Friday, 25 January 2013

Lance Armstrong: the science fights back


Michael Ashenden agrees with that that Lance Armstrong is lying about not doping in his comeback Tour in 2009/2010 (or I guess we both agree with Chris Gore).
 See Matt Slater’s story at http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21195249 It’s nice to be in such good company. People talk about Oprah not asking the difficult questions. She actually didn’t do too bad. But if the science of doping was in her blood (so to speak) she could have pointed out the anomaly with him supporting the blood passport’s accuracy, whilst seemingly making an exception in his own case. I think a Jeremy Paxman or a John Humphrys might have got this point. 

I think Armstrong still needs to be pressed on this point.

We shouldn't forget that Armstrong pulled out, ostensibly for legal and financial reasons, of Don Caitlin's widely publicised personalised anti doping program that was scheduled for his comeback Tour. It would have been very interesting to compare Caitlin’s proposed every three day testing regime with the more limited data from USADA and UCI that seem to damn him.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/sports/othersports/12cycling.html?_r=0

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.