "I lost so other guy must be a cheater"

Really I have seen more compelling arguments in the Weekly World News.
 
This is total BS- they were using urine samples obtained in 1999 for god's sake. There's no way that you can convince me that a 6 year old urine sample is still going to be free from any result-changing occlusions when tested.

France is just a bunch of crybaby sore losers.
 
Everyone in the world knows France is just a bunch of emo kids. I mean you hit em in the mouth and instead of fighting back, they join your side. Germans have been punking the French for about oh......1500 years now. They remind me of the sissy-rich kid friend everyone had when they were in elementary school. You know which one I am talking about. The one that everyone acted like they were friends with just because they wanted to go over to their house and jump on their trampoline, or ride their four-wheelers, or play all their video games....but in reality everyone hated that kid and when push came to shove....Your other friendns would push and you would be the one knelt down behind them so that they would fall over and you could all laugh...
 
Damn, it's amazing how something like this shows how retarded some are.

That article said a newspaper (french indeed, private owned), and you put all that together and call it "France" and bash ???

The Tour de France hasn't been won by a french in like forever, who cares if an italian, an american or whatever wins, frankly. Most people cycling, me included, admire Armstrong for what he did, by itself, and when you consider he had cancer, that's even more astounding and incredible. I personnally don't care if he's american, he could be french, spanish or whatever for all I care, the fact remains, he did something amazing.

Also, my mom had (and passed away from) cancer, I know for a fact they administer large doses of EPO to counter whatever chemotherapy does bad, everyone who has had to deal with cancer directly or indirectly knows that. No surprise that a few years back his urine samples are all fucked up.

So stop being assholes and because a newspaper fucked up, blame it on "France". If you don't like french people, you don't need such lame excuse, you should be ashamed.

Obviously, stupidity has no nationality, it can happen on french newspaper as much as on these boards from nationalist american teenager assholes.
 
If I get steroids to treat a disability and as a side effect it boosts my body mass to the point that I attain an advantage in a sport I compete in.

Does this constitute as cheating?

This is the basic argument that we see here, and yes it is reality, people face it everyday and MANY abuse it. Its an easy excuse to give yourself to use as an advantage, and also its a sad predicament to be in for an honest person.

Does it constitute cheating? Yes it does, steriod use as is Blood doping is considered cheating. The reason for your cheating however may or may not excuse you.

I guess the basic question is. If I train 10 years for an event legitimatly and my opponent trains 2 years and also has bad health so uses steroids, from which he gains an advantage and beats me. Is THAT fair?

I'd say no, he should compete in another event that has people that are in the same situation as himself. But thats just my opinion.
 
While i agree with you totally Darkdante...that isn't really the cast here.

My knowledge of EPO is not exactly extensive, but what i do know is that it will increase the number of red blood cells in your blood. People used to gain this by cycling and training at higher altitudes (sp?) where there is less oxygen and so more red blood cells were needed. They then used to take out that blood and before any competition have a blood transfusion to give themselves an advantage. As i understand this is no longer allowed and neither is using this drug that gives the same advantage.

The point of what i am saying you ask?

My point is that the reason they have a blood tranfusion when they have already got their RBC count up is because your body will not sustain that amount of RBC unless it is necessary so the effects of training in the mountains would be gone in a matter or weeks after you return to a normal height. The same is likely for EPO since it mimics these effects.

If the Sample is old and from when he had to use it for cancer reasons then it is clear he did not use it to gain an unfair advantage it was for medical reasons and the effect would probably have long since worn off by the time he was racing again. If the sample is newer then it probably means he was cheating. I do not know the details of this case really...i didn't read much more than that headline, but like i said if the sample is recent it means that he was probably cheating.

Thats my two cents on the matter.
 
It is the case Rinoah. Your merely stating he may or may not be excused if the drug wore off before it could have been of any use.

The truth is no test would tell you that since they test for illegal drugs and not RBC count. You couldn't really tell if it made a difference unless you did extensive testing. What you can only test for is for traces of the drug, if you find it, its agains't the rules and thus its cheating. The rules are that illegal drug USE is cheating, it doesn't say anything if you do, or if you don't benefit from the drug use. If he lost the race he should have been penelized for the drug use all the same.

You can also argue for some steroid guys that the steroids didn't really affect or help them like it happens in some people. But argueing that is not really a matter at all, its the fact that its in your blood and that its possible for you to be a cheater.
 
Good points but there's also this thing where his heart is 1/3 bigger than you're average heart... I'm sure that has something to do with it :wink:
 
About the Heart thing...yeah didn't know that lol. I know very little about Armstrong and didn't read the thing.

And to Darkdante. Yeah but i would imagine the way they get RBC up is by stimulating hormones so that more RBC are produced, and i think those sorts of drugs wear off quite quickly (likely before the effect of the drugs wears off) so it would probably be hard to find a trace. I admit that some of this is speculation, and i would need to do some sort of research on it to confirm it (research i dont feel like doing :P).

On a side note though...as my dad always says "If they can do all that then they've gotta be on something":P
 
I remember reading some stuff on blood doping way back when. What They originally did was used blood transfutions which they would then at a later time augment the athletes blood with the hemoglobin which was seperated from the whole blood, the plasma taken out or something like that. This is how the term "blood doping" originated, its like your doping up on your own blood. That boosted the RBC count and did produced the effect.

Later they got drugs like EPO and such (which are hormones), which did the work for them, but these types of things can be detected. So as you can see you can still "Blood dope" and get away with it, but only if they use drugs. I don't think they test for RBC count so I would think if you used the old methods you would still get away with it.

Actually they might have to detect RBC count, might be the only way, but then I'm not sure.
 
They do, do RBC count because of blood doping, as far as i am aware. if you have an abnormal amount of RBC then bang you are disqualified. i would imagine they have a pretty high threshold though...i mean they are going to be training in the mountains and such so will already have above average count i would imagine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top