Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs? Behold our shock!

[heckles]

It's possible she took something for a pick me up. If that's the case though, I don't think any of them knew/realized it contained a banned substance.

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.

[escaflowne9282]

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.

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 ::

[heckles]

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 a
ctually 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.

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.

[Ziggy]

That's what I personally suspect given her reported shape at the time.

[escaflowne9282]

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.

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.

[heckles]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Zemgirl]

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.

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.

[heckles]

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 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.

[escaflowne9282]

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.

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.

[heckles]

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

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.

[Choupette]

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.

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.

[Anita18]

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.

[heckles]

Even if Lance is a dick, he showed everyone that you can come back from cancer.

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.

[Choupette]

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.

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.

[Zemgirl]

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.

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.

[heckles]

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.

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.

[Zemgirl]

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.

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". 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.

[heckles]

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".

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.

[MarieM]

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.

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. 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
ALL of them even dear dear Wiggins. All you have to do is wait for ten to 20 years to hear the truth.
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.

[Jenny]

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.