We have to remember that the UCI opposed serious drug testing for a long time and only recently allowed meaningful tests. There was a whole generation (possibly more) where drugs were the norm and where the teams had to be in on it. Without checking, I think every Tour de France winner between Indurain and Wiggins has tested positive for something or has strong suspicion against him (except maybe Evans?). We can only hope that the era is over and the number of cheats is now a small minority. Unfortunately, we will always be suspicious that they have move on to something that the testers can't detect.
It must pain the authorities that LA has never failed a drug test, bit inconvenient that for them.
A Paris lab tested an old sample. Right and can the integrity of that sample be accounted for? Why didn't it show up in earlier tests?He did fail drug tests, but there were technicalities. He failed one for corticosteroids but got a retrospective medical certificate. A Paris lab tested an old blood sample positive for EPO. There are reports of other suspicious tests (e.g. "blood manipulation") that would have been part of the evidence.
As already mentioned, you also have to remember than many admitted drug cheats never failed a test (e.g. Riise. Marion Jones). With a doping scheme run by the teams they would monitor everything so that the existing tests could be passed.
A Paris lab tested an old sample. Right and can the integrity of that sample be accounted for? Why didn't it show up in earlier tests?
The corticosteroids is a drug used to treat inflammation iirc. Prolonged use can lead to weight gain and muscle weakness. Hardly the drug of choice for a cycling cheat is it?
And if his medical team did everything in their powers and skills to ensure he passed his tests, the why not do the same for the likes of Tyler Hamilton and floyd landis et al?
I read a comment earlier which sums the whole situation nicely. It's a bit like blowing 0.0 on a breathalyser but having your driving licence revoked anyway because your mates all say they saw you drinking 5 pints in the pub beforehand.
Best advice I can give is to make sure you give all options a good ride first...all bikes are slightly different shapes etc. I love my specialized and found giants uncomfortable...all personal taste, but most bike shops will let you take the bike out for a spin...
I recommend cycle surgery, then once you have chosen your bike, look it up on wiggle and cycle surgery will price match it. Benefit being you will have a local shop that sold you the bike who will give you advice on extra bits in the future...
Imo you'd be better off spending a little less on the bike and making sure you have money for good helmet, shoes, glasses, bibs etc
I'm still not 100% convinced of his guilt (I know how naive that sounds), but the USADA seem to have such a hatred for him that they'll be claiming he didn't beat cancer next
I can't remember who it was (might have been the WADA), but an organisation asked for the results of tests for an 'unknown cyclist's' tests - many believe it was Armstrong. The person who did the test could only identify him by the patient number - but there were numerous testosterone-epitestosterone levels that were abnormally high. The only results missing was 1997 (the year Lance was out of competition and undergoing treatment for cancer).His best friend in cycling George Hincapie was lined up the testify against him. Armstrong said Hincapie was "like a brother" to him.
Hincapie's evidence will still come out'.
Also its widely known he failed 8 different tests but none of them ever stuck. The corticosteroids one on the tour in 1999. The 6 epo ones from 1999 when they retested them in 2004. And the 2001 epo out of competition test he failed but was just given a warning for by the UCI.
I know it doesn't look good, my main reason for not believing it is that I don't want it to be true, I'm clutching at straws
Why do they have such a stance though? He's an American athlete, it's hardly like they would be so vociferous in pursuing him if they didn't think there was any substance to the claims. I can't see anything else other than Lance being a cheat, so many stories out there about him - and let's not forget that he won seven tours in a row in the sport's most drug-riddled era, against a peloton full of dopers.I'm still not 100% convinced of his guilt (I know how naive that sounds), but the USADA seem to have such a hatred for him that they'll be claiming he didn't beat cancer next
Exactly. No one wants to believe it, but you can't ignore what has come out recently.