Lance Armstrong and the Science of Drug Testing

Hugh Pickens writes "As the media reports that seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong says he will no longer fight doping charges from the US Anti-Doping Agency, which will strip him of his titles and ban him from competitive cycling for life, Tracee Hamilton writes that the Lance Armstrong vs. USADA fight is a tough one in which to take a side, because to believe USADA means suspending belief in the science of drug testing. 'If you take personalities out of the equation, you're left with pee in a cup and blood in a syringe,' writes Hamilton. 'Armstrong never failed a drug test. He was tested in competition, out of competition. He was tested at the Olympics, at the Tour de France, at dozens if not hundreds of other events. And he never failed a test.' Instead Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the USADA, gathered a group of people who swear they saw Armstrong doping. 'If the results can be discarded in favor of testimony, then let's go right to the testimony phase and quit horsing around with blood and urine.' There has been no trial, no due process, but in the minds of many, that testimony outweighs the results of hundreds of drug tests. 'I don't know if Armstrong did the things he's accused of doing, and neither do you,' concludes Hamilton adding that it can't work both ways. 'Either a drug test is the standard, or it isn't.'"

Comments

drugs

[kiep]

are awesome

Drug test the final standard?

[XanC]

I don't think anyone has ever believed that passing a drug test mean the person was clean for sure. Why do they store samples for X number of years in order to re-test them in the future, with better technology? It's because if it's found out later that somebody was doping, then his results are invalid.

If we find out some other way besides a drug test that somebody was doping, then his results are invalid.

Re:Drug test the final standard?

[idontgno]

So, for a sufficiently large value of "X", X liars can trump science?

I hope this standard never propagates into criminal law.

Re:Drug test the final standard?

[cpu6502]

>>> If we had video of Armstrong shooting up some kind of drug, or some kind of personal statement to that effect on tape or on paper, I think we'd all agree that trumped the test, wouldn't we?

No.
He could be shooting a legal drug that's not banned. And a personal statement does not mean much. To add to my other post (below) I once had a security manager swear he saw me stealing. Turns-out he saw me handing brown packages to the postman. The security dope assumed I was stealing from the company (because that's what it looked like), but in reality the packages had been removed from my house, placed in my car, driven to work, and handed to the postman at 10am.

They had PS2 games inside them. Completely innocent of any crime but the manager's statement was "I saw him stealing packages from work". LIKEWISE just because a video or person claims to see Mr. Armstrong shooting-up does not prove a crime. We have no idea what he is shooting up. It could just be cancer medicine or insulin or sugar water (all legal per the rules).

Presume innocence until you can PROVE guilt. A video or statement does not prove anything.

Re:Drug test the final standard?

[Em Adespoton]

Anyone else ever been in a situation where you knew you were right, had the evidence mostly on your side, and give up?

Yup. I've been in that situation many times myself, as have most other married men.

There's more to winning than being right and being able to prove it. You still have to live with everyone else afterwards.

In this case, Lance decided that dragging this fight on wasn't worth it for him going forward -- that could be because he was guilty, it could be because he'd rather do something else with his life and the stigma of doping doesn't weigh as heavily on his life as having to constantly fight these people and be in the negative limelight. Or, more likely, he was doping with something that isn't yet illegal, but would be as soon as they found out what he was doing. Under this argument, there are probably lots of others using similar techniques who are still considered "clean", and he'd be taking one for the team.

But any of these arguments are possible. Condemning him because he doesn't behave the same way as you is a slippery slope to fascism.

Re:Drug test the final standard?

[Chas]

Lance won and kept winning even against younger, superior talent. Something isn't right there.

Ah. Bullshit ageism rears its ugly head.

Younger means fuck-all.

And if they didn't win (and he wasn't doping) they were NOT "superior".

You have a guy who's been a professional athlete all his life. Isn't it safe to assume that, though some quirky confluence of genetics and training regimen that he simply might be even fractionally better suited for a certain type of activity than the next random person in the sport? Even at an advanced age, meaning he had more experience in some of these races and was, thus, more familiar with the courses, granting him an edge?

At his age, response time, peripheral vision and quickness just arent what they were 15-20 years ago.

That'd probably mean something...for a boxer...or an MMA fighter, etc. Lance was a CYCLIST.

Response time isn't the biggest determinant here.
Flat out quickness isn't either.

Staying power and control over one's cycle and body are. And even someone his age, who's been training most of his adult life, should have that in spades.

Also, his age isn't so advanced that reduction in peripheral vision should be a problem. He's only about to turn 41.

Plus when you throw in the towel, it means you don't care or the allegations are correct. I doubt that he doesn't care.

Thing is. You take enough ass-chewing, sooner or later, all they're getting is scar tissue. Which is damn low on nerve endings. He's been fighting allegations for what? 17 YEARS? Is he supposed to just go on and on and on with this until he falls over dead in an arbitration room and the other side declares victory?

Sorry, but there are more important things in life than wasting it trying to shut up a bunch of abusive, power-hungry jackasses who just won't leave you alone no matter how hard you try to make them do so. Lance pretty much knows this, and he's reached the point where he either has to commit the rest of his life to facing down these assholes on a daily basis or he can just walk away and live his life.

Anyone else ever been in a situation where you knew you were right, had the evidence mostly on your side, and give up? Yeah, me neither.

Lies

[amiga3D]

The sworn statements of people caught doping is of virtually no value at all. Once caught they'll swear to any thing you want them to. They are allready proven liars so why even bother with them?

Time for a car anology

[avandesande]

Suppose after you have been to the bar you are pulled over and pass a breathalyser test and the cop sends you on your way. A week later one of your friends gets busted for dui and testifies that you drank too much the previous week causing the loss of your license.