Lance Armstrong To Lose All Tour de France Medals...

[weemadando]

What I'm finding most satisfying is seeing the degree of their hypocrisy exposed. After years of loudly proclaiming their innocence and having their national organisations defend them, when this breaks they all find their shrivelled balls and admit it, we'll after the potential for any real repercussions is over.

[mr friendly guy]

I am reading parts of the USADA case now. In case I don't finish it, I will just like to point out the most damning part so far.

To summarise this particular argument, Armstrong is alleged to have used EPO in 1999 Tour de France and changed to direct autologous transfusions in 2000 when they heard that a test for EPO was developed. The USADA has eyewitnesses that Armstrong doped from several team mates, and felt that in itself was sufficient to say Armstrong doped. However... here is the rub, they went back and tested his 1999 blood samples for EPO (remember, these samples were taken before a method was available for detection). Now EPO breaks down quickly in the body in a few hours, however presumably if we store the blood it gets preserved. Now anyone want to guess what Armstrong's 1999 blood samples showed? Ka ching. If this is true, its a fucking smoking gun. This is on page 42 if Armstrong supporters want to read.

[mr friendly guy]

People should read the report from page 136 - it details how they defeated the detection tests. So its not just cyclists who opt to get suspended testifying against Armstrong because they hate him hur hur I say this but the tests show nothing blah blah. They actually detailed how the tests were defeated due to the limitations of testing procedure and technology. To my mind this makes it more convincing.

For example

1. EPO is undetectable shortly after use, the time they were given is 12 hours. How they did it was to
a) use small amounts

b) inject directly into the vein rather than subcutaneously (which is what renal patients get) so it breaks down faster

c) avoid the testers until such time as it should be undetectable. Note avoiding the testers does not lead to a positive drug test, unless you avoid them 3 times. So unless the testers were going to get you all the time, it minimises the chance of being caught. Some of the things they did was simply not fucking answer the door, or shoot up in a friend's residence.

d) sleeping in an artificial altitude environment.
Page 142

Dr. Ferrari recognized that the EPO testing method works through separating and measuring the quantity (known as “intensity”) of various types of EPO and comparing the ratio
of EPO bands in what is known as the “basic” region (where the bands tend to be caused by the administration of synthetic EPO) to bands in the acidic region (where the bands are naturally
produced).775 However, because the test operates by measuring a ratio, the test can be fooled to a degree by increasing the amount of EPO in the acidic region (i.e., those produced naturally),
which can be accomplished by stimulating natural production of EPO either through going to altitude or by sleeping in an altitude tent (also known as a “hypoxic chamber”).776 Dr. Ferrari
advised the use of hypoxic chambers to reduce the effectiveness of the EPO test in detecting the use of synthetic EPO.777 Regular training at altitude (such as at St. Moritz, Tenerife or Aspen)
would achieve a similar result.778

2. Haematocrit levels - anything higher than 50% is illegal and suspicious of EPO / blood transfusions. They simply administered saline to dilute things. Remember haematocrit is simply the ratio of red cells in the blood, so if you give more fluid like saline, the ratio automatically drops. The team employed watchers to see drug testers come in. It only took 20 minutes where you just hang saline on a hangar and run it through. In a healthy individual you will simply piss out the extra fluid and you will have high haematocrit levels after that.

page 144

As long as the riders had adequate advance notice of a blood test (and only about twenty minutes was needed) a saline infusion could eliminate almost entirely any potential for a negative
consequence from a blood transfusion.792 A simple strategy at races was to “have the guys with lower hematocrit be tested first. By the time the testers got to those with a higher hematocrit
there would be plenty of time for a saline infusion and the opportunity to drink plenty of water to dilute the urine sample and reduce hematocrit.”793

Note, they are alleged to regularly check their own haematocrit level with a haemacue (a device which quickly measures readings, but not as good as a formal laboratory).

3. Steroids - rather than administer them by injections or oral consumption, they were given topically (ie in the form of a medication patch) or sublingually (underneath the tongue, think nitrate sprays for people who had heart attacks).
page 141

As described below, the delivery methods for testosterone (sublingually through an Andriol-olive oil mixture or through wearing patches for a few hours771) were also specifically
chosen to limit the window of detection. Because testosterone is naturally produced by the human body it is difficult to detect synthetic testosterone taken in low doses.772 Therefore, the
risk of detection for testosterone administered in the forms used by U.S. Postal Service riders was quite low.

One can do an experiment, and see if testosterone detection is more likely to do so if given via these methods.

Note they also simply gave the testosterone in small doses.

4. Cortisone - this one is simple. Have their paid doctors write a fictitious medical reason for it. Problem solved.

In fact this line about one of the team doctor's is comedy gold.
page 124

Similarly, after the Tour of Basque Country in 2005 Celaya approached Tom Danielson about receiving a cortisone
injection.662 Celaya said, “I can give you cortisone for the Tour of Georgia, we’ll just say it is for your knee.”663 Danielson responded that he was alright and did not need the drug.664
Initially, Danielson did not want to the use cortisone as he did not know its potential side effects.665 However, Celaya responded, “it is good for your muscles, it will give you more
power.”666 As a consequence, Danielson said he “relented and had intramuscular injections of cortisone for the Tour of Georgia.”667

Now go to read page 145 which actually backs the eyewitness accounts with the lab evidence.
1. They talk about the haematocrit levels mentioned earlier in the thread.

2. They also go into how his 1999 bloods were retested for EPO after a method was available to detect it (ie most likely before they started to utilise their anti detection methods I summarised above). Armstrong returned six positive samples for EPO. Note at the time it was tested there was no way for the testers to know who provided the samples. However this ruling was adjuged not to count because of a technicality, that is they didn't test a B sample even though the A samples were stored in -20 degrees celsius and there is no scientific basis to assume they would have changed from when they were taken.
page 148-149

USADA recently obtained the chart of LNDD’s testing results relating to the 1999 samples. This information was provided to USADA by the French Anti-Doping Agency in
accordance with its authority under the French Code of Sport. The chart shows the results for all of the 1999 Tour de France samples tested for EPO by LNDD in 2004 and 2005, including the
six samples subsequently identified in the L’Equipe article as Armstrong’s. According to the chart, each of Armstrong’s six samples from the 1999 Tour de France tested positive for the
presence of EPO on each of three positivity criteria, including the current EPO positivity criteria.

One of the positivity criteria used by LNDD was a percentage of basic isoforms of 85% or higher. Armstrong’s six samples produced test results of 100%, 89.7%, 96.6%, 88.7%, 95.2%
and 89.4%. These are resoundingly positive values. As discussed above in this Reasoned Decision, USADA now has numerous affidavits that
describe in detail the extensive use of EPO by the U.S. Postal Service team in 1999 as well as specific testimony that Armstrong used EPO during that period of time. While LNDD’s analysis
of the 1999 samples may not stand alone to establish a positive test under the Code, the analysis is consistent with and corroborates the numerous witness statements recently obtained by
USADA.

3. They again go into blood tests taken in 2001 Tour of Switzerland. Long story short, one of Armstrong's blood samples is considered suspicious, ie highly likely doping albeit could also be produced naturally (in other words, the numbers were high, but not high enough for the standard to be considered doping). Now here is the rub. At that time of EPO testing, the criteria was different than todays, that is they made it conservative. Under current criteria for EPO detection, the results then would not necessarily preclude a positive test, it would depend on other criteria.

So the USADA requested the UCI for the relevant sample to test the other samples. UCI said Armstrong first needed to give permission. Guess what Armstrong's response was. For a guy who has boasted about being tested 500-600 times you would think it wouldn't be an issue. (Guess what. USADA counted about slightly more than 200 times he has been tested for drugs, as opposed to having blood drawn up for other tests which is part of what UCI did).


There is also the evidence that
a) Armstrong's team members doped under the guidance of team doctors,
b) his team doctor Dr Michele Ferrari was convicted of supplying performance enhancers to athletes in 2004 (later overturned on a statue of limitation technicality but which the court's openly stated they believed he still did it),
c) Armstrong still maintained professional relationship with Dr Ferrari despite saying he severed it after the good doctor's conviction in 2004 (as evidenced by the fact by chasing the money we can see Armstrong still paid money into the good Doctor's company AFTER his statement regarding him severing his relationship with the doctor)
d) as per Armstrong's own words, he didn't believe his team members doped.

So we are left with the case of his team members doped but Armstrong was somehow oblivious to it, and paid money to the doping for "cycling advice" but for non doping related stuff, or maybe, that Armstrong was just as complicit in this as his team members.

USADA also about his witness intimidation, the most prominent a "zip the lip" movement to Simeoni who testified against Lance's doctor Ferrari. The reason I highlight this one, its not just a he said, she said type thing. You can see a video of him doing that movement. Just in case anyone was wondering, I found a french video reporting that movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taWGQNKUgQQ

People have asked Armstrong's detractors to put up or shut up. Well they put up, so lets see who is willing to read it.

Edit - its also funny how the USADA rips the UCI a new one over their handling over the Lance Armstrong affair.

Further, UCI is conflicted out of any role in results management in this case because it has publicly prejudged the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence. In 2010 when Mr. Landis publicly raised his allegations of Mr. Armstrong’s doping, in an Associated Press article UCI President McQuaid responded before undertaking any investigation whatsoever, contending that Mr. Landis’ allegations in his April 30, 2010 email were “nothing new” and that, “he already made those accusations in the past.”836 Rather than investigate the allegations, instead the UCI sued Mr. Landis.837 Similarly, when Tyler Hamilton publicly explained his knowledge of Mr. Armstrong’s doping in a 60 Minutes interview nationally telecast in the United States and
reported around the world in May, 2011, the UCI’s Honorary President and current UCI Management Committee Member, Hein Verbruggen, stated:

That’s impossible, because there is nothing. I repeat again: Lance Armstrong
has never used doping. Never, never, never. And I say this not because I am a
friend of his, because that is not true. I say it because I’m sure.”838

These comments during the pendency of USADA’s investigation by the UCI’s Honorary President, who also currently serves on the UCI Management Committee, are further evidence
that even before USADA’s investigation was complete the contention that Mr. Armstrong engaged in doping was pre-judged and rejected by the UCI, despite the fact that neither Mr.
McQuaid, nor Mr. Verbruggen, nor any other representative of the UCI, have met with Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Landis, or apparently, with any other of USADA’s numerous witnesses
concerning these matters.

[mr friendly guy]

All of the above is true really. The whole issue hasn't been making huge headlines here, but from what I've read the way USADA has approached the issue is they come off as defending their reputation vehemently which I find extremely distasteful. USADA should not engage in tactics of character assassination, no matter how iron clad their case is. If the weight of evidence is great but inconclusive, then you don't run around claiming how the investigative body has done it's job and the guy investigated is guilty. If the weight of evidence is measured by the same group gathering it, it does make the whole thing look dubious at best. Specially when it's combined with a publicity campaign which looks like an attempt to discredit someone. If EPO and blood manipulation was used but USADA cannot conclusively prove it, they're just playing a game of he said she said and trying to get Armstrong tried in the public court.
I haven't looked at the final report by USADA and might take a gander at it. If that convinces me of Armstrong's guilt, I still think USADA could have done a lot better job in publishing it's findings.
I think they way USADA has handled the publicity of the whole affair is one of the reasons why some defend Armstrong claiming USADA is on a witch hunt and others are convinced Armstrong is guilty of doping and USADA has done enough to prove it.

I suggest you have a gander at it. I had a look at it. In terms of he said she said, the USADA has stated they are convinced eye witness statements themselves are sufficient, and lets face it, in some court cases it is. However they did try laboratory tests as well to make the case look more solid. Their best bet was in the 1999 sample of Lance which was tested for EPO AFTER a EPO detection test became available. Since an EPO test only became available in 2000, there was no need for Lance to hide the EPO use in 1999, and it was detected overwhelmingly in 6 samples. The UCI refused to acknowledge it on a technicality that no B sample was tested.

The other bet was that they had a result which was suspicious but not positive in 2000, under the criteria at the time. As mentioned the criteria then was deliberately conservative and under the current criteria for EPO it didn't preclude a positive result. So they requested the UCI to allow testing again of that sample. UCI responded that Armstrong needed to give permission. He refused.

[Grumman]

Dr. Ferrari recognized that the EPO testing method works through separating and measuring the quantity (known as “intensity”) of various types of EPO and comparing the ratio
of EPO bands in what is known as the “basic” region (where the bands tend to be caused by the administration of synthetic EPO) to bands in the acidic region (where the bands are naturally
produced).775 However, because the test operates by measuring a ratio, the test can be fooled to a degree by increasing the amount of EPO in the acidic region (i.e., those produced naturally),
which can be accomplished by stimulating natural production of EPO either through going to altitude or by sleeping in an altitude tent (also known as a “hypoxic chamber”).776 Dr. Ferrari
advised the use of hypoxic chambers to reduce the effectiveness of the EPO test in detecting the use of synthetic EPO.777 Regular training at altitude (such as at St. Moritz, Tenerife or Aspen)
would achieve a similar result.778

So, the athletes want to increase the amount of EPO in their blood. They live at (simulated) altitude specifically to increase the amount of EPO in their blood. But they're only increasing the amount of EPO in their blood as a cover for increasing the amount of EPO in their blood?

[Thanas]

^Are you intentionally playing dumb or is this a honest question?

[weemadando]

Four Corners is doing a feature on the doping scandal tomorrow night. Should be quality.

[mr friendly guy]

I admit when I first heard of this, I was incline to believe the "witch hunt" theory as well. However...

1. The provide compelling evidence - including the re-examining of Armstrong's blood samples

2. Numerous witnesses including how they avoided the the tests - it amounts to the rest of Armstrong's team cheated, and Armstrong was someone oblivious to it. These witnesses also include people who have never been caught cheating.

3. Armstrong continues to pay money to a doctor Michele Ferrari who is known to help supply prohibited substances to athletes. He continues to do so after he officially severed ties. This is backed up by email correspondence and the money trail, so its not just something USADA pulled out of its arse with no evidence.

4. They are just hunting Armstrong until they get the answer they want - this frankly is an unconvincing conspiracy theory. Other detractors have accused Armstrong before, however the USADA only started in 2010, and only after Armstrong's name was mentioned in their investigation begun in 2008 to chase the distributors of EPO to athletes.

5. The USADA are violating their own statue of limitations of 8 years - look, misuse of process.

If you read their report the USADA make the argument that statutes don't apply when one of the parties has deliberately lied and tried to keep hidden what they are accused of. I am no legal expert, so I am not sure if that floats. They do however have evidence that Armstrong not just lied, he actually committed perjury. This occurred when one of his sponsors grew suspicious (in 2005) and didn't want to pay out the fee to Armstrong on the grounds that he was a doper (they were later forced to). In the case he was asked about his association with Dr Ferrari which he lied about.

I am going to say that the USADA report is compelling, and that short summaries on articles don't actually encapsulate their full arguments.

[aerius]

So, the athletes want to increase the amount of EPO in their blood. They live at (simulated) altitude specifically to increase the amount of EPO in their blood. But they're only increasing the amount of EPO in their blood as a cover for increasing the amount of EPO in their blood?

Not quite. What they're doing is using the effects of altitude training to mask the detection of EPO in blood tests. Basically, if you use EPO without doing anything else the test will pick it up. But when you live or train at altitude you body makes some natural adaptations which makes it a lot harder to get a positive test for EPO use.

[Broomstick]

More accurately, athletes want to increase the number of red blood cells per unit of blood. When you live/work/train at high altitude, with its reduced oxygen level, your body naturally produces more red blood cells as an adaptation. This is, in fact, perfectly legal for all sports. Some countries maintain training camps at high altitude precisely for that purpose.

Epo (more precisely erythropoietin) is the hormone in the body that stimulates red blood cell production (among other things, but that's the most immediately critical to survival). Your kidneys naturally produce this, if they did not, you'd be dead in a month from severe anemia. In fact, before it became available as a medication people with end stage renal disease had to have monthly blood transfusions in order to stay alive. The epo used for that purpose (among others) is produced by genetically engineered organisms that have had the human epo gene inserted into their own genome. It's a triumph of genetic engineering, but because the epo produced comes from a human gene yes, it can be very hard to detect (though, as we have seen, not impossible).

Doping athletes don't want more epo, they want more blood cells. Epo is just one means to get them, along high altitude training and autologous blood transfusions. If eating blueberries had the same effect dopers would be mainlining the little berries like mad.

One way high altitude training masks artificial epo use is because the lowered oxygen naturally causes a rise in the body's own production of epo. Bodily production of the hormone can vary over a few orders of magnitude under some circumstances, particularly those involving the stress from lowered oxygen levels, so you can't go solely by a arbitrary number of X is normal, anything above X is not.

[mr friendly guy]

One way high altitude training masks artificial epo use is because the lowered oxygen naturally causes a rise in the body's own production of epo. Bodily production of the hormone can vary over a few orders of magnitude under some circumstances, particularly those involving the stress from lowered oxygen levels, so you can't go solely by a arbitrary number of X is normal, anything above X is not.

Funny you should mention that, because Armstrong is alleged to have told those riders he introduced to doping about how the EPO tests work, which is similar to how you describe you can't have something over an arbitrary number. There is still a grey area and as long as the rider was in that area he is safe.

[Broomstick]

I have to wonder if Armstrong was introduced to epo, or at least received considerable education on it, while undergoing his cancer treatment as one of the common uses is to combat treatment-induced anemia in cancer patients.

[Raptor 597]

I have to wonder if Armstrong was introduced to epo, or at least received considerable education on it, while undergoing his cancer treatment as one of the common uses is to combat treatment-induced anemia in cancer patients.

Well according to Frankie and Betsy Andrieu's testimony, he openly admitted in front of them to the doctor asking about his medical history that he had been using EPO before his cancer.

I really wish I had seen this thread sooner, I race road bikes at an amateur level so I've been abreast of the situation for awhile now, it's all very interesting and a very damning case brought against him by USADA.

[Raptor 597]

I am going to further say that claims that Armstrong is just accused and accused again until his detractors get the result they want seems a bit weak to apply to the USADA because this appears to be the first and only time the USADA formally accused Armstrong. According to their own case against Lance they only got information pointing to Armstrong in April 2010. Armstrong had already retired and made a come back and will retire again in late 2010. Heck, the USADA wasn't even formed yet when Armstrong won his first two titles.

Armstrong probably would have never been investigated by USADA if he permanently stayed out of the sport since 2005. The bio passport they acquired from him during his comeback was one of the key pieces of evidence that made Tygart go forward with the investigation.

[weemadando]

And now someone has spoken up and said Armstrong tried to bribe his team (a rival one) to fix and event where there was an individual 1m dollar prize for anyone who swept all 3 stages.

[mr friendly guy]

Four Corners doco

summary of key players

Taken from the 2005 case where Armstrong refused to pay him for winning the Tour De France after they suspected he was cheating. Ultimately Armstrong prevailed, but now with more evidence it looks damning.

[Darth Yan]

I never said he didn't cheat. In all likelihood he did. the reason I think it's foolish is because no one is clean, and thus the only way to make it clean is to declare no real winner (since if they take away his medals they just go to yet another doper, and if that happens it goes to another doper). What's more they tried back in 09 and 10. That's why I'm sceptical. No matter what happens the winner will have doped, and Lance may have been the best athlete who happened to be doping at the same time.

[D.Turtle]

Isn't that exactly what they want to do: Strip Armstrong of his titles, and not declare anyone else the winner?

[Thanas]

No matter what happens the winner will have doped, and Lance may have been the best athlete who happened to be doping at the same time.

That is a bad argument to make because we do not know that everyone doped equally.

[Skgoa]

Yeah but it lets americans keep there one noteworthy cyclist. :V

[EnterpriseSovereign]

It's still going on:

Lance Armstrong has lost three of his main sponsors as the fallout continues from the United States Anti-Doping Agency's report into doping.

Sportswear giant Nike, cycle maker Trek and Budweiser brewer Anheuser-Busch will cut ties with the former cyclist.

Armstrong, 41, who has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, has also stepped down as chairman of his cancer charity Livestrong.

The three companies pledged to continue to support Livestrong.

Nike said in a statement "due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Armstrong participated in doping... we have terminated his contract".

"To spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding my cycling career, I will conclude my chairmanship”

Lance Armstrong

Anheuser-Busch will not renew its sponsorship deal with Armstrong when it finishes at the end of 2012, while Trek is ending its long-term relationship with the American with immediate effect.

Another of Armstrong's sponsors, sportswear firm Oakley, said: "As we have stated in the past, Oakley does not approve in any way the use of illegal substances for enhancing performance in sports.

"Our policy with our athletes is to support them until proven guilty by the highest governing body of sport or court of law. We are reviewing the extensive report from the Usada, as well as our relationship with Lance, and will await final decision-making by the International Cycling Union."

The decisions come a week after the United States Anti-Doping Agency (Usada) released a report containing accusations of widespread doping by Armstrong and his teams.

It contains sworn statements from 26 witnesses, including 11 former team-mates.

Usada ordered 14 years of Armstrong's career results to be erased. The American has always denied doping, but gave up his fight against the charges in August.

Nike, which added that it was "misled" by the American for more than a decade, made a U-turn on a statement released last week when it said it would "continue to support Lance and the Lance Armstrong Foundation". Nike and Armstrong had been in partnership since 1996.

Armstrong also announced on Wednesday that he would be quitting his role as chairman of his cancer charity in order "to spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding my cycling career".

The Texan will remain on Livestrong's 15-member board, with vice-chairman Jeff Garvey, who was founding chairman in 1997, taking over Armstrong's role.

Armstrong added: "As my cancer treatment was drawing to an end, I created a foundation to serve people affected by cancer.

"It has been a great privilege to help it grow from a dream into an organisation that today has served 2.5 million people and helped spur a cultural shift in how the world views cancer survivors."

Livestrong spokesperson Katherine McLane told BBC Radio 5 live: "I think he reached this decision because he holds this organisation close to his heart and he thinks of this as akin to one of his children in terms of how deeply he cares for it.

"Surprisingly throughout the last few years, with these issues being in the news, we've seen an increase in the number of people that support (Livestrong) and contribute."

Former England footballer Geoff Thomas was inspired to set up his own foundation after reading Armstrong's autobiography days after being diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukaemia in 2003.

Armstrong led the tributes when Thomas was awarded the 2005 BBC Sports Personality Helen Rollason Award in recognition of his charity work, but Thomas said the American "had done the right thing" by stepping down as chairman.

"I think it's damage limitation while everything is going as it is - there's a news story about Lance every day," the 48-year-old told BBC Sport.

"Lance stepping down will probably take the heat away from the charity itself and put the focus solely on him."

Thomas contacted Armstrong on Twitter , writing: "@lancearmstrong please for your sake, come clean. If not yours, for the millions you have inspired over the last 15+ years."

Source

[mr friendly guy]

No matter what happens the winner will have doped, and Lance may have been the best athlete who happened to be doping at the same time.

That is a bad argument to make because we do not know that everyone doped equally.

Indeed. US Postal's doping program was quite extensive, from individualise doping programs telling the cyclists exactly how much to take, to employing spotters to watch for testers. For all we know some of the other cheaters could have only doped a few times, or much less than Armstrong's team.

[Darth Yan]

there were still no clean winners so it wouldn't really accomplish much at all.

[Irbis]

there were still no clean winners so it wouldn't really accomplish much at all.

And just how do you know man with 6th or 8th time wasn't clean?

The fact head guy was cheating doesn't mean everyone was.

Also, our national newspaper's sport section ran a sob story with pre-US Postal Armstron teammate that claimed both were clean back then - but said teammate started taking doping because he couldn't compete with miracle bursts other cyclists started having. He suspects Armstong started doing the same because his main strength always was preparing for races and training rather than driving technique, making mental leap needed to add drugs to both small.

If the line about their motivations is true, it just shows how laughable calls to not punish cheaters are, as long as just one guy gets away with doping, he will poison the whole of the cadre, period.

[mr friendly guy]

there were still no clean winners so it wouldn't really accomplish much at all.

Well that remains to be seen doesn't it?

Before I go on, I will preface this by saying that I don't really give a shit about the concept of doping in sport per se, although I will never bring myself to prescribe drugs with potentially deadly side effects if not used properly just so they can win a bicycle race. That being said, I do care that if you participate in a sport, you agree to the rules publicly stated - in this case no doping up on various banned substances.

So that being said, it will depend on whether the fact that no one is too big to go after, including Armstrong helps the sports governing body clean up the sport. If the UCI does so because of the public spanking it received from the USADA then from the POV of "clean sports" it will succeed. If not the USADA may have secured its reputation as a "tough" relatively new anti-doping body that brought down Lance Armstrong, but with the victory being hollow.