doping question (Re Lance Armstrong scandal)

[space-time]

OK, I don't want to discuss whether he doped or not. I want to understand why they tested him so many times and never detected anything. This doesn't make much sense to me. Let's not make this political or pro/anti Lance topic. Let's focus on the technical/legal details for the sake of the discussion. Thanks

as far as I uderstand, he was tested numerouns times and he came out clean each time.

-if the test is not accurate enough, they why do they even bother testing?

-if he used some substances that were not possible to detect at the time, so what. If you ban a certain drug, then there should be a test to prove whether the athlete used it or not.

-how is it possible that they let him win not once, but seven times? don't they feel embarassed now that they were not able to detect whether he doped or not?

-is there a time limit? how far back can they go?

[hal]

He's being 'convicted' on overwhelming testimony of his teammates. He didn't test positive because he cleared his system in time for the tests.

Read one of those very long articles that are everywhere in the media for details.

Also, ESPN 30 in 30 did a great show this week on the 1988 Olympics 100m race where EVERYONE was doped. Check it out.

[DP]

I also believe there were new drugs that at the time he was tested were undetectable.

[cbelt3]

space... as noted. He engaged in behavior that artificially enhanced his body's natural abilities, and further engaged in behavior to hide these enhancements from officials. Who were looking for it.

This is not 'the trainer stuck we with something' excuse mongering. It's a deliberate and concentrated effort to maintain a facade of legality.

[mattkime]

1) he wasn't tested as much as he said he was. he was counting tests to samples, not samples provided.

2) he bribed his away out of a whole lot of it

3) this is nothing new to anyone who's followed cycling although some didn't want to believe it.

[space-time]

He didn't test positive because he cleared his system in time for the tests.

If one uses some substances long before the competition, and then their body is clear during the event, does that count as doping? I am asking because I am not familiar with the regulations. if it does, then the anti-doping authority should perform more random tests long before the competition, and then they have a fair chance to catch these athletes doping.

I also believe there were new drugs that at the time he was tested were undetectable.

but then how can you effectively ban those? it's like a cop that is supposed to make sure people obey the speed limit but they lack a radar (or other methods of measuring speed).

BTW, I don't try to defend him in any way.

[decay]

How far down the finishing results will they go to find a clean athlete?

I would hope each and every top-placer is investigated to the full and complete scope Lance has been. Anything less would be such a load...

If you came in 2nd to Lance, and if Lance doped, I'm gonna guess you doped too.

[DP]

>I also believe there were new drugs that at the time he was tested were undetectable.

but then how can you effectively ban those? it's like a cop that is supposed to make sure people obey the speed limit but they lack a radar (or other methods of measuring speed).

Precisely why some have said to just let every cyclist do any drugs they want. Can't be controlled anyway...

[mattkime]

>>but then how can you effectively ban those? it's like a cop that is supposed to make sure people obey the speed limit but they lack a radar (or other methods of measuring speed).

Its a good analogy. There was a speed limit before there were radar guns. then there were radar detectors. now there are laser based speed sensors.

it doesn't mean there shouldn't be a speed limit.

[M A V I C]

I'm not sure of all the reasons, but this is one. Under oath, Armstrong admitted to taking "The Clear". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Area_La...-operative