Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs? Behold our shock!

Discussion in 'Other Sports' started by Theatregirl1122, Jan 18, 2013.

  1. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    Eh, it doesn't take a biochemist to suspect that a pharmaceutical product consumed for the purpose of stimulation is ill-advised for a competitive athlete subject to testing.
     
  2. escaflowne9282

    escaflowne9282 Well-Known Member

    2,941
    583
    113
    Eys, which is why I don't think she took it as a stimulant. I think it likely was just a cold-remedy, since any type of drug would show up and everyone is subject to drug testing. Didn't Berezhnaya also have to explain specifically what medication she took and her actual dosage? It's been 13 years (eep I feel old) since all this occurred, so I don't recall.

    Aside from which, psuedophedrine would really not be the most effective stimulant for an athlete looking for extra stamina . It works primarily as a decongestant, and while it increases focus, it would need to be taken in large doses in order to have any real effect on stamina . Ephedrine, for example, is actually a much more effective and potent stimulant as far as stamina goes, and up until a few years ago was found in many OTC bronchial medications.

    And yeah, I know people who used to mix Sudafed and No-Doze during exams ::shuffle::
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2013
  3. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    Correct, but both pseudophedrine and ephedrine are known to act as cross-reactants for amphetamines on drug tests. It's possible that Berezhnaya was using amphetamines but claiming that she'd only been been using pseudophedrine.
     
  4. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    20,569
    1,599
    113
    That's what I personally suspect given her reported shape at the time.
     
  5. escaflowne9282

    escaflowne9282 Well-Known Member

    2,941
    583
    113
    In many drug tests that might be true, but I was under the impression that ISU and IOC urine and blood analyses were very specific as to the results. The two organizations (supposedly) have the same standard when it comes to drug testing.
    In 2000 Sydney , when Andrea Raducan tested positive, pseudophedrine was specifically cited as the drug taken due to a cold pill . That particular drug was allowed for an athlete at a dosage of up to 25mg, and any concentration beyond that would be considered doping. Her teammate, Amanar, had also taken the same dosage of the cold pill, but due to her taller frame and heavier weight, registered as having had a lower concentration of it and recieved no sanction. This would lead me to believe that there was a specific marker, used by whatever laboratories, in regard to testing for that substance. I would also think that most laboratories at this level of sport would seek to reduce any type of cross-reactivity.

    If not, I suppose it is possible ; I just don't find it particularly logical that an athlete would take amphetamines, which are guaranteed show up on a drug screening, as opposed to, being careless when purchasing an over the counter remedy. As a top level pair, they were guaranteed to be tested one or more times throughout that season. I always thought it was very obvious that it was carelessness on their part. Then again, I felt bad for Raducan too. But those are the rules of the game, and both athletes lost their titles.

    As for Lance Armstrong, I find his attitude towards having cheated pretty horrendous. I always suspected he was doping, but I was surprised as to the extent of his cheating and his overall haughty demeanor. He almost seems proud for having hoodwinked so many people for so long. I find the way treated people around him pretty disgraceful. I feel terrible for those supported and believed in him.

    Apparently the IOC stripped him of the bronze he recieved in Sydney.
     
  6. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    I've always questioned the Romanians' version of events in that whole affair, but that's neither here nor there.

    His confession probably would have been received better if he'd shown an inkling of remorse. The most emotion he showed in that interview was about his son defending him, but even then his concern seemed to be more about outsiders attacking his son, rather than regret for cheating.
     
  7. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    5,592
    1,858
    113
    I'm not a parent, but it makes sense to me that he'd be more concerned about his son in this situation than about acting like he's being eaten up by remorse - and I think if he'd done the latter, it would have lacked credibility, to be honest. I find it much easier to believe that he's a caring father than a penitent doper.
     
  8. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    I don't think anyone was expecting Sir Roids-a-Lot to tearfully beg America for forgiveness. He could have just told Oprah that he regretted being a bad role model, and that alone would have made him much more likable than he is now.
     
  9. escaflowne9282

    escaflowne9282 Well-Known Member

    2,941
    583
    113
    I think that's what I find so disheartening. I have (scarily) known a disprapportionate amount of people who have been diagnosed with cancer, and I know he was a role model for many who were afflicted with the disease. For some people, his story may have been very inspiring. It feels like he was simply using his diagnosis as a means of manipulation. I don't get the impression that he is concerned with those who looked up to him.
    And while doping in and of itself is horrible, I find his behaivior even more jarring. He acted willfully and cruelly to many people who had put in just as much time and effort into their carreers, and was hiding behind the facade of "Survivor" the whole time.
    He doesn't come across as someone who just used bad judgement and got in over his head, but moreso as an actual villian.

    And in the end, even after all of the lawsuits and titles being stripped, he'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
     
  10. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    Hope not. With luck, he will finally get his long overdue comeuppance a la Bernie Madoff. I doubt Armstrong will do much, if any, jail time, but hopefully he'll go away broke.
     
  11. Choupette

    Choupette Well-Known Member

    1,807
    157
    63
    People are not black and white. It's not completely impossible that he genuinely wanted to do something for cancer survivors. IIRC, he started his foundation before coming back to win the Tour de France.

    Personally, I've never believed he was not doping, and I still found there was something inspiring in his story. But through the years, I've become disenchanted because of his attitude - Bassons, a bad guy?! I've been especially disgusted to find out how aggressive and manipulative he's been through the years. He doesn't come across as very sensitive towards others, that's for sure, but who knows what's going on in his mind, or what went on in his mind back when he started his foundation. Perhaps this did make him more sensitive, for a while at least.
     
  12. Anita18

    Anita18 Well-Known Member

    11,214
    1,039
    113
    Admire the behavior, don't deify the person. Even if Lance is a dick, he showed everyone that you can come back from cancer. That is not worthless.
     
  13. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    I think what's irritating some people is that there's no way to determine if Lance did "come back" from cancer, or if his post-cancer cycling success was largely created by illegal, unethical and dangerous doping. America really wanted to believe this guy's success story. Pretty much all we know now is that Lance did not die from cancer, and there's not enough verve in that theme alone as many other cancer patients, often more likable than Lance, also survive.
     
  14. Choupette

    Choupette Well-Known Member

    1,807
    157
    63
    Well of course he might very well have had more means and thus been more efficient at doping than others; he might also have gained more from doping than other racers (because of physiological differences). Therefore I'm not one of those who feel that "they all did it, so he would have been the strongest even if none of them had". We don't know. But I still think that it was a very good comeback. It would have been even if he had finished 10th or 15th. It's just that, of course, not as many would have noticed.
     
  15. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    5,592
    1,858
    113
    Even finishing the TdF, regardless of GC placement, is pretty impressive - especially post-cancer. As Choupette noted, a lower finish might have resulted in considerably less attention, which in turn would have meant less inspiration for those cancer patients who did derive it from what Armstrong did and less awareness and funds raised for at least some good programs.

    I like this as a theoretical moral dilemma for class: in a nutshell, stay clean and don't finish high enough to accomplish these worthy things, or accomplish them but at the cost of cheating and harm to some people involved in cycling.

    Choupette - IIRC, Livestrong (then LAF) was established in 1997.
     
  16. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    In the short term, Armstrong may have done some impressive things for cancer. In the long term, especially now that the cheating and bad behavior have been confirmed, he may have harmed the cause. Thousands of runners and cyclists dutifully solicited the $525 minimum pledges every year in order to participate in the Livestrong runs and bike rides, and now they may be regretful that they had anything to do with a group associated with Armstrong. I don't think all of those people are going to simply switch to other charities. Many of them are going to be resentful enough that they'll be suspicious of other "cancer charities" and fundraising events.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2013
  17. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    5,592
    1,858
    113
    That's quite a leap in logic for anyone to make - "LA doped and was a jerk, and he did fundraising for cancer awareness and support, so clearly all cancer charities are suspicious".:huh: Especially considering that Livestrong is, AFAIK, a well-rated charity.

    I understand the desire to discount what Armstrong has accomplished, but I think it is possible to criticize him for his actions in cycling and in covering up his doping while still acknowledging that he has done valuable work in other areas.
     
  18. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    They probably won't leap to the severe conclusions that you've listed here, but they might be less motivated in the future to hit their friends and family up for $525 to participate in a cancer fundraising race, when they can just run in a for-profit marathon for $75.
     
  19. MarieM

    MarieM Grumpy Cynical Ice Dance Lover

    5,012
    848
    113
    Armstrong was and IMO still is a dick. This is probably why every one during his era was trying to "get" him. ALL of them. Had he been more like what Wiggins is, noone would have tried to make him fall.
    But I strongly believe that all the cyclist are dopers, in his era, before him and after him. :cool: It's been a problem in that sport forever. And I strongly suspects the UCI to making sure it'll stay the same just to have something "nice" to watch :rolleyes:
    ALL of them even dear dear Wiggins. All you have to do is wait for ten to 20 years to hear the truth. :hat1:
    It's impossible to finish a TdF at the rates they're doing without taking a little extra something. And every year they're going faster and faster. :lol:
     
  20. Jenny

    Jenny From the Bloc

    17,560
    2,132
    113
    The thing that still puzzles me is what Lance's goals are at this point. If it's true remorse and the desire to do the right thing, then talking to Oprah and then apparently being unavailable for meetings with the USADA for several weeks is not the way to go. If he's trying to get a cycling career going again, even if he's allowed to compete in the established circuits, he'll never get sponsors and no one will want to be on his team. Maybe he can qualify so no one has any choice but to allow him to compete? I don't know how the sport works. I've heard that he wants to do other types of competitions, such as iron man - does he need to be cleared in some way, or can he just enter them, as I thought anyone could? Or does one have to be invited, in which case if organizers of an event don't want him, they don't have to have him no matter what the cycling feds say, right?

    It's all very odd to me.
     
  21. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,044
    1,391
    113
    This is what I don't understand. Nearly everyone from past teams has admitted to doping - so if anyone is to believe the sport is 'clean' the times have to drop. The current riders can't all be so incredible that they are better than the dopers of the past. After baseball's steriod scandals, the homeruns records stopped being broken- that at least lends credibility to the idea that current players aren't doping (at least not as much.)
     
  22. Anita18

    Anita18 Well-Known Member

    11,214
    1,039
    113
    Even getting back on the bike to train for the TdF is coming back, and finishing the TdF with any time would have been an inspirational achievement. Of course it wouldn't have gotten him nearly enough attention, but the guy who barely finished the NYC marathon and Ironman triathlon after getting run over by a bus had a book tour and talk show circuit.

    My friend with pancreatic cancer is 31 and can barely walk with a cane now. Chemo is a b*tch. (He did joke about winning the TdF, since he needed to be given EPO to keep his white blood cell count up. :lol: ) Mere survival is not the point - any sane person would know that it's often a toss of the coin. What your body can achieve after remission is what Lance showed us.

    PEDs don't make you Superman by themselves. You still need to put in the work. Couch potatoes who use steroids don't end up like Schwarzenegger.
     
  23. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    20,569
    1,599
    113
    Yes. As long as the records keep getting broken, it's obvious that nearly everybody is drugged up to high heavens.

    But then record constantly being broken is what makes the sport "nice to watch" I guess. *sigh*
     
  24. Jenny

    Jenny From the Bloc

    17,560
    2,132
    113
    Out of curiosity, I checked the history of records for the 100 metre dash. From this link, it looks like it took approximately 90 years to progress just one second - from the 10.8 range in the earliest records in the 1890s to the 9.8 range in the 1990s.

    The 10 second barrier was broken in 1968, and the current record, achieved 41 years later, is just .37 seconds under it (Bolt at 9.58 at the 2009 world championships).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_100_metres_men
     
  25. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,044
    1,391
    113
    With swimming, when they stopped allowing the long suits, some records still got broken, but not every single one of them, every single time someone went out to swim. I mean it is nice to know records can still be broken, but they can't be smashed by the whole field every time.
     
  26. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    He was banned from Ironman events last June. Ironman events are sanctioned by USA Triathlon, which is a participant in the World Anti-Doping Agency program.
     
  27. RickInSanJose

    RickInSanJose Active Member

    101
    40
    28
    But in the end, look how Schwarzenegger ended up -- his drug-fueled body and muscles have deflated like a souffle. On the other hand, a naturally-built bodybuilder from an earlier time, named John Grimek, still possessed a thick and muscular chest and arms well into his eighties.

    So, in effect, the steroid Supermen make a pact with the Devil -- and, eventually, the Devil comes to collect.
     
  28. Anita18

    Anita18 Well-Known Member

    11,214
    1,039
    113
    I think that's mostly due to Schwarzenegger moving on from bodybuilding and acting, to politics. If you don't use your muscles, they shrink. If you continue to weightlift diligently, I'm sure you could be muscular into your 80s. (Also, there's genetics.) I don't think it necessarily has to do with steroids "betraying" you or anything. Unless you use salines and similar muscle-augmenting treatments, which is disgusting anyway.
     
  29. RickInSanJose

    RickInSanJose Active Member

    101
    40
    28
    I've seen any number of bodybuilders, weightlifters, and baseball players who doped themselves to prodigious muscularity and strength, and who, within a matter of months of getting off the juice lost virtually all of their muscle mass and strength.

    The bottom line is that muscle built naturally endures, while muscle artificially built by steroids withers away. "Other things" in the latter wither away as well, incidentally.
     
  30. Anita18

    Anita18 Well-Known Member

    11,214
    1,039
    113
    Although yes, muscles pumped up from steroids will be larger than they would be otherwise, I don't see how an athlete could lose virtually ALL of their muscle mass and strength. They'd just be back to where they would have been without the steroids. That's why steroids are so addictive to them - it's not a physical addiction, but a mental one. A lot of men (especially athletes) hate to lose their edge. If they define themselves by their muscle size or how much they can bench or how fast they go (which is how most PED users are, I'd wager), losing any ground is simply unacceptable. That's what happened to Lance. He defined himself by his wins, and losing was simply unacceptable.