Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 217 Posts

·
likes to eat donuts
Joined
·
827 Posts
shower interruptus

A rule is a rule. Applicable to all, even if it seems trivial or silly. Lance really should have known better, and waited 'till later for that shower.
 

·
BikerFox Wannabe
Joined
·
696 Posts
He's screwed

I think he just gave them what they (AFLD) need to ban him from competing in the Tour.

His arrogance got the better of him. I also suspect there probably was a real good reason Lance needed that shower so bad.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
923 Posts
He's got too used to getting his own way with the UCI testers.

The AFLD version of events make interesting reading http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news...ng_news&cate_img=145.jpg&cate_rss=news_Sports

As a professional athlete, the self styled 'most tested' rider should know the protocol inside out - at best it's sloppy and unprofessional, at worst it brings his credibility into question.

The Italians clearly think he'll be sanctioned as they've already changed the route of stage 16 of the Giro - but then they're paying him 2 million euros appearance money (guess that'll be for 'public speaking' like the million he pocketed from the TDU that was intended for Livestrong). Sweet irony being that Versus now can't afford the newly hiked rate for the TV rights
 

·
Fly on a windshield
Joined
·
1,272 Posts
Bianchigirl said:
He's got too used to getting his own way with the UCI testers.

The AFLD version of events make interesting reading http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news...ng_news&cate_img=145.jpg&cate_rss=news_Sports

As a professional athlete, the self styled 'most tested' rider should know the protocol inside out - at best it's sloppy and unprofessional, at worst it brings his credibility into question.

The Italians clearly think he'll be sanctioned as they've already changed the route of stage 16 of the Giro - but then they're paying him 2 million euros appearance money (guess that'll be for 'public speaking' like the million he pocketed from the TDU that was intended for Livestrong). Sweet irony being that Versus now can't afford the newly hiked rate for the TV rights
Yep! Cyclingnews posted the same thing
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/apr09/apr09news3

For a second I looked at my calendar making sure it was past April 1.

Michael Ashenden in his interview at nyvelocity.com hinted at the same thing. "The self proclaimed most tested athlete should know the drill by now".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
zero85ZEN said:
I think he just gave them what they (AFLD) need to ban him from competing in the Tour.

His arrogance got the better of him. I also suspect there probably was a real good reason Lance needed that shower so bad.
there is always so much drama around LA. whether he is or isnt the most tested athlete in the world, clearly he has a fair amount experience with testing protocol. It jsut doesnt add up to me. LA is one of those shrewed politician types that rarely messes up like this. Look how long he has been under the microscope but has always managed to evade problems.

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if Superman has realized he isnt quite as super anymore. Maybe the reality from recent races and training has set in and he knows he cant go to the Giro or TDF and be as competitive as he used to be. He had to know he couldnt leave the testers site and if he did they could sanction him. Is this his way out and saving face??? If he does get barred from competing its a PR gift to continue on with the game...their out to get me, I tested negative and they still wouldnt let me race, etc. Clearly if he cant hack it anymore his ego wouldnt allow him to race the TDF and get hammered. He just strikes me as someone who does everything with a purpose and I think its plausible he could be looking for a way out. But then again, maybe he just screwed up
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
Bianchigirl said:
He's got too used to getting his own way with the UCI testers.

The AFLD version of events make interesting reading http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=916428&lang=eng_news&cate_img=145.jpg&cate_rss=news_Sports

As a professional athlete, the self styled 'most tested' rider should know the protocol inside out - at best it's sloppy and unprofessional, at worst it brings his credibility into question.
It raises a couple of interesting questions
  1. It seems that testing protocol has to be followed from the moment when tester identifies and authenticates himself as a tester and expresses request for a sample collection. In this case an initial authentication was not sufficient, so LA has every right to assume that testing request is false and so there is no need to follow protocol.
  2. Both LA and JB claim that supposed tester has no objections regarding shower till tester|s authentication will be completed. AFLD states opposite. AFLD statement in best case is based solely on word of that tester (in the worth case it is completely unfounded). So we have word of single person against words of (at least) 2 persons. Who has to be belived?
    So conspiracy theory comes into head - was tester instructed to to arrive with insufficient proof of identity, give a permission for leave for a period needed to obtain proof of testers identity and then deny such permission.
Then, if I remember correctly (and rules has not changed recently on this matter), you have to completely miss more then one (3?) surprise out/of/competition controls to be banned. I seriously doubt that protocol violation may be considered as more serious infraction then complete miss of the control.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,231 Posts
al0 said:
It raises a couple of interesting questions

In this case an initial authentication was not sufficient, so LA has every right to assume that testing request is false and so there is no need to follow protocol.
Wrong. The tester did present his identification. Armstrong does not have "every right" to assume he, or any other testing request, is false. In fact he must assume the opposite.....unless he does not want to race professionally.

al0 said:
[*]Both LA and JB claim that supposed tester has no objections regarding shower till tester|s authentication will be completed. AFLD states opposite. AFLD statement in best case is based solely on word of that tester (in the worth case it is completely unfounded). So we have word of single person against words of (at least) 2 persons. Who has to be belived?
It is more then just Johann and Armstrong's word. While he was waiting outside the tester made multiple phone calls (Johann confirms this) to let his superiors know that he was not being let in. As Lance has lied often thought out his career I would tend to believe the tester

al0 said:
So conspiracy theory comes into head - was tester instructed to to arrive with insufficient proof of identity, give a permission for leave for a period needed to obtain proof of testers identity and then deny such permission.[/LIST] Then, if I remember correctly (and rules has not changed recently on this matter), you have to completely miss more then one (3?) surprise out/of/competition controls to be banned. I seriously doubt that protocol violation may be considered as more serious infraction then complete miss of the control.
Why is it that whenever Armstrong tests positive or behaves like a Jacka$$ the only excuse is a French conspiracy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,061 Posts
So if you get pulled over, ask to see the civilian cops badge and you claim it's fake you have every right to just drive away?
I hope you are not serious claiming JB is an independent vitness. 4 guys rapes one girl. It's word against word. Are the 4 guys more trustworthy due to sheer numbers?
Armstrong did not miss the test. He walked away, there is a difference. Rio ferdinand got 8 months for leaving after being asked to be tested.


al0 said:
It raises a couple of interesting questions
  1. It seems that testing protocol has to be followed from the moment when tester identifies and authenticates himself as a tester and expresses request for a sample collection. In this case an initial authentication was not sufficient, so LA has every right to assume that testing request is false and so there is no need to follow protocol.
  2. Both LA and JB claim that supposed tester has no objections regarding shower till tester|s authentication will be completed. AFLD states opposite. AFLD statement in best case is based solely on word of that tester (in the worth case it is completely unfounded). So we have word of single person against words of (at least) 2 persons. Who has to be belived?
    So conspiracy theory comes into head - was tester instructed to to arrive with insufficient proof of identity, give a permission for leave for a period needed to obtain proof of testers identity and then deny such permission.
Then, if I remember correctly (and rules has not changed recently on this matter), you have to completely miss more then one (3?) surprise out/of/competition controls to be banned. I seriously doubt that protocol violation may be considered as more serious infraction then complete miss of the control.
 
Joined
·
147 Posts
Armstrong himself admitted he took a shower - there is no question if Armstrong walked away from the tester - he did, buy his own admission. That's the problem - weather the tester said he could or not is just noise.

So why would one want to take a 20 minute shower? I can think of lots of reasons, but maybe this:

http://www.passthetest.com/biocleanseshampoo.htm

Maybe it works, maybe not, but stuff like this is all over the place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
al0 said:
It raises a couple of interesting questions
  1. Both LA and JB claim that supposed tester has no objections regarding shower till tester|s authentication will be completed. AFLD states opposite. AFLD statement in best case is based solely on word of that tester (in the worth case it is completely unfounded). So we have word of single person against words of (at least) 2 persons. Who has to be belived?


  1. Who has to be believed would seem to be the person who has nothing to gain but is solely trying to do their job. Lance and JB could have something to hide. Look at my username, I was once a fan but now I'm embarrased. Is there a way to change one's username? :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
The "shower" excuse

Christine said:
"a shower isn't going to alter a blood or hair sample. :rolleyes:"

Yeah, but how do you know Armstrong wasn't altering his blood or urine sample during his so-called "shower" excuse? Nobody knows. And that is the reason why the rule states that the athlete has to remain in direct sight of the tester until the testing is complete.

Rasmussen got busted on this years ago. Where is he now? And the rules have gotten stricter in an attempt to stop athletes that try to alter their own blood and urine to make it look like they are clean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the winners of an stage allowed to go have an shower/get on the team bus right after the stage before testing and media interviews?

What could you really do in 20 minutes to alter the chemistry of your hair and blood?
 
Joined
·
147 Posts
morrisond said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the winners of an stage allowed to go have an shower/get on the team bus right after the stage before testing and media interviews?

What could you really do in 20 minutes to alter the chemistry of your hair and blood?
Consider yourself corrected - they are not allowed to go shower before going to drug control. They roll over the line, are observed and go straight to testing. Are you also kidding on 20 minutes? All you had to do was inject yourself with saline and, BINGO, your crit level was below 50%.

Dude, read up on this stuff. Do yourself a favor - read this

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Then read this one

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/paul-kimmage

Then post legit stuff - consider yourself educated on the matter.
 

·
Impulse Athletic Coaching
Joined
·
5,576 Posts
bikesarethenewblack said:
Armstrong himself admitted he took a shower - there is no question if Armstrong walked away from the tester - he did, buy his own admission. That's the problem - weather the tester said he could or not is just noise.

So why would one want to take a 20 minute shower? I can think of lots of reasons, but maybe this:

http://www.passthetest.com/biocleanseshampoo.htm

Maybe it works, maybe not, but stuff like this is all over the place.
More likely is an IV drip.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,231 Posts
“I’m not saying anything about Lance Armstrong,” said Dr. Gary I. Wadler, a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency. “But if somebody had half an hour to himself, that’s plenty of time to urinate and refill yourself with somebody else’s urine. That way, even if they witness you urinating, it’s not your urine. It happens a lot. It is the rationale behind the no-notice testing.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
969 Posts
If the tester did indeed answer "no" in the area for mentioning any problems with lance or any irregularities in collecting the samples, then they will have a hard time making their complaints stick.
 
1 - 20 of 217 Posts
Top