Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Outside of the 'testimonies' from the other riders, the other 'evidence' the USADA is pretty weak.
They say he avoided the tests, which sounds completely absurd. Wasn't the most tested athlete ever? I mean either the testing protocal was properly adhered too, or it wasn't. How can he avoid tests?
Really? That is the best they can come up with? He didn't answer the door when the testers came? Why wasn't here reported?
Again, this screams of incompetence by whoever was in charge of the testing. Did Lance retire there? Pretty sure he lived and trained in Texas during the off season. Sounds like a lame excuse.
Then they claim he took undetectable drugs. Well, maybe he did, and maybe he didn't, but there is nothing but hearsay to say that he did. Last time I checked that didn't count as evidence in any first world country. Oh right, this is the USADA we are talking about.
All the 'evidence' they have is hearsay and allegations. Nothing concrete. People can believe what they want, but they can't 'prove' anything because he never actually tested positive for whatever reason.
Why should anyone believe any cyclist who has had their charges or allegations dropped in exchange for their 'eye-witness' account? I sure don't. Lance was a giant ######bag during his career, so I'm sure there are a lot of people who never liked him.
Still doesn't count as evidence though. The entire thing is 'weak.' And rather hilarious given how the USADA was trying to play it up.
|
And you've already seen and evaluated all this evidence already by your expert analysis? That Lance simply "passed tests" of the time exonerates him? The technology just wasn't there and smart riders, teams, and their medical accomplices were always pushing the limits to see what they could get away with.
I'm not expert on this but I've been Googling around about how Lance was able to pass these 500-600 tests his defense team always falls back onto. The results are partially avoiding them with the methods you describe, and others which were more sophisticated.
Quote:
Transfusions existed in the 70’s and 80’s, to be supplanted by EPO in the mid 90’s, which was a much simpler procedure. EPO, then undetectable [supposedly it was only detectable in urine for 4 days after taking it but had a 40 day benefit in the body], was curtailed by the 50% hematocrit threshold until a test was developed in 2000, at which time its use began to diminish and blood transfusions reappeared.
A test for homologous transfusion (using someone else’s blood) was developed in 2004, but autologous transfusion (using one’s own blood) remained largely undetectable until the development of the Athlete Biological Passport in 2008. While many believe that the sport is much cleaner thanks to the Passport program, athletes were in fact engaged in sophisticated measures to mask blood transfusions.
|