Book Accuses Lance Armstrong of Doping
 

credit: ESPN.com

Lance Armstrong's lawyers will initiate libel proceedings Tuesday in response to a book that reiterates allegations he has used illegal substances since recovering from cancer in 1998.

The elite cyclist has never tested positive for banned substances, has never been disciplined and has repeatedly denied using illegal substances.

Nevertheless, the French-language book, "L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong" -- scheduled to be released this week -- cites a former staff member on Armstrong's team as saying the U.S. cyclist asked her to dispose of used syringes and lend him makeup to conceal needle marks on his arms.


Armstrong begins his bid to win a record sixth straight Tour de France next month.

The book is co-written by London Sunday Times sports reporter David Walsh and Pierre Ballester, a cycling expert formerly with L'Equipe. Walsh also wrote a story critical of Armstrong in 2001, linking him to Dr. Michele Ferrari, who was forced to leave the Gewiss-Ballan team after comments about EPO.

A spokesman for his U.S. Postal Service team, Jogi Muller, said Walsh was seeking "personal revenge" against the cyclist.

On his Web site, www.lancearmstrong.com, Armstrong issued a statement in which he denied the latest allegations and has instructed his lawyers to "immediately institute libel proceedings" in two different courts:

In the High Court in London against the Sunday Times and Walsh seeking an injunction and substantial damages;

In Paris, against Walsh, Ballester, the publishers of "LA Confidential" and the publishers of L'Express, the French newspaper in which excerpts of the book appeared this week.

Armstrong's lawyers said in a statement that their client "reacted with consternation and firmness at the false allegations."

"Our client vigorously denies having taken any product with a view to improve his performances," the statement read.

The heart of the accusations come from Emma O'Reilly, who worked for 3½ years as Armstrong's masseur, physical therapist and personal assistant. A USPS team spokesman confirmed O'Reilly "was a past employee" but declined additional comment.

O'Reilly, according to the reports, accuses Armstrong of using the banned substance EPO (erythropoietin), which helps endurance athletes by boosting concentrations of red blood cells.

The book claims Armstrong asked O'Reilly to dispose of a black bag containing the used syringes after the Tour of the Netherlands in 1998. O'Reilly said she did not know what was in the syringes, according to the book.

In addition, the book claims that in May 1999 Armstrong asked O'Reilly to drive to Spain to pick up drugs and bring them to his training camp in France, where he took delivery.

Excerpts of the book were published Monday, a few weeks before Armstrong begins his bid to win a record sixth straight Tour de France next month.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if there are any cycling fans in here or anyone who knows their fair share about Lance Armstrong, but this is becoming rediculous. He is the most tested man in the world and has yet to come up positive, but they continue to make up claims and try to get him. I feel bad for him. I read his last book, "Every Second Counts" about a couple of his Tour victories, and I have the utmost respect and admiration for him. I hope this gets out.

(If there are any cycling fans in here, I will make a Tour topic. I got a satellite dish with the Outdoor Life Network so I can watch coverage all day.)

How is he "the most tested man in the world"? All cyclists get tested roughly the same number of times.

At the end of the day, if it's true (I don't believe it but nothing shocks me now) then it's true and he'll be punished. If it's not then it's libel so he'll rake it in when he takes it to court.

He has never tested positive for drugs, the book is horseshit.

Neither did all those cyclists who dropped dead from drug related causes. What's your point?

Rob, this is one time when you don't know anything about the situation.

Believe me, Lance gets tested many more times than any other cyclist, because the people in France can't believe it and he is so good. I don't know the statistic, but I guarantee you that there is no man in the world who gets tested as regularly as him.

A few years ago the French tried to catch him, so they took all kinds of old samples etc and kept them for months, only because they couldn't find anything, and in the end they had to give up because they couldn't find anything.

I guarantee that if Armstrong was taking something illegal, it would have been found by now. That article talks about how there were syringes etc, well of course there are. When you are biking 100 miles a day of course you need vitamins etc to stay plenished. Its just some stupid guy and he is going to get his ass sued off, deservedly.

Nice cop out.

At the end of the day, if Armstrong was more tested than anyone else then he has right to sue for unfair treatment.

If he was taking illegal substances then he would have been found out by now? And you tell me I don't know anything about the situation? Drug tests can be covered and bought off (not saying he is but it's been known to happen in sports). They are only finding athletes now in track and field because someone spilt the beans on more accurate testing.

If drugs aren't a problem in cycling then why does that sport have the highest death rate amongst any sport in the world aside from pro wrestling? Just about all of those deaths have come drug abuse too. Do you think healthy 30 year old men drop dead on a regular basis from heart problems? Yeah, and pro wrestling is real.

Armstrong probably uses HGH which like TGH was until recently untraceble.

Consider this, in the seasons prior to Armstrong's illness he was a very poor cyclist. He couldn't climb, he was in the bottom third of time trialist in the tour. He won a couple of break-away road stages in the Northern part of the tour on the flat. In fact he was best known for being involved ina slapping match with another cyclist that got him fined.

He comes back from illness and he becomes the best climber in the world, he blows everyone away in the time trials.

Consider that the two different skills require two very different physiologies. Climbers tend to be small and light with very high power-to weight rations. Time trialist have to produce a high level of power over a long period time. Even the best cyclists in the world have never been masters of all. Mercxx, hinault, Indurian etc, were the best in one area and good in the other. Mercxx rode in the mountains to not lose the tour, so that if he lost 3 minutes he could make it up against the climbers in the time-trial, knowing that climbers can't time trial.

Consider that Armstrong's comeback opened the US market to the tour and was also some welcome publicity following the Festina debacle and that cycling is something of a needle culture anyway. Also, Cyclng has yet to sign up to the WADA code of conduct yet.

Most drugs that are taken by cyclists concern recovery time and tend to be taken in the off-season. I suggest you look at how few races Armstrong rides in as well. This means that he actually rarely gets tested.

In my opinion, the improvement in Armstrong's ability and the way in which he rides leads me to conclude that his performance is drug enhanced.

They don't just test at races, they do "random testing" where they can show up at your house at any time they want. So its not like he has a whole offseason of illegal substances that are wiped away by racing season.

There is no cyclist out there who doesn't need suppliments and other vitamins and such, there is no way it is possible that you can put your body through that without replenishing yourself. From what I hear the book doesn't say anything more than that he saw some syringes etc. Well there you go.

Personally, I strongly believe that he is clean. At this point its all just opinion, so everyone has their right to think what they want. Just after reading his book, seeing how he trains after his cancer, his strong denial, and the fact that he hasn't been caught after all he has been through and he has yet to drop dead, I will stand by the current facts, that he is clean.

How do you explain then how he went from being very poor over a period of time prior to his illness to suddenly becoming the best rider in every area of cycling.

His sudden ability to time trial is akin to marion Jones suddenly being able to run the mile in 3 and half minutes and the 100 metres in 8.5 seconds.

He was motivated after beating cancer and escaping death

But those two skills require two totally physical types - two opposite physical types.

Also, as regards him never having tested positive being a sign that he is innocent - most drugs takers never test positive until they get caught. That doesn't mean that they aren't taking drugs.

How many athletes do you know who beat cancer and come back to their sport better than ever?

I've missed you dude! :love:

Well as of right now, he has a great chance of winning his sixth straight tour, after thousands of tests he has never been caught, and hasn't kealed over dead yet, so to me that means he is innocent until proven guilty. If he is caught, I assume it will be very soon, but until then, I believe him and the facts.

He has been using chemotherapy to gain super human cycling powers.

You are not answering the question.

How do you explain how someone came to not just be good in two cycling discplines that require not just two different techniques but two different types of body but the best? To be a good climber you have to be able to produce 6-7 watts of power per kilo of body-weight.

David Millar (the world champion time trialist) weighs 79 kilos and is 6'3. (192cm) (Millar is currently under-investigation and banned from the Tour due to EPO)

Richard Virenque (7 times King of the Mountains) weighs 65 kilos (heavy for a climber) and is 179 cm.

Do you see the difference there?

How do you explain that whilst most climbers lose between 2-5 in a time trial (if they are pushing it) Armstrong wins time-trials? How do you explain that most time-trialists if they are top 5 will lose 10 minutes on a hard mountain stage and yet Armstrong is winning those stages?

Where does Armstrong fit into those? Height, weight.

I doubt he is the only guy who is good at both styles of racing, I can't say for sure because I just don't know, but its obviously not unheard of to be good at both. Also if body type is that important than I really don't think steroids would drastically change that.

And there are some very explainable reasons as to why he went from an average cyclist to a world class cyclist.

1. Training Age. As in most sports, it takes time to reach your prime. Elite marathon runners are typically late twenties or thirties, because that is when their bodies are the most able to endure the marathon. When you are cycling 100 miles a day, it takes quite a while to become elite at that. I'm sure Jan Ullrich wasn't amazing until he reached a certain age too.

2. Discipline. The most talented athletes don't always reach their potential because they don't have the discipline, the mindset, the drive, the heart, I could go on. Armstrong didn't have that until he survived cancer. He was born again, no doubt about it, you can't do what he did without really wanting it. Before the cancer he wasn't the same guy he is today at all, in that aspect.

I can't say for sure, but I'm sure his team wasn't the same/as good as it has been the past five years.

I really don't know enough about the two types of course or Lance/Jan's body type/racing styles. I will look into that, and when I know more I will comment.

I would be really surprised to find out that Armstrong is "doping." The guy has been tested over and over, time after time, and has come up clean everytime. These aren't your regular once a year run of the mill drug tests you take when you are working at Wal-Mart. This is some serious shit, you can't just go to GNC and buy some type of drink to cover it up.

I realize he came back stronger then ever but maybe after being able to beat 3 different types of cancer at once, he gained some sort of crazy determination that neither me or you can understand. He is good at both styles of biking, it is pretty unheard of, but why is it impossible? With intense training I am sure it is possible, it is an atheltic feat that is achievable if you work hard enough at it. Why can you only be good at one?

And if he is on 'roids why aren't other guys who have already been proven to be on 'roids not able to beat him? I think it is pretty ridiculous that he is constanly being accused, other people are getting caught why isn't he?

I am hoping Lance wins the Tour again and passes all the tests. Just so he can be accused so more by all the haters

Well it looks like 'Cheating' Lance is going to win a 6th tour.

I notice that he has decided not to race in the Olympics where of course they have much stricter drug testing than in the Tour.

Stima, you are simply highlighting your ignorance. EPO is a blood-booster, the only way that you can tell if someone is using it is if they have an abnormally high red-blood cell count. if it is above 5% then you are stood down from racing. It doesn't show up like steriods do. Given how precise cyclists are with their health levels it is ridiculous to think that when armstrong takes EPO that he doesn't know what his blood cell count is and how much EPO to take so that he does not cross the threshold.

David Millar was banned for 2 years for taking EPO and he has never tested positive either.

can either of you explain to me why Armstrong remains so close to Dr Michele Ferrari? Ferrari is the cycling worlds Victor Conte.

BCWWF - actually it is unheard of for anyone to be the best time trialist and the best climber because as I have said it is the equivilent of being the best 100 meter runner and the best mile runner. Two different skills that require two different types of physical form.

The training age argument is poor. The sudden improvement in Armstrong is basically the same improvement in performance that Tim Montgomery managed, or the Chinese middle distance athletes managed.

Armstrong will never be in the same class as Eddie Merckx. Merckx won the tour 5 times, he won three world championships, set the world hour record. Won the Tour/Giro double. (That is to say, won the Tour de France and the Tour of Italy both 21 day races in the same year.) Armstrong only races the Tour. Look at how many stages that Merckx won, look at how many more days Merckx spent in yellow. I also feel that Armstrong has had no serious competition contrasted with the people that Merckx raced against: Gimondi, Poulidor, Ocana,Thevenet etc. Nor do I think that Armstrong is even as good as Miguel Indurain.

I was going to refute saying "comparing to the past in cycling doesn't work" but thats not really what you were saying. Of course if Lance in his prime went against those guys in their prime, Lance would win purely because of the modern technologies Lance has, but that doesn't really mean anything, taking things from the past is always questionable.

Anyway, this is really just a situation of opinions. Europeans obviously don't like the "arrogant" I guess you could say American coming over and dominating their sports. In my opinion EPO is the first real thing you can use against him. I like the paragraph in Rick Reilly's column in last weeks SI. I just got home from vacation and didn't bring it home with me, but it basically just pointed out how there are all these allegations against him, but no proof.

A lot of Americans think Lance is the greatest, and personally I like him a lot too, but I think I am a bit more informed on his life and the sport. To me, he should be the most marketable athlete in the United States and its a travesty to Trek and some other companies that don't take advantage of it. But if you think about it, here is this guy doing something that nobody else has ever done, he has never recieved negative press besides heresay by the French media that isn't backed up, he overcame testicular cancer, he is good looking, a family man, confident, proud, and dating a rock star. But what sets him apart is the way he handles himself publically, if you see him in an interview you would know what I mean.

If he gets caught doing something, then my opinion will change, but until he does I am not going to create an impression based on stuff I hear on Around the Horn or I, Max.

Also, it is not unheard of to be good in the mountains and time trials, Jan Ullrich is another example, he is basically Armstrong just not as focused or in as good of shape.

A lot of Americans think Lance is the greatest?

Find me a sport where Americans think a non American is the best.

Lance Armstrong is the greatest, I don't know where you're trying to take this

Stage 15:
Lance Armstrong 04:40:30
Jan Ullrich +00:00:03

Lance wins by three seconds in a mountain stage


Stage 10:
They both finished +00:05:19 behind the leader in a mountain stage

Stage 11:
Same thing

Stage 13:
Lance won the stage, Ullrich was sixth just two minutes behind in one of the biggest mountain stages

Stage 16:
Lance Armstrong 00:39:41
Jan Ullrich +00:01:01

Lance wins by 1 minute in a time trial (Ullrich finished second)

The last time trial in the 2003 Tour, Ullrich could have surpassed Armstrong except he fell and then Armstrong could coast in.


The reason Armstrong wins is because he is in better shape and doesn't use X, but Ullrich has the same strengths as Armstrong in Tour competiton. I can't find the other time trial results, but Ullrich is always right behind Armstrong in both type of events. Is it not unheard of to be "one of the best" time trialists and climbers? Only the best?

And you're not considering that Lance Armstrong isn't one of the best time trialists in the world. The best don't show up at the Tour de France because they are time trialists, not month-long-1000's of miles type racers. Just look at the Olympics, Lance barely shows up there but the gold medal time trialists don't show up at the Tour de France.

Its like comparing the kicks of a 10,000 meter runner with an 800 runner. Say Mr. 10,000 can run the last 200 meter faster than any other 10,000 runner, that doesn't mean he can run it faster than the 800 runner can.

Here's where:

1 - I, and others here, don't think he is the greatest.

2 - The majority of Americans are blind to the rest of the world.

If you want to hate him because he is doing something that no European has on European turf and because of absolutely no factual information, than nobody really cares

I don't really care much for cycling to be perfectly honest. It just doesn't excite me.

I have to say that you are clearly being blind to reality. Tell me are you aware of Michel Ferreri

You have yet to address my points about how does one become good at the various disciplines.

Your point about comparing different eras as well is wrong. Indurian used to cycle all three tours. He also rode in the world championships and many road races. He still managed to win 5 tours.

The argument that it is Europeans hating Americans is also bullshit. Last time I checked Greg Lemond was American.

SI/EPSN have to be the most one-eyed sporting media in the world. So one can reject their opinion as simply ill-informed.

Lance is not a family man. Last time I checked he was divorced and had left the kids with the wife.

He is also a bully - witness his crass chase after Simeoni. Pointless. And why because Simeoni has the guts to be a whistle-blower about drugs in the peleton.

Armstrongs excuse afterwards that it was 'supported in the peleton' is bullshit. Lance is a bitter man if he can't let someone who has dared to speak otu against his relatioship with Ferreri race witha breakaway. That is classless.

So again. i ask you to address the points.

Ullrich is a fat crapper. Always has been always will be.