And now there is Contador.
The Tour de France winner has apparently failed a drug test that was conducted during one of the days he was riding to victory in July. Contador is reported to have tested positive for a minute amount of a substance named clenbuterol, which is said to reduce fat, increase muscle mass, and assist breathing. (Where does one apply for a prescription?)
Everything this drug does would be an advantage to someone trying to not only survive but also win the most difficult endurance contest humans have ever devised. Clenbuterol, given to cattle, also improves the quality of beef. In a news conference, that's actually how Contador said he got the banned substance in his blood. He claims a friend brought steaks over from Spain when the team chef complained about meat at the hotel where the riders were staying. According to Contador, the clenbuterol must have been in his food.
That would be good if it were true. But recent Tour history indicates we are heading for another disappointment and a fallen hero. The names of the deniers are too many to list but they range from Floyd Landis to Tyler Hamilton and the lesser riders that are compelled to seek an advantage to either maintain the 34 mile-per-hour pace or fall behind; hit 70 homers or be just another slugger.
And then there is Lance.
Armstrong's supporters believe he never, not once, never ever, cheated. Unfortunately, the behavior of others during Lance's ascent to the top of the cycling world has made his achievements even more improbable in the rarified world of endurance sports. The peak of the doping era was from the late 1990s into the middle part of the current decade and Lance excelled at a time when cheating was widespread. Is it fair to question his success? Can a non-doper beat all of those dope heads?
There is some evidence to suggest Armstrong is a bit of a genetic mutant. Several reports indicate that his ability to ingest and process oxygen, which is measured through a test called VO2 uptake, is far beyond normal. His work ethic is also legendary. Lesser athletes miss workouts, take an unscheduled day off, stay up late, have one beer too many; Armstrong did not have that reputation. His story is one of singular focus and the science of conditioning. He and his trainers, especially the estimable Chris Carmichael, understood exertion, recovery, food, and peaking. Armstrong's was the most calculated training program possibly ever designed for an endurance sport.
But is he really so gifted that he is able to outperform other talented and dedicated cyclists even as they are fortifying their own cardiovascular systems with pharmaceuticals? That is the question that turns Lance Armstrong into a suspect for investigators like Jeff Novitzky, the federal agent who built the case against baseball slugger Barry Bonds. Whatever his motivation, Novitzky appears good at his job and that is undoubtedly unsettling for Team Livestrong.
Novitzky, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigator, is concentrating partially on an event that is alleged to have occurred in the hospital when Lance was being treated for cancer. An Armstrong teammate, Frankie Andreu, who does commentary on the Tour de France for the Versus Network, and his wife, Betsy, supposedly heard Lance tell a doctor that he used performance-enhancing drugs. The question is one that likely would have had to be asked during the course of developing a chemotherapy protocol for a recovering cancer patient. Armstrong has denied the allegations but Andreu later acknowledged that he doped up when he was riding with Lance on the U.S. Postal Service team. Stories have also recently been published to suggest that there was widespread doping on the Postal team and bikes were sold to pay for drugs, which, if true, turns into the kind of fraud and federal crime that could destroy the reputation and career of Armstrong. Novitzky also has audiotapes of phone calls made to Betsy Andreu by an Armstrong friend that worked for Oakley sunglasses. They are surprisingly vitriolic and might have an impact on grand jurors hearing the case in Los Angeles.
These yarns, however, are either little more than internecine squabbles among gifted and jealous athletes or they are the unraveling of one of the greatest sports frauds since the Black Sox baseball scandal in 1919. No one even seems willing to contemplate the notion that Lance Armstrong might be a fraud. And what if he is? Is it necessary, at this point, to take him down and is it worth the tax dollars expended in this investigation? There ought to be some way to balance the good done by the Livestrong Foundation against whatever might be the outcome of an investigation and a trial. No one is suggesting we let a cheater be a hero or get away with a sham but where is this taking our culture?
I met Lance once when I did an interview with him after his first Tour de France win. He was abrupt and seemed not to want to be bothered with a TV crew, as he got ready to take off on a training ride. Cordiality and small talk did not seem to be a part of his portfolio. His answers were matter of fact and he did not appear to have any sense of wonder about what he had just accomplished. The man was all business. Lance wanted to ride and we were in his way so we stepped aside.
But Jeff Novitzky will not.
Also at MooreThink.com
Follow James Moore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/moorethink
take a good look at L-A----look at his facial skin tone and texture---its unreal---NO ONE looks that healthy naturally---and given that he survived cancer---a type of cancer, incidentally, which could be caused by excessive steroid or HGH use
not accusing him or anything---just sayin'
I have never "doped" or anything else, as a matter of fact, I did 5k in a wheelchair to benefit LIVESTRONG
Just because someone's skin texture doesn't look like you think it should, I am nearly 50 years old and still get carded if I go to buy Liquor. The law here is 21 to purchase Liquor. I don't drink but I do give gifts of Wine if attending a dinner at someone's home.
So, um, Yeah a healthy lifestyle and the rigorous schedule he keeps himself on to be physically fit would allow him the Glow to his skin.
Just Saying!
It's not like they haven't been looking. Ever since he started winning big, many years ago, they've been trying to find something on him, but so far, there's been absolutely no credible evidence (and no, snarky comments by other cyclists -- many of whom are under fire themselves and looking to spread the mud -- don't count). Given that the doping investigators often do get their man, the sheer length of time during which he's been continually investigated without result gives one pause; maybe he simply isn't doing anything wrong.
Many cyclists don't seem to like him very much (I have cycling friends that whine about him endlessly, calling him "arrogant", "ungrateful" blah blah blah); unsociability is not a crime, but it does lead to sour grapes, and that's what a lot of the complaints about Armstrong seem to amount to.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
However, as the article states, all, and I mean all, of the top cyclist he road against have either tested positive, or Confessed to their use. I doubt very much he could have finished in the top ten, much less won if he didnt doped.
Doping adds such an advantage that no one can even ride to the top of pro cycling if others use it. Thus if one does you can almost guarantee that the others do.
In fact the Us cycling seen is so much less competitive because few of the top risers dope. If you want that scene you are expected to go to Europe. So enjoy american cycling, it is still relatively clean.
Until then? 7TDF wins, cancer survivor, ambassador to a great sport and a foundation that has raised millions towards cancer research. Sounds respectable to me.
That in and of itself is proof of his cheating. That he got away with it b/c of, essentially, the statute of limitations, is bad enough. But is it plausible to think that EVERYONE who rode in support of him tested positive, that he hired a doctor who specialized in blood doping, that the protocol for cancer patients IS EPO, etc, etc, etc.
He doped. He knows it, we know it. I don't care, but it's the lies that drive me crazy.
There is not any crime involving drug charges, nor evidence.
So, millions will be spent to investigate thousands of dollars of bikes, if not donated, would have been misuse of Postal Service dollars (not a govt agency at the time or presently)
alas, another hero will be tarnished either way it pans out
http://agingresearch.wisc.edu/pdf/Atwood%20and%20Bowen%20'06.pdf
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors.html
•The conclusion - Coyle's was really one of the first papers to even suggest that muscular efficiency improves over time and with training. While this would seem intriguing, it also disagrees with many other findings, which are that extensive endurance training does not improve cycling efficiency. Also, efficiency is not a factor that seems to be associated with performance in elite cyclists, and so the conclusions are 'liberal', to say the least.
hahaha, in fact Coyle is a 'liberal' probably a marxist too, who does he pal around with?
actually an asma drug.said to be extremely popular w. pro body builders as it aids in gaining muscle w/o gainaing too much fat, and in losing fat w/o losing too much muscle. Probably why they give it cattle, if they do. Illegal of course-Big Brother just has to protect us from ourselves.
if the Republicans really meant it when they said they were for small government and individual freedom, they'd get rid of most of the drug laws. Instead, they have made it easier than ever for Big Pharm to sell you dangerous, poorly investigated drugs. Funny bunch the repubs-throw the little drug dealer in prison, give huge subsidies to the big drug dealers! maybe the little dealers should bribe 'em like Big Pharm does.
So was he more gifted than anyone else? Yes. He had more guts, focus, and brains than anyone else in the pack. Can he prove he never took any PEDS? No, but neither can the lantern rouge. Neither can I, for that matter. Nor can you.
Just once, I would like for all these "experts" to admit that their eminently logical insinuations lack one thing: evidence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sports/othersports/11cycling.html?pagewanted=1
He doped, he tested positive multiple times.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
As stated below, and by me dozens of times, he HAS tested positive, he was given EPO as treatment for the anemia caused by chemo (the very reason the drug was developed) and virtually EVERYONE around him has tested positive or admitted doping.
Come on, wake up. The lies, and arrogance, are what make him so intolerable.
Armstrong is a doper. the evidence is overwhelming.
But the simple fact is that Armstrong DID fail a test. Enough said.
- ride the lightest, most high tech bikes in the world
- have doctors and trainers who help them develop an incredibly detailed training and eating program
- even wear high tech aerodynamic clothing
But are not allowed to take performance enhancing drugs.
What make performance-enhancing drugs so wrong, when all the other performance enhancers are okay?
The answer can't be that it would be unfair to the athletes who choose not to use the drugs, since I don't see them offering to give up their trainers, high tech equipment, etc. If it's because the drugs are potentially dangerous, that argument doesn't seem to make sense in the context of a sport that is inherently risky to begin with.
The only way that your logic makes sense is this: All contestants in certain sporting events should be allowed to take these drugs. Nothing would be banned, except maybe amphetamines. Then there would be a level playing field.
But I still think that your assertion that diet, exercise, clothing, and equipment is somehow the same as performance enhancing drugs is way off base. In fact, I love for you to elaborate on the topic.
It's not a libertarian stance, just an argument for consistency.
I don't see the difference between a baseball bat that allows you to hit the ball farther and a drug that does the same; a high tech bike that let's you go faster and a drug that does the same; a team of doctors and trainers that work full time to help an athlete bulk up, and a drug that does the same.
For that matter, what is the difference bewtween taking a performance-enhancing drug and eating performance-enhancing glucose gels and vitamins?
But whether I think it's right or wrong, under the rules of his sport it is wrong, and prohibited.
He cheated. He got busted. It is what it is.
From,
An actual editor.
Trumped up? Just the opposite. He caught a break b/c of statute of limitations.
Food contamination? You might do some research. In order for a cow to have enough clenbuterol for you to test positive from eating the meat the cow would die as a result of the drug and thus never make the slaughterhouse. Unless you ate the liver. Since Contador was too foolish to make that allegation --- busted.
Clen has been one of the drugs of choice for riders for decades. Every rider knows it.
Editor? Of what?
I'm also curious how "being he was given EPO as treatment for the anemia caused by chemo (the very reason the drug was developed)" would or could be considered doping if it was prescribed by a physician under a treatment for the effects of chemo and that was clearly known at the time and could be proven. Anyone?
It's absurd and that's why no athlete has ever successfully challenged the validity of the test.
Even the one female athlete who claimed supplement contamination could not deny that she had actually taken it. It was simply a matter of how.