Wednesday, 29 August 2012

Lance Armstrong may have Doped... Who Knows

Some interesting facts...


"1. Tests can only catch what they test for.

 There was NO test for EPO until 2000. 8 of Armstrong’s 1999 Tour test samples tested positive for EPO under re-testing. It’s only via a couple of technicalities that those results haven’t been accepted as doping positives. No reputable expert, however, believes that they do not indicate that Armstrong doped throughout the 99 tour.

2. Tests only matter if they aren’t rigged.

By FAR the most troubling part of USADA’s case involves the evidence that Armstrong paid a large amount of money to the UCI make a positive test fro EPO from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland “go away.” UCI admitted that he paid the money—but has been unwilling or unable to demonstrate how they accounted for it.

Also, there has been continuing un-rest in the anti-doping community about how UCI-controlled testers granted Armstrong-run teams extra lee-way in doping tests: allowing them extra time to “get ready” for the testers. This sounds innocuous until you realize that it only takes a few minutes to infuse enough saline solution into the blood stream to dilute red blood cells and drive down the concentrations of other substances."
Once thing is true for sure, if they were all doping, he was still the best.


Update

"LA was my hero growing up. However his 09 and 10 blood tests have been re-examined, they contain virtually no reticulocytes. Reticulocytes are immature red blood cells. As a doctor I review blood tests every day with reticulocyte counts. Doping surpresses new red blood cell formation. I can think of no other cause of somebody with normal/high red cell count and low reticulocytes other than doping."

Don