Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Off Topic => Sports Arena => Topic started by: Chipsticks on August 24, 2012, 10:23:01 AM
-
Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong faces being stripped of his titles and banned from cycling for life after announcing he will not contest charges levelled by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).
American Armstrong said in a statement that he is "finished with this nonsense" and insisted he is innocent but did not want to spend any further effort clearing his name.
He said: "There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough'. For me, that time is now.
"I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999."
However Armstrong's achievements are set to be wiped from the record books.
Asked what actions USADA intended to impose, spokeswoman Annie Skinner said in an email: "A loss of all results from August 1, 1998 and a lifetime ban from participating any sport sanctioned by a signatory to the WADA Code."
Article in full here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9496174/Lance-Armstrong-to-be-stripped-of-Tour-de-France-titles-and-banned-for-life-as-he-gives-up-fight-over-drug-charges.html)
-
I've always wondered about his wins in what are possibly the most tainted races seen but what is there to be gained in stripping him of the titles? Who stands to gain from it? Those in second place who won't have been tested to the same degree as the daily holder of the yellow jersey? I don't know whether the same rigour of taking drug samples was around at that point as it is today?
Given a lot of those of finished second and third are known drugs cheats where do you stop? The guy who finished last? To be that bad you obviously can't be on performance enhancing anything!
I think just mark the whole era as a tainted era and move on.
-
I am sure I heard today that Armstrong never failed a drugs test in all the time he was racing. Surely it is down to the tour de france to decide if he loses his titles, and not the USADA. Seems strange to me that they are going to ban him for life, but any USA athletes, Baseball players, and american Footballers only get short bans.
-
Considering he's retired the ban won't really have much affect, and I'm pretty sure the USADA don't have the jurisdiction to strip him of his titles, that's down to the UCI
-
I am sure I heard today that Armstrong never failed a drugs test in all the time he was racing.
Many cyclists who never failed a test during that era have since confessed to blood doping and taking EPO, Floyd Landis being prominent among them, especially as he was Armstrong's team mate for some of the TDF wins and has stated that he took drugs with Armstrong. Testing was fairly poor and only really caught those stupid enough to take substances that would show up in the tests.
Read 'Bad Blood' by Jeremy Whittle and 'Rough Ride' by Paul Kimmage for excellent insiders stories of what pro-cycling was like back in Armstrong's hey-days.
-
I was always skeptical of Armstrong's achievements. As much as it made a great story - Man defies cancer to be world champion...it all seemed implausible. When you compare recent timings for those tour hill climbs to what they were back when he was at his best it's plain to see there must have been some 'assistance' involved.
-
David Walsh's take on it (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/david-walsh-on-armstrong-and-usadas-charges)
-
As hipkiss says I doubt whether the USADA have the right to strip his titles, the TDF is governed by the UCI.
There is no evidence, it's all based on allegations from teammates.
Also he has not retired, Lance Armstrong still competes in Ironman 70.3 & full distance Ironman triathlon events, he was due to compete at Kona later this year. The USADA do have the authority to stop him competing at Ironman events as a pro athlete.
That said, seems an odd decision to give up, it's not like the guy is a quitter.
-
That said, seems an odd decision to give up, it's not like the guy is a quitter.
No, just drugged up to the eyeballs.
-
I was always skeptical of Armstrong's achievements. As much as it made a great story - Man defies cancer to be world champion...it all seemed implausible. When you compare recent timings for those tour hill climbs to what they were back when he was at his best it's plain to see there must have been some 'assistance' involved.
I also thought it seemed implausible, especially as before his illness he never looked like getting close.
However, the only 'evidence' USADA have is the comments of a collection of people who may or may not have alterior motives. I find it very unsettling to strip someone of such a fantastic achievement on the back of hearsay or because it's seems a bit unlikely.
If that were the case we'd be banning every single person who breaks a world record in every discipline.
-
I also thought it seemed implausible, especially as before his illness he never looked like getting close.
However, the only 'evidence' USADA have is the comments of a collection of people who may or may not have alterior motives. I find it very unsettling to strip someone of such a fantastic achievement on the back of hearsay or because it's seems a bit unlikely.
If that were the case we'd be banning every single person who breaks a world record in every discipline.
But in Armstrong's case he has chosen not to contest the allegations. It's fairly consistent across most sports these days that if you choose not to contest drug allegations, or fail to supply a sample, or not be where you say you will be for a test etc. etc. you are effectively guilty of a drug offence.
It sounds draconian but cycling is a tainted sport and will remain so until all of those suspected of cheating are caught, own up or cleared.
If Armstrong IS not guilty then I don't see what he has to gain from this, unless he is trying to make himself into something of a martyr to his supporters.
USADA have said they are going to publish the evidence anyway, so if Armstrong was hoping it would all go away then he is mistaken.
-
I also thought it seemed implausible, especially as before his illness he never looked like getting close.
However, the only 'evidence' USADA have is the comments of a collection of people who may or may not have alterior motives. I find it very unsettling to strip someone of such a fantastic achievement on the back of hearsay or because it's seems a bit unlikely.
If that were the case we'd be banning every single person who breaks a world record in every discipline.
But in Armstrong's case he has chosen not to contest the allegations. It's fairly consistent across most sports these days that if you choose not to contest drug allegations, or fail to supply a sample, or not be where you say you will be for a test etc. etc. you are effectively guilty of a drug offence.
It sounds draconian but cycling is a tainted sport and will remain so until all of those suspected of cheating are caught, own up or cleared.
If Armstrong IS not guilty then I don't see what he has to gain from this, unless he is trying to make himself into something of a martyr to his supporters.
USADA have said they are going to publish the evidence anyway, so if Armstrong was hoping it would all go away then he is mistaken.
The bottom line is the key. At the moment very few people know the full facts, so it's hard to form an opinion on it.
The known facts are:
testing for erythropoietin was incredibly difficult at the time.
erythropoietin is/was(?) fairly commonly used by people recovering from various forms of cancer.
Lots of people he was with day in and day out throughout his time on the tour have admitted to using erythropoietin.
It's fairly easy to paint a picture of him being guilty using those, add the unprecedented performances and it's certainly worth investigating.
That Armstrong has been so vocal about how wrong it is for them to investigate it doesn't reflect well either.
None of that is to say I think he's guilty, just that I can totally understand the investigation.
-
Nobody really comes out with much credit do they?
If Armstrong tested negative when tested over the years, that either means he's clean, or he was taking something that was untraceable at the time. If the latter, had would the drugs agency prove it, unless they had sworn statements from people who administered the drugs for example?
-
Nobody really comes out with much credit do they?
If Armstrong tested negative when tested over the years, that either means he's clean, or he was taking something that was untraceable at the time. If the latter, had would the drugs agency prove it, unless they had sworn statements from people who administered the drugs for example?
As I understand it that's pretty much the evidence they have, but until it's made public that's only guess work, but from all the official reaction they sound like they think they've got a pretty water tight case.
-
So, Armstrong is deemed guilty whilst Roger Clemens is found not guilty.
Something's very wrong here.
Armstrong might wish that the US Govt had continued their investigation of him. Ttat mob is so incompetent, he'd have easily have been exonerated.
-
That said, seems an odd decision to give up, it's not like the guy is a quitter.
No, just drugged up to the eyeballs.
Allegedly
-
That said, seems an odd decision to give up, it's not like the guy is a quitter.
No, just drugged up to the eyeballs.
Allegedly
This isn't Not the Nine O'Clock News you know.
-
Nobody really comes out with much credit do they?
If Armstrong tested negative when tested over the years, that either means he's clean, or he was taking something that was untraceable at the time. If the latter, had would the drugs agency prove it, unless they had sworn statements from people who administered the drugs for example?
Floyd Landis has openly said that he saw Armstrong doping at the same time he was doing it, George Hincapie has been subpoenaed to appear as Landis has named him as being there as well, okay these are cyclists who may or may not hold grudges. I don't know if any doctors have come forward, I guess we'll soon find out.
The most damning evidence against him could well be if USADA have obtained paper trails of alleged bribes to the UCI to cover up positive tests and also if Armstrong did actually purchase banned substances, which USADA have hinted that they have evidence of. In one case it is alleged that he altered a prescription for a drug to treat saddle sores to obtain illegal subtances.
Most damning for me is the fact that despite improvements in bikes and equipment and the ultra-professionalism of bike racers these days, no-one can get anywhere near the speeds that Armstrong and his cohorts were doing up those mountains.
-
In 2003 who won the Tour de France? Lance Armstrong who finished first but was a drugs cheat? Jan Ulrich who finished second but was a drugs cheat? Alexandre Vinokourov who finished third but was a drugs cheat? Tyler Hamilton who finished fourth but was a drugs cheat? How far can they go down the list before they find someone who was clean?
-
I also thought it seemed implausible, especially as before his illness he never looked like getting close.
However, the only 'evidence' USADA have is the comments of a collection of people who may or may not have alterior motives. I find it very unsettling to strip someone of such a fantastic achievement on the back of hearsay or because it's seems a bit unlikely.
If that were the case we'd be banning every single person who breaks a world record in every discipline.
But in Armstrong's case he has chosen not to contest the allegations. It's fairly consistent across most sports these days that if you choose not to contest drug allegations, or fail to supply a sample, or not be where you say you will be for a test etc. etc. you are effectively guilty of a drug offence.
He's been denying allegations for over a decade. In his owns words he's just had enough of it.
I also imagine that since he stopped competitive cycling his income is nowhere near what it was and fighting this through the courts must be costing a fortune. He might just have decided to cut his financial losses if he thinks the USADA won't let go.
I think it's also important to appreciate that the UCI, who have been responsible for banning all the other cycling drugs cheats, have said he doesn't have a case to answer and they don't agree with the USADA's approach.
There are some pretty big holes in the USADA's case (like the absence of any positive drugs test despite him probably being the most tested cyclist ever given his success and the time period it took place during) and it seems more than a little unsettling to me that he can be hounded for so long until he effectively gives up and then by default he's treated as being guilty.
And on the subject of the tests, Tour de France winners before him failed drugs tests. Winners after him failed drugs tests. How likely is it that only he knew how to take performance enhancing drugs that didn't trigger a test?
-
The most damning evidence against him could well be if USADA have obtained paper trails of alleged bribes to the UCI to cover up positive tests and also if Armstrong did actually purchase banned substances, which USADA have hinted that they have evidence of. In one case it is alleged that he altered a prescription for a drug to treat saddle sores to obtain illegal subtances.
You're absolutely right. But that's because what you've described above is actual evidence. But if the USADA had all this why haven't they published it before now?
-
USADA have also PAID witnesses to provide evidence that LA was taking PED's.
Don't think thats right either.
Ill be dissapointed IF he is proven to be a doper.
-
Some pretty damning stuff here (http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden)
-
It's very interesting, I'll be curious to see all this evidence come out. If it does then he deserves to have everything stripped from his legacy, other than his cancer charity of course which has done great work.
-
Here's Armstrong's official response:
AUSTIN, Texas - August 23rd, 2012 - There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense.
I had hoped that a federal court would stop USADA’s charade. Although the court was sympathetic to my concerns and recognized the many improprieties and deficiencies in USADA’s motives, its conduct, and its process, the court ultimately decided that it could not intervene.
If I thought for one moment that by participating in USADA’s process, I could confront these allegations in a fair setting and – once and for all – put these charges to rest, I would jump at the chance. But I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided and unfair. Regardless of what Travis Tygart says, there is zero physical evidence to support his outlandish and heinous claims. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?
From the beginning, however, this investigation has not been about learning the truth or cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs. I am a retired cyclist, yet USADA has lodged charges over 17 years old despite its own 8-year limitation. As respected organizations such as UCI and USA Cycling have made clear, USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring these charges. The international bodies governing cycling have ordered USADA to stop, have given notice that no one should participate in USADA’s improper proceedings, and have made it clear the pronouncements by USADA that it has banned people for life or stripped them of their accomplishments are made without authority. And as many others, including USADA’s own arbitrators, have found, there is nothing even remotely fair about its process. USADA has broken the law, turned its back on its own rules, and stiff-armed those who have tried to persuade USADA to honor its obligations. At every turn, USADA has played the role of a bully, threatening everyone in its way and challenging the good faith of anyone who questions its motives or its methods, all at U.S. taxpayers’ expense. For the last two months, USADA has endlessly repeated the mantra that there should be a single set of rules, applicable to all, but they have arrogantly refused to practice what they preach. On top of all that, USADA has allegedly made deals with other riders that circumvent their own rules as long as they said I cheated. Many of those riders continue to race today.
The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced. The idea that athletes can be convicted today without positive A and B samples, under the same rules and procedures that apply to athletes with positive tests, perverts the system and creates a process where any begrudged ex-teammate can open a USADA case out of spite or for personal gain or a cheating cyclist can cut a sweetheart deal for themselves. It’s an unfair approach, applied selectively, in opposition to all the rules. It’s just not right.
USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles. I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours. We all raced together. For three weeks over the same roads, the same mountains, and against all the weather and elements that we had to confront. There were no shortcuts, there was no special treatment. The same courses, the same rules. The toughest event in the world where the strongest man wins. Nobody can ever change that. Especially not Travis Tygart.
Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities. This October, my Foundation will celebrate 15 years of service to cancer survivors and the milestone of raising nearly $500 million. We have a lot of work to do and I'm looking forward to an end to this pointless distraction. I have a responsibility to all those who have stepped forward to devote their time and energy to the cancer cause. I will not stop fighting for that mission. Going forward, I am going to devote myself to raising my five beautiful (and energetic) kids, fighting cancer, and attempting to be the fittest 40-year old on the planet.
-
I thought this wasn't about doping but more to do with 'blood swapping'.
-
I thought this wasn't about doping but more to do with 'blood swapping'.
That's among the things they do. Blood Doping is where they pull red-blood cells from your body and freeze it ... wait a few months, then reinject it, so you have a larger concentration of blood cells to hold oxygen.
EPO is a hormone that you take that stimulates blood cell growth, and is also the center of the allegations. Everyone says he took it in 1999 when they didn't have a test for it ... yet his results didn't see to drop off too dramatically the next couple of years.
Then there's the usually steroids, uppers, etc. The thing is, I think he doped, but it was more of a "soft doping". There are legal limits set for most of the things they test for ... and almost all these athletes come right up to the limit when they test for this stuff. I don't necessarily think that should be "wrong".
I think that's why he says stuff like "I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced." ... rather than, "I never took anything". Basically because he DID abide by the rules that said you couldn't go over a certain amount of a testable substance.
The USADA is an embarassment though ... They are basically just trying to throw their weight around and have gone on a multi-year vendetta against a single guy for no apparent reason. I don't see how they can strip his Tours away ... and they shouldn't. Especially since Riis, Ullrich, Pantani and Contador all still have their titles ... and they've actually failed tests.
-
In 2003 who won the Tour de France? Lance Armstrong who finished first but was a drugs cheat? Jan Ulrich who finished second but was a drugs cheat? Alexandre Vinokourov who finished third but was a drugs cheat? Tyler Hamilton who finished fourth but was a drugs cheat? How far can they go down the list before they find someone who was clean?
Assuming we're talking about the same year they're claiming here you have to go down to 8th - Cadel Evans.
-
I think it's also important to appreciate that the UCI, who have been responsible for banning all the other cycling drugs cheats, have said he doesn't have a case to answer and they don't agree with the USADA's approach.
The same UCI that accepted a six-figure donation from Armstrong (the only cyclist to have ever had a donation accepted), and don't forget that Armstrong almost single-handedly raised the profile of cycling worldwide. As much as USADA may have a vendetta against Armstrong, the UCI has as many reasons to defend him.
There are some pretty big holes in the USADA's case (like the absence of any positive drugs test despite him probably being the most tested cyclist ever given his success and the time period it took place during) and it seems more than a little unsettling to me that he can be hounded for so long until he effectively gives up and then by default he's treated as being guilty.
He's the most successful cyclist since Eddy Mercx, and he may have achieved this by cheating, it's a massive case. If USADA think they have the evidence (and we'll soon see) then why wouldn't they pursue it with vigour?
And on the subject of the tests, Tour de France winners before him failed drugs tests. Winners after him failed drugs tests. How likely is it that only he knew how to take performance enhancing drugs that didn't trigger a test?
It wasn't just him, as I mentioned before, Floyd Landis and others are now openly admitting that they passed countless drug tests either by using drugs not yet tested for or doping right up to the allowed limits. The EPO limit was 50%, an amount that now seems incredulous considering it should only be found in trace amounts naturally. Landis was only caught when he won the TDF because he was stupid, he blew up on a mountain stage losing minutes, the next day he won another mountain stage with such an incredible performance that no one could take it seriously, he overstepped the Peleton's and the UCI's agreed doping limits by a long way.
-
But Landis failed a drugs test.
Armstrong is almost certainly the most tested cyclist in history but has never failed a test. Given how many successful cyclists have failed tests I find it astonishing that he could have been doping for as long as USADA assert yet hasn't failed a single one.
That's even more implausible than his success.
-
I think that's why he says stuff like "I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced." ... rather than, "I never took anything". Basically because he DID abide by the rules that said you couldn't go over a certain amount of a testable substance.
So he doped then? Just not enough to be caught.
Anyway, there's still the questions over the alleged tests that he did fail but mysteriously the B samples disappeared, and the alleged bribery of officials, and the blind eye UCI may or may not have turned to keep their biggest star in the TDF. Not saying any of this will be proven but I'd rather see the evidence first.
Oh and the secretary of US Postal who has more than once said that she saw the team doping, including Armstrong.
And the bullying of riders like Phillipe Rolland who were hounded out of racing by Sir Lance for daring to speak out about how it was impossible to compete on a level playing field because most of the Peleton were doping.
Etc.
The USADA is an embarassment though ... They are basically just trying to throw their weight around and have gone on a multi-year vendetta against a single guy for no apparent reason.
No apparent reason???
He may have cheated and took performance enhancing drugs to win one of the biggest sporting events in The World - seven times! That seems a good enough reason to me.
I don't see how they can strip his Tours away ... and they shouldn't. Especially since Riis, Ullrich, Pantani and Contador all still have their titles ... and they've actually failed tests.
Now this I agree with. Not that Armstrong shouldn't lose his titles, but that all the other cheats should as well.
-
But Landis failed a drugs test.
Armstrong is almost certainly the most tested cyclist in history but has never failed a test. Given how many successful cyclists have failed tests I find it astonishing that he could have been doping for as long as USADA assert yet hasn't failed a single one.
That's even more implausible than his success.
They may have found more than one, it's apparently part of the evidence we could soon see.
I have mentioned above why Landis failed a test, he was stupid and desperate.
-
Anyway, there's still the questions over the alleged tests that he did fail but mysteriously the B samples disappeared, and the alleged bribery of officials, and the blind eye UCI may or may not have turned to keep their biggest star in the TDF. Not saying any of this will be proven but I'd rather see the evidence first.
No apparent reason???
He may have cheated and took performance enhancing drugs to win one of the biggest sporting events in The World - seven times! That seems a good enough reason to me.
But, just as with the USADA, all you are stating are theories and rumours. What happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
Do you think that Chinese swimmer in the Olympics should be stripped of her gold? Her victory was completely unpredicted and the speed she swam considering her age was implausible. Oh, and it's been suggested that she's on drugs. By the USADA's apparent standards that's enough evidence to convict her isn't it?
-
When Wiggin's was being asked why this years Tour had been less dramatic than other years his response was that the sport is pretty much clean now, so you don't get riders doing things that seem extraordinary. As much as I wanted Armstrong to be found innocent (more for his place as a role model than his achievements), if you watch the footage of some of his performances now it does look superhuman.
-
But, just as with the USADA, all you are stating are theories and rumours. What happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
This hasn't been the case for drugs in sport for years.
Miss a drugs test for any reason whatsoever and you are warned, miss two and it's a ban, however innocent you may be.
Fail to answer charges that you took performance enhancing drugs then you are presumed guilty.
That's the way it is, and to be fair I prefer it that way.
Do you think that Chinese swimmer in the Olympics should be stripped of her gold? Her victory was completely unpredicted and the speed she swam considering her age was implausible. Oh, and it's been suggested that she's on drugs. By the USADA's apparent standards that's enough evidence to convict her isn't it?
No, you are (as you often are) being disingenuous. Only incredulous onlookers and the media became sceptical. She was immediately tested (as were all medalists) and I assume the tests were negative. If someone comes up with some evidence that she took drugs (like what the USADA say they have got against Armstrong) then I hope it is investigated and she is stripped of her medal if she runs away and fails to answer to the charges.
-
She was immediately tested (as were all medalists) and I assume the tests were negative.
But you're saying that in Armstrong's case that is irrelevant.
-
Lance is innocent until proven guilty, and he will never be proven guilty.
The people out to discredit him have a further agenda and as for the "Team wide doping " Allegation,that is just hard to believe because why were the rest of the team not proved possitive for drugs. In my view it is an attack on a top class athlete. Alberto Contador has served his ban, for eating the wrong food and taking the wrong medication FFS and is doing very well in the Vuelta in Spain and is CLEAN from any shite. Doping bans are seriously open to criticism.
-
She was immediately tested (as were all medalists) and I assume the tests were negative.
But you're saying that in Armstrong's case that is irrelevant.
No, I'm saying that USADA say they have evidence that proves that Armstrong was into blood doping and took performance enhancing drugs. (They also say they have evidence that he may actually have failed some tests).
If the IOC subsequently find reason to question the Chinese swimmer's negative tests then I would expect it to be investigated.
-
If someone comes up with some evidence that she took drugs (like what the USADA say they have got against Armstrong) then I hope it is investigated and she is stripped of her medal if she runs away and fails to answer to the charges.
Also, if this was outside the world of doping in sports, and was, say, a government trumping up charges against an activist, saying they've got evidence but not actually sharing that evidence with anyone, you'd be the first one to say that it was out of order, and rightly so.
-
Lance is innocent until proven guilty, and he will never be proven guilty.
The people out to discredit him have a further agenda and as for the "Team wide doping " Allegation,that is just hard to believe because why were the rest of the team not proved possitive for drugs.
*sigh*
Some of his team, and a lot of the cyclists competing at the same time as Armstrong have since admitted doping despite never being caught. Tests were not as good, certain drugs were not tested for, limits were set far too high for certain substances found naturally in the body but that can give a boost when injected in unnatural amounts, have you read the thread?
Oh, and what 'further agenda' could they have against a National hero and a brilliant fundraiser for cancer charities?
-
If someone comes up with some evidence that she took drugs (like what the USADA say they have got against Armstrong) then I hope it is investigated and she is stripped of her medal if she runs away and fails to answer to the charges.
Also, if this was outside the world of doping in sports, and was, say, a government trumping up charges against an activist, saying they've got evidence but not actually sharing that evidence with anyone, you'd be the first one to say that it was out of order, and rightly so.
Again, you are being disingenuous.
There's a difference and you know it.
Besides, USADA are going to show us the evidence, so we'll soon see if they are 'trumped up' won't we?
-
If someone comes up with some evidence that she took drugs (like what the USADA say they have got against Armstrong) then I hope it is investigated and she is stripped of her medal if she runs away and fails to answer to the charges.
Also, if this was outside the world of doping in sports, and was, say, a government trumping up charges against an activist, saying they've got evidence but not actually sharing that evidence with anyone, you'd be the first one to say that it was out of order, and rightly so.
Again, you are being disingenuous.
There's a difference and you know it.
Besides, USADA are going to show us the evidence, so we'll soon see if they are 'trumped up' won't we?
I'm not being disingenuous at all. I'm merely pointing out certain inconsistencies.
There's a difference in the scale but not in the principle. Neither of us can imagine the effort Lance Armstrong put in to become the most successful cyclist there has ever been and has spent over a decade defending himself against a governmental body, with the emotional and financial strain that brings, to the point where he feels he cannot win, despite no evidence whatsoever that he's guilty being made public.
And if USADA are going to show us this overwhelming evidence why haven't they shown it yet?
-
And if USADA are going to show us this overwhelming evidence why haven't they shown it yet?
How many times have you missed the bit where I say "they are going to" now?!
It was only today that Armstrong decided not to bother answering, maybe they want to give him time to change his mind and not be labelled a drug cheat, I dunno.
They have collated the evidence and wanted Armstrong to answer the charges, that was supposed to be when we heard the evidence. You know, like a court case, how often do we get to hear the prosecution's evidence against a defendant before the court case?
-
Lance is innocent until proven guilty, and he will never be proven guilty.
The people out to discredit him have a further agenda and as for the "Team wide doping " Allegation,that is just hard to believe because why were the rest of the team not proved possitive for drugs.
*sigh*
Some of his team, and a lot of the cyclists competing at the same time as Armstrong have since admitted doping despite never being caught. Tests were not as good, certain drugs were not tested for, limits were set far too high for certain substances found naturally in the body but that can give a boost when injected in unnatural amounts, have you read the thread?
Oh, and what 'further agenda' could they have against a National hero and a brilliant fundraiser for cancer charities?
*sigh* ALSO MATE. A can of coca cola,red bull,lucozade can put you in dangerous terrortory if you are a Proffesional Athlete, So go and *Sigh your Ass of*
-
And if USADA are going to show us this overwhelming evidence why haven't they shown it yet?
How many times have you missed the bit where I say "they are going to" now?!
It was only today that Armstrong decided not to bother answering, maybe they want to give him time to change his mind and not be labelled a drug cheat, I dunno.
They have collated the evidence and wanted Armstrong to answer the charges, that was supposed to be when we heard the evidence. You know, like a court case, how often do we get to hear the prosecution's evidence against a defendant before the court case?
This has been going on for years. It's another implausibility that USADA are still just talking about evidence they claim to have and that none of this is in the public domain by now.
-
*sigh* ALSO MATE. A can of coca cola,red bull,lucozade can put you in dangerous terrortory if you are a Proffesional Athlete, So go and *Sigh your Ass of*
Aye, Lucozade is stuffed full of banned performance enhancing drugs.
-
This has been going on for years. It's another implausibility that USADA are still just talking about evidence they claim to have and that none of this is in the public domain by now.
Absolutely loads of it is in the public domain, there have been books full of it from people like David Walsh, Paul Kimmage and Jeremy Whittle. Have a trawl around the internet just now, especially the cycling sites, they are pointing to articles written from 1999 to the present day that have all the allegations against Armstrong in black and white.
What was missing in many cases was physical evidence (paper trails etc), anecdotal evidence is one thing, what USADA are saying is they have e-mails, letters and even a forged prescription.
Let's face it, if it's not in the public domain, how come I know about it?
-
*sigh* ALSO MATE. A can of coca cola,red bull,lucozade can put you in dangerous terrortory if you are a Proffesional Athlete, So go and *Sigh your Ass of*
Aye, Lucozade is stuffed full of banned performance enhancing drugs.
You will find at least,at least four Banned substances in Lucozade according to IAAF regulations. Just because they run round the track with a brand in their hands does not make it legal for Proffesional Athletes to drink the shite. It is called a "Sales Pitch" and that means selling a product to the general population that will make them feel better.So *sigh* your ass off mate, look at the ingredients in the product before you *sigh*.
-
Are you sure about that Dan?
Not being funny but.....Lucozade?
-
This has been going on for years. It's another implausibility that USADA are still just talking about evidence they claim to have and that none of this is in the public domain by now.
Absolutely loads of it is in the public domain, there have been books full of it from people like David Walsh, Paul Kimmage and Jeremy Whittle. Have a trawl around the internet just now, especially the cycling sites, they are pointing to articles written from 1999 to the present day that have all the allegations against Armstrong in black and white.
What was missing in many cases was physical evidence (paper trails etc), anecdotal evidence is one thing, what USADA are saying is they have e-mails, letters and even a forged prescription.
Let's face it, if it's not in the public domain, how come I know about it?
I don't class articles on the internet as evidence. Nor do I class opinions in books as evidence either - David Icke's had loads of books published, do you believe what he says?
The only actual evidence out there are the hundreds, if not thousands, of negative drugs tests Armstrong has completed. There's also been a criminal investigation in the US which resulted in no charges against Armstrong.
If the USADA genuinely do have evidence then great, let's see it, and he can be treated like all the other proven drugs cheats. But until then I don't think it's fair to take anything away from him.
-
*sigh* ALSO MATE. A can of coca cola,red bull,lucozade can put you in dangerous terrortory if you are a Proffesional Athlete, So go and *Sigh your Ass of*
Aye, Lucozade is stuffed full of banned performance enhancing drugs.
You will find at least,at least four Banned substances in Lucozade according to IAAF regulations. Just because they run round the track with a brand in their hands does not make it legal for Proffesional Athletes to drink the shite. It is called a "Sales Pitch" and that means selling a product to the general population that will make them feel better.So *sigh* your ass off mate, look at the ingredients in the product before you *sigh*.
Not in quantities that you can be banned for though. If you drank shit loads of red bull or lucozade prior to a test you could fail but it's pretty unlikely, there's lots more things that could lead to that as well. It's a professional athletes responsibility to make sure they know the levels and that, if they choose to take things containing them that they're very open about it and very careful to stick within the limits (for example there's pretty much nothing you can get for a sore throat that wouldn't get you banned in high quantities, ditto for lots of digestive medicines).
-
Are you sure about that Dan?
Not being funny but.....Lucozade?
100000000000000% Mate. What you see in the Athletes hand is not what they are drinking.......by a long shot....... and i am 100% sure of that......it is a simple case of ADVERTISING, get it. If the Athletes drank what they Advertise they would never perform again, FACT. look up the IAAF list of banned drugs and then Lucozade,Coca Cola........ETC and you will be shocked.
-
If the USADA genuinely do have evidence then great, let's see it, and he can be treated like all the other proven drugs cheats. But until then I don't think it's fair to take anything away from him.
By refusing to answer the allegations he has condemned himself. USADA would now be quite within their rights to not release any evidence, the refusal is enough for a ban (under UCI rules as well by the way). But they are going to release it anyway.
I always thought Armstrong was a fighter (a doped up one, but a fighter all the same), I for one can't believe he would rather be forever labelled a drug cheat (for effectively that is now what he is) rather than go the last step and answer the allegations.
He has fought this for years, refuting every allegation, suing the arse off anyone daring to speak against him, bullying fellow cyclists who dared to say doping was widespread....now, just when he would get the final chance to once and for all clear his name, he gives up?
No, doesn't wash with me.
-
FACT. look up the IAAF list of banned drugs and then Lucozade,Coca Cola........ETC and you will be shocked.
I have, can't find bugger all.
Caffeine IS a banned substance but you would probably need to drink a dozen cases of the Red Bull to be over the limit, can't see that being particularly performance enhancing before a race!
Taurine isn't banned but is on the 'impermissible' list, not recommended but not banned. Couldn't see owt else in the ingredients that WADA has banned.
Lucozade is specifically ON WADA's list of recommended hydration drinks.
Fuck knows what's in Coke though, in fact I'm not sure I want to know, evil stuff that is!
-
Because it's not the final chance. If he went along with the arbitration, even if he won and the USADA were told to back down (as has been the case in the past) you can understand why he thinks they'd carry on.
For whatever reason, the USADA have shown they will not give this up. Even when the UCI tell them there's no case to answer. Even when a criminal investigation fails to find enough evidence to charge him with anything. Even with a 100% successful track record with drugs tests. It's entirely understandable that for the sake of his family and his finances he'd want to just get on with his life.
The alternative of course is that he's guilty as sin and the USADA is right to play the role of dog with a bone. But the balance of the evidence seen to date suggests he's not guilty.
By your own admission you just 'believe' he's guilty. I don't think there's anything anyone on here could say to change your mind.
-
But the balance of the evidence seen to date suggests he's not guilty.
According to you.
Not according to many of his fellow cyclists, cycling journalists, doctors, team officials and other insiders in the sport though.
-
Oh, and Dan.
Red Bull gets the thumbs up from the drug testers (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/41909.php)
-
Not read the posts before, wil merely say if I was being accused of the offences that Armstrong has and being stripped of his 7 titles, I would fight all the way to clear my name, however much it took (he obviously has the money)
-
But the balance of the evidence seen to date suggests he's not guilty.
According to you.
And the UCI. And the US federal police. And the hundreds of people who carried out drugs tests on him for the past 15 years.
-
The UCI were to be called a witnesses for the prosecution namely for potentially taking bribes, hiding positive tests and they of course had a bit of an agenda to protect their biggest asset.
Dunno why the Feds were involved, enlighten me.
See posts passim for the amount of cyclists who passed tests only to admit they doped.
-
Dunno why the Feds were involved, enlighten me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-federal-case-is-closed-as-us-attorneys-office-ends-probe/2012/02/03/gIQARWk5nQ_story.html
-
FACT. look up the IAAF list of banned drugs and then Lucozade,Coca Cola........ETC and you will be shocked.
I have, can't find bugger all.
Caffeine IS a banned substance but you would probably need to drink a dozen cases of the Red Bull to be over the limit, can't see that being particularly performance enhancing before a race!
Taurine isn't banned but is on the 'impermissible' list, not recommended but not banned. Couldn't see owt else in the ingredients that WADA has banned.
Lucozade is specifically ON WADA's list of recommended hydration drinks.
Fuck knows what's in Coke though, in fact I'm not sure I want to know, evil stuff that is!
You will see on You Tube what Cola DOES TO A STEAK, Nuff said. And by the way, if you look at all the products i mentioned you will see Massive amounts of caffeine in all of them mate. Banned substance, and cola stays in your blood stream longer than Heroin,Coke, and Weed-fact. So if you are an Athlete,( Proffesional) and you consume a litre of Cola-no particular brand, that is detectibal in your blood for at least 3 months-another fact. Their diet is so strict it is virtual bloody starvation and certain "Products" are of line,always. That is how these guys have to live. I live in Lanzarote, the hub of training grounds for GrandPrx drivers,Athletes, Tri Atletes,Tour de France Winners and the England Rugby Union squad, and they all stay away from Caffeine and all the rest of the shite,when they leave a bar they have a full sheet filled in by their personal dietician of what they have drunk. Fact.
-
Thanks. So dropped mainly because precedents in the cases of baseball players failed to produce enough evidence that doping in sport is a federal offence, and not enough evidence to suggest he was also a supplier.
-
FACT. look up the IAAF list of banned drugs and then Lucozade,Coca Cola........ETC and you will be shocked.
I have, can't find bugger all.
Caffeine IS a banned substance but you would probably need to drink a dozen cases of the Red Bull to be over the limit, can't see that being particularly performance enhancing before a race!
Taurine isn't banned but is on the 'impermissible' list, not recommended but not banned. Couldn't see owt else in the ingredients that WADA has banned.
Lucozade is specifically ON WADA's list of recommended hydration drinks.
Fuck knows what's in Coke though, in fact I'm not sure I want to know, evil stuff that is!
You will see on You Tube what Cola DOES TO A STEAK, Nuff said. And by the way, if you look at all the products i mentioned you will see Massive amounts of caffeine in all of them mate. Banned substance, and cola stays in your blood stream longer than Heroin,Coke, and Weed-fact. So if you are an Athlete,( Proffesional) and you consume a litre of Cola-no particular brand, that is detectibal in your blood for at least 3 months-another fact. Their diet is so strict it is virtual bloody starvation and certain "Products" are of line,always. That is how these guys have to live. I live in Lanzarote, the hub of training grounds for GrandPrx drivers,Athletes, Tri Atletes,Tour de France Winners and the England Rugby Union squad, and they all stay away from Caffeine and all the rest of the shite,when they leave a bar they have a full sheet filled in by their personal dietician of what they have drunk. Fact.
Stop saying "FACT" - it adds no credibility to the argument and is really annoying.
-
You will see on You Tube what Cola DOES TO A STEAK, Nuff said. And by the way, if you look at all the products i mentioned you will see Massive amounts of caffeine in all of them mate. Banned substance, and cola stays in your blood stream longer than Heroin,Coke, and Weed-fact. So if you are an Athlete,( Proffesional) and you consume a litre of Cola-no particular brand, that is detectibal in your blood for at least 3 months-another fact. Their diet is so strict it is virtual bloody starvation and certain "Products" are of line,always. That is how these guys have to live. I live in Lanzarote, the hub of training grounds for GrandPrx drivers,Athletes, Tri Atletes,Tour de France Winners and the England Rugby Union squad, and they all stay away from Caffeine and all the rest of the shite,when they leave a bar they have a full sheet filled in by their personal dietician of what they have drunk. Fact.
You missed the link above that I put on that Red Bull (contains more caffeine than Coke...errr...FACT) has been passed as fine by the body that tests products for banned substances then? I assume that even though caffeine is actually banned you would need to drink so much coke or red bull that your internal organs would implode before you actually got any performance enhancing out of it!
I would have thought athletes avoid cola because it's fucking shite for an athlete's finely honed body rather than for the fear of failing a drug test.
-
But the balance of the evidence seen to date suggests he's not guilty.
According to you.
And the UCI. And the US federal police. And the hundreds of people who carried out drugs tests on him for the past 15 years.
Just because a test hadn't/hasn't been devised for a certain method of doping doesn't mean the doping doesn't exist so don't hang any hat on the fact he never failed a drugs test.
http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/
-
But the balance of the evidence seen to date suggests he's not guilty.
According to you.
And the UCI. And the US federal police. And the hundreds of people who carried out drugs tests on him for the past 15 years.
Just because a test hadn't/hasn't been devised for a certain method of doping doesn't mean the doping doesn't exist so don't hang any hat on the fact he never failed a drugs test.
There's no hat hanging going on and I haven't said he's definitely innocent. All I've consistently said is that I don't see that there's enough/any reliable evidence to justify finding him guilty.
-
There's no hat hanging going on and I haven't said he's definitely innocent. All I've consistently said is that I don't see that there's enough/any reliable evidence to justify finding him guilty.
But by refusing to answer USADA's allegations he is effectively saying he is guilty, that's the way it works I'm afraid.
Why has he fought for 20+ years against every allegation only to give up now? Because he is tired and fed up? Well as a multimillionaire I'm sure it must be desperately tiring taking a daily phone call from your team of top notch lawyers who are doing all the work.
Or maybe it's because he has had the nod that USADA do have something damning, and to drop it all now will at least give him some sort of moral high ground among his supporters?
-
There's no hat hanging going on and I haven't said he's definitely innocent. All I've consistently said is that I don't see that there's enough/any reliable evidence to justify finding him guilty.
But by refusing to answer USADA's allegations he is effectively saying he is guilty, that's the way it works I'm afraid.
Why has he fought for 20+ years against every allegation only to give up now? Because he is tired and fed up? Well as a multimillionaire I'm sure it must be desperately tiring taking a daily phone call from your team of top notch lawyers who are doing all the work.
Or maybe it's because he has had the nod that USADA do have something damning, and to drop it all now will at least give him some sort of moral high ground among his supporters?
You're basically arguing that there's no smoke without fire which we all know is a load of rubbish.
We can both put forward lots of plausible explanations to support both conclusions but the one thing that's missing is any irrefutible evidence that he's guilty. Yet he's been declared guilty.
I'll say it again, if this was in any other scenario (the Army aside) you'd be up in arms over this.
-
There's no hat hanging going on and I haven't said he's definitely innocent. All I've consistently said is that I don't see that there's enough/any reliable evidence to justify finding him guilty.
I think that given his absolute willingness to previously lawyer up at every potential opportunity in defence of an allegation and his continuously referring to never having failed a drugs test the fact he has given up is to most people an admission of guilt and by refusing to mount a defence allows the scenario where no-one will ever stand in a court and say "The defendant doped his way to 7 Tour wins". A refusal to defend is the least-worst option available.
If he was absolutely not guilty, given the reputational damage to him and Livestrong, I find it unlikely that he wouldn't have loved his days in court.
-
FACT. look up the IAAF list of banned drugs and then Lucozade,Coca Cola........ETC and you will be shocked.
Look up the list, and then a list of ingredients for poppy seed rolls. A couple of those will fail you a drugs test too but no-one's saying athletes aren't allowed poppy seed rolls for breakfast.
-
I have, can't find bugger all.
Caffeine IS a banned substance but you would probably need to drink a dozen cases of the Red Bull to be over the limit, can't see that being particularly performance enhancing before a race!
You sure about caffeine? This is part of the regulations:
*
The following substances included in the 2012 Monitoring Program (bupropion,
caffeine, nicotine, phenylephrine, phenylpropanolamine, pipradol, synephrine) are
not considered as Prohibited Substances.
So a pre-Alpe D'Huez double espresso should be fine and dandy.
;)
-
I'll say it again, if this was in any other scenario (the Army aside) you'd be up in arms over this.
Why would I?
I don't see how this goes against anything I post on here, I don't like cheats, I don't like bullies and I hate to see corrupt individuals getting on in any walk of life.
If Armstrong has cheated his way to seven wins in a sporting event that I think is right up there with the greatest in the World I want to know, and we were about to find out, but Armstrong has bottled it. Luckily USADA are going to tell us anyway I hope.
You like to pigeonhole people don't you? Maybe some of us have more open minds than you give us credit for.
-
But the balance of the evidence seen to date suggests he's not guilty.
According to you.
And the UCI. And the US federal police. And the hundreds of people who carried out drugs tests on him for the past 15 years.
Just because a test hadn't/hasn't been devised for a certain method of doping doesn't mean the doping doesn't exist so don't hang any hat on the fact he never failed a drugs test.
http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/
Indeed. 6 of Lance's urine samples from the '99 tour tested positive for EPO (source) (http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden). The tests were carried out retrospectively because there was no test for EPO in '99 (it was developed for the Sydney Olympics). They do not constitute a 'failed' drugs test because there are no B samples.
He's not 'failed' a drugs test but performance enhancing drugs have been found in his urine (several times) when he was competing.
-
But the balance of the evidence seen to date suggests he's not guilty.
According to you.
And the UCI. And the US federal police. And the hundreds of people who carried out drugs tests on him for the past 15 years.
Just because a test hadn't/hasn't been devised for a certain method of doping doesn't mean the doping doesn't exist so don't hang any hat on the fact he never failed a drugs test.
http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/
Indeed. 6 of Lance's urine samples from the '99 tour tested positive for EPO (source) (http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden). The tests were carried out retrospectively because there was no test for EPO in '99 (it was developed for the Sydney Olympics). They do not constitute a 'failed' drugs test because there are no B samples.
He's not 'failed' a drugs test but performance enhancing drugs have been found in his urine (several times) when he was competing.
[/quot
But the EPO test isn't failsafe either. A Belgian triathlete got banned in 2005 for EPO use and the ban was subsequently overturned.
As I keep saying, there just isn't enough evidence here to decide someone is guilty. A disproportionate amount of weight is being given to the words of disgruntled ex-teammates.
-
Yes a lot of the evidence is anecdotal or open for interpretation but the body of evidence is clearly enough to make USADA think there's a case to answer. The idea that he's tired and has decided they'll never let him have any peace is crazy. It's taken 10 years to get anywhere because he's presented numerous reasons for his improved performance that have subsequently been proven to be a pile of crap.
It's clear that he's been involved in doping, anyone who thinks he's entirely innocent is naive in the extreme. The question is whether testing years after the event which subsequently finds the evidence is admissible to effect his titles, which it isn't.
Armstrong just played the system at the time better than everyone else and has his name up in lights as his reward.
-
So, let’s get over the Armstrong inspired BS that he has never failed a test. He has failed 3. He got away with two (one in the Tour and the other at the US Olympic trials) as the B samples were 'tampered with'. Both of these samples were taken and tampered with shortly after he donated $500k (yes $500,000) to the UCI anti-doping campaign. He also failed a test on A and B sample for cortisone on the Tour that he got away with via a back dated medical certificate for extreme saddle sore. Medical certificate was produced 5 days after B sample was positive.
Secondly let’s look at the list of 'disgruntled' former riders. Bobby Julich, Frankie Andreu, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis have all testified. Of the core US Postal team all have been done for doping except Lance, George Hincapie and Haimar Zubeldia. Strange the whole team dopes except him. Strange that he is so much better than the dopers.
Then let’s look at the anecdotal evidence. Trek bikes for sale at the start of a season with the full team livery and equipment second hand on eBay and through bike shops in Colorado (where Armstrong’s company is based). I was offered one for $5k, it was brand new and hadn’t been ridden and was that seasons team bike. Why were the team selling them? Landis said they were always short of bikes yet they got 200+ per season from Trek.
Combine that with an incredibly limited race program. As much time as possible spent in Mexico and the Rockies training and minimal time in Europe. Difficult movements for testers (moving 2-3 times a week) to track and limited contact with anyone in cycling outside races.
Finally who else is involved? Well the aforementioned 'disgruntled athletes', a Dr who has ben banned from involvement with cyclists for life (Michele Ferrari) and a team manager (Bruyneel) who won’t even travel to France now with his team (Radio Shack) for fear of arrest on trafficking charges by the French coppers.
And now the man himself (the serial winner, the man who never gives in) throws in the towel.
Case closed. He is a doper, always was, and now the shit caught up with him. About time.
-
bad week for the family!
-
True. Say what you want about him but as first man on the moon he already had a great legacy...
-
As I keep saying, there just isn't enough evidence here to decide someone is guilty. A disproportionate amount of weight is being given to the words of disgruntled ex-teammates.
And ex-competitors, and ex-doctors, and ex-team secretaries, and ex-journalists, and ex-team directors......
-
I have followed cycling for some time. If you listen to those who understand the sport and have no vested interests, it is widely understood LA doped during his career and was almost too big to fail a test. A lot of deniers on here are clutching at staws in what is an area which isn't black and white.
The question I have is why have ey only gone after him now and not while he was competing?
-
I have followed cycling for some time. If you listen to those who understand the sport and have no vested interests, it is widely understood LA doped during his career and was almost too big to fail a test. A lot of deniers on here are clutching at staws in what is an area which isn't black and white.
The question I have is why have ey only gone after him now and not while he was competing?
He was worth more winning tours than being banned from them, now he's retired that's no longer a concern.
-
I don’t think Ad@m is saying he did not dope, more that the current known evidence is insufficient to have already withdrawn his titles.
I have been following this through the Times and they definitely have an agenda against LA. He sued the paper for a large amount of money after they serialised one of their journalist’s books. I understand it is because of this case that a lot of the information will become public i.e. they paid up on the basis that there was no proof of doping yet now there appears to be enough to strip him of his titles.
Regardless, Armstrong has a history of taking court action against anyone that speaks against him so it is little wonder that the evidence has not been released in full to the general public. Hopefully the Times case will ensure that some sort of public inquest is held.
-
I don’t think Ad@m is saying he did not dope, more that the current known evidence is insufficient to have already withdrawn his titles.
He was stripped of his titles because he has refused to answer the allegations. In most sports this is the equivalent of missing a drugs test. It doesn't mean you took drugs but by missing the test you effectively fail it. By refusing to stand up in court and answer USADA's allegations Armstrong is, in the eyes of the drug testers, pleading guilty, therefore he's a drug cheat and will be stripped of everything he won whilst cheating.
He could, of course, get them back by going to court and proving his innocence?
-
I don’t think Ad@m is saying he did not dope, more that the current known evidence is insufficient to have already withdrawn his titles.
He was stripped of his titles because he has refused to answer the allegations. In most sports this is the equivalent of missing a drugs test. It doesn't mean you took drugs but by missing the test you effectively fail it. By refusing to stand up in court and answer USADA's allegations Armstrong is, in the eyes of the drug testers, pleading guilty, therefore he's a drug cheat and will be stripped of everything he won whilst cheating.
He could, of course, get them back by going to court and proving his innocence?
But he's already satisfied the UCI and US Federal investigators that he doesn't have a case to answer. Do you honestly believe that if the USADA case went to trial and the USADA lost, that they'd give it up and let him get on with his life? Because he doesn't. His view is that this is a witch-hunt and that even if he defended himself and won it still wouldn't be the end of it so what's the point.
Given what's happened so far you can understand why he feels that way.
-
It's a little bit too convenient an answer though, "I am not going to contest these charges because I don't think they'll ever leave me alone".
Hmmm.
-
There's no hat hanging going on and I haven't said he's definitely innocent. All I've consistently said is that I don't see that there's enough/any reliable evidence to justify finding him guilty.
But by refusing to answer USADA's allegations he is effectively saying he is guilty, that's the way it works I'm afraid.
Why has he fought for 20+ years against every allegation only to give up now? Because he is tired and fed up? Well as a multimillionaire I'm sure it must be desperately tiring taking a daily phone call from your team of top notch lawyers who are doing all the work.
Or maybe it's because he has had the nod that USADA do have something damning, and to drop it all now will at least give him some sort of moral high ground among his supporters?
That's the thing - he's giving up fighting charges he reckons he is innocent of, and which if upheld, will see his reputation dragged through the gutter, and all his major achievements stripped from him?
Whys that, then?
-
There's no hat hanging going on and I haven't said he's definitely innocent. All I've consistently said is that I don't see that there's enough/any reliable evidence to justify finding him guilty.
But by refusing to answer USADA's allegations he is effectively saying he is guilty, that's the way it works I'm afraid.
Why has he fought for 20+ years against every allegation only to give up now? Because he is tired and fed up? Well as a multimillionaire I'm sure it must be desperately tiring taking a daily phone call from your team of top notch lawyers who are doing all the work.
Or maybe it's because he has had the nod that USADA do have something damning, and to drop it all now will at least give him some sort of moral high ground among his supporters?
That's the thing - he's giving up fighting charges he reckons he is innocent of, and which if upheld, will see his reputation dragged through the gutter, and all his major achievements stripped from him?
Whys that, then?
He's been defending himself from these allegations for 13 years. That's a serious chunk of his life. I can't even begin to imagine the toll that would take on his finances, his family and his own emotions. But I can certainly understand that if he thinks that by carrying on with this it may well continue for another 13 years or more, then he wants no further part in it.
I've never once said I think he's completely innocent, but I don't think that either there is enough evidence to decide he's guilty, nor is his cessation of the process a confession.
-
But he's already satisfied the UCI and US Federal investigators that he doesn't have a case to answer.
The UCI have a massive vested interest. When he was competing he was their biggest name, biggest money-spinner and the man who finally sent cycling around the World rather than just a corner of north-east Europe. Plus part of the USADA evidence apparently points to collusion by UCI in hiding positive drug tests by Armstrong.
The Feds decided that doping wasn't a federal offence and so dropped that part of the case and then decided they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute Armstrong with intent to supply, so they dropped that as well. I suppose they naiaively thought that UCI would investigate the doping in order to clean up the sport...yeah right!
-
But he's already satisfied the UCI and US Federal investigators that he doesn't have a case to answer.
The UCI have a massive vested interest. When he was competing he was their biggest name, biggest money-spinner and the man who finally sent cycling around the World rather than just a corner of north-east Europe. Plus part of the USADA evidence apparently points to collusion by UCI in hiding positive drug tests by Armstrong.
The Feds decided that doping wasn't a federal offence and so dropped that part of the case and then decided they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute Armstrong with intent to supply, so they dropped that as well. I suppose they naiaively thought that UCI would investigate the doping in order to clean up the sport...yeah right!
I'd be intrigued to see whether a new federal case opens up once the evidence is all made public, not necessarily into Armstrong but into a lot of people involved in the team. If the evidence is irrefutable as USADA seem to claim then surely it will show that someone has done something illegal, not sure what has already happened though as I know there have been a lot of bans handed out already.
-
Dunno, it's a bit murky really. Most performance enhancing drugs aren't actually illegal, just performance enhancing! And I'm sure injecting yourself with your own blood isn't illegal either. So most cyclists may have doped but didn't break the law as such.
Better legal minds than mine can determine whether those involved in the cover up (if there was one of course) are guilty of, say, perverting the cause of justice or something?
-
Dunno, it's a bit murky really. Most performance enhancing drugs aren't actually illegal, just performance enhancing! And I'm sure injecting yourself with your own blood isn't illegal either. So most cyclists may have doped but didn't break the law as such.
Better legal minds than mine can determine whether those involved in the cover up (if there was one of course) are guilty of, say, perverting the cause of justice or something?
That's kind of what I mean, I can't believe that there won't be some kind of legal ramification for someone at the end of all this (if the evidence is as clear as it is being made out to be by USADA).
-
Certainly sporting fraud is an offence in countries such as Italy.
-
But he's already satisfied the UCI and US Federal investigators that he doesn't have a case to answer. Do you honestly believe that if the USADA case went to trial and the USADA lost, that they'd give it up and let him get on with his life? Because he doesn't. His view is that this is a witch-hunt and that even if he defended himself and won it still wouldn't be the end of it so what's the point.
Given what's happened so far you can understand why he feels that way.
The UCI accepted at least one substantial donation from Armstrong in the past so their non-action can be dismissed.
The Federal case looked at the illegal activities of defrauding of the government, drug trafficking, money laundering and conspiracy rather than any sporting rule breaking.
As USADA explained afterwards:
“Unlike the U.S. Attorney, Usada’s job is to protect clean sport rather than enforce specific criminal laws. Our investigation into doping in the sport of cycling is continuing and we look forward to obtaining the information developed during the federal investigation.”
-
I find it astounding that people can still question if Armstrong is innocent in face of all this. As for never being found guilty, Hilter was never found guilty of war crimes but I'm pretty sure he perpertrated them.
-
Armstrong has been found guilty though. He was charged of doping offences by the (WADA licensed) USADA. He refused to answer the charge and therefore has been found guilty.
The UCI is signed up to WADA (as all Olympic sports must be) and therefore USADA do have the jurisdiction to strip Armstrong of his titles (as WADA have already ruled).
I doubt the UCI will take the case to CAS (as has been muted by some) as that would put their participation at the Olympics in jeopardy. We will ultimately see a very slow reluctant acceptance of USADA's findings.
-
I've got little to add, but I've never known an innocent man just give up and accept an injustice. Not to say it cannot happen, and I accept Adam's point that he's battled for a long time, but still.
I've enjoyed reading the opposing views on a subject i knew nothing about but now feel well informed.
-
I have, can't find bugger all.
Caffeine IS a banned substance but you would probably need to drink a dozen cases of the Red Bull to be over the limit, can't see that being particularly performance enhancing before a race!
You sure about caffeine? This is part of the regulations:
*
The following substances included in the 2012 Monitoring Program (bupropion,
caffeine, nicotine, phenylephrine, phenylpropanolamine, pipradol, synephrine) are
not considered as Prohibited Substances.
So a pre-Alpe D'Huez double espresso should be fine and dandy.
;)
I can assure that caffeine is not a banned substance as even I need to be careful of any supplements I take due to potential testing, this is taken from AIS link http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition/supplements/old_pages/supplement_fact_sheets/group_a_supplements/caffeine
• In 1 January 2004, caffeine was removed from the 2004 World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List, allowing athletes who compete in sports that are compliant with the WADA code to consume caffeine, within their usual diets or for specific purposes of performance, without fear of sanctions.
-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-10/former-lance-armstrong-teammate-describes-doping/4253740
Hmmm
-
I wish there were a few more new sources than this Tyler Hamilton fella as he currently has a book to see so it not beyond my imagination to think he has ulterior motives. ...although I have read he is selling all his cycling memorabilia and giving the proceeds to doping charities. Not sure about any profits from the book.
-
This from the BBC to confuse things further:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19749763
It strikes me that politics seems to be the driver for a lot of the press statement rather than the search for truth.
-
This from the BBC to confuse things further:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19749763
It strikes me that politics seems to be the driver for a lot of the press statement rather than the search for truth.
Indeed.
It does seem quite odd though for a governing body of a sport to strip someone of their entire career's titles before they have the evidence to support it.
-
They have additional evidence apparently and are adding this to the file. Don't trust what the UCI are saying either, part of the allegations are likely to implicate them in abetting Armstrong in covering up positive tests (he was too big too fail etc).
The bottom line remains that if innocent it was difficult to understand why Armstrong refused to contest the charges thereby admitting guilt.
-
It's not that difficult, as has been explained several times over on this thread.
-
Caffeine IS a banned substance but you would probably need to drink a dozen cases of the Red Bull to be over the limit, can't see that being particularly performance enhancing before a race!
I don't mean to dig up an old post, but I wanted to revisit this one ...
Caffeine isn't on the banned list now ... but it was before 2004. So my question is this: If it's 2003, and a cyclist takes so much as a small drink of coffee before a race, would you consider that doping? If he drinks 6 Red Bulls, is that doping? If he takes a package of caffeine pills and comes in just under the legal limit, is THAT doping?
I ask, because I'm pretty sure that's what's going on with most of this Armstrong "doping", as well as what's still going on today. Is it the fault of the biker for ingesting anything on the list, regardless of how small ... or the fault of the governing bodies who say, "you can have so much of this in your system, just not THIS much"? If you can't fault one guy for taking a small amount of a "banned" substance, because it's well below allowable limits anyway ... how can you fault a guy for taking enough of it to go right up to the limit? Technically, he's still playing by the rules that the governing bodies set up.
-
An interesting point.
I think this is a consequence of the testing system being able to keep up with dopers and their products. Some substances don't occur naturally in the body like clenbuteral and so when tested if it was in your body you are guilty like Contador.
For EPO there was no definitive test and does occur naturally in the body, so the UCI set a 50% limit. Which meant unscrupulous riders felt they were free to take the jab to get to close to 50 and avoid breaking the barrier. This isn't the rules saying if your below 50 it's ok, it's about riders taking advantage of a unsophisticated testing system to their own ends. If a product is on the banned list and you ingest it even to below the allowed limits your are still cheating. Evidence points to Armstrong taking EPO to improve his performance and compete at the top level. This also explains why his claim of never failing a test is so hollow
-
Caffeine IS a banned substance but you would probably need to drink a dozen cases of the Red Bull to be over the limit, can't see that being particularly performance enhancing before a race!
I don't mean to dig up an old post, but I wanted to revisit this one ...
Caffeine isn't on the banned list now ... but it was before 2004. So my question is this: If it's 2003, and a cyclist takes so much as a small drink of coffee before a race, would you consider that doping? If he drinks 6 Red Bulls, is that doping? If he takes a package of caffeine pills and comes in just under the legal limit, is THAT doping?
I ask, because I'm pretty sure that's what's going on with most of this Armstrong "doping", as well as what's still going on today. Is it the fault of the biker for ingesting anything on the list, regardless of how small ... or the fault of the governing bodies who say, "you can have so much of this in your system, just not THIS much"? If you can't fault one guy for taking a small amount of a "banned" substance, because it's well below allowable limits anyway ... how can you fault a guy for taking enough of it to go right up to the limit? Technically, he's still playing by the rules that the governing bodies set up.
EPO was always a banned substance - it's just that there was no test for it before the Sydney Olympics.
The UCI decided to impose a hematocrit limit to try and stop riders (for want of a better phrase) killing themselves with the drug. It certainly wasn't intended as a free for all but they thought this was the best way of handling a bad situation.
It's interesting to note that the entire US postal team turned up at the '99 tour with hematocrit levels between 49% and 50% (50% being the limit).
-
This from the BBC to confuse things further:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19749763
It strikes me that politics seems to be the driver for a lot of the press statement rather than the search for truth.
Indeed.
It does seem quite odd though for a governing body of a sport to strip someone of their entire career's titles before they have the evidence to support it.
Ultimately it's not really up to the UCI.
The UCI are signed up to WADA. WADA have given jurisdiction to the case to USADA (who have stripped Armstrong of his titles).
I'd imagine the delay is probably down to the fact that Johan Bruyneel is currently contesting the charges brought against him (it seems the UCI have yet to grasp the fact that the world does not revolve around Armstrong).
-
I have just finished Tyler Hamiltons book and recommend it to anyone wanting an honest insight into drugs culture in sport.
These guys were faxed with a choice of not doping and being also rans, eking out a living behind riders who were using and inferior or doping to compete at the top. I sympathise with these guys it was a horrible choice. I just wish they could get this truth and reconciliation up and running so Lance can tell us his real story.
-
I have just finished Tyler Hamiltons book and recommend it to anyone wanting an honest insight into drugs culture in sport.
These guys were faxed with a choice of not doping and being also rans, eking out a living behind riders who were using and inferior or doping to compete at the top. I sympathise with these guys it was a horrible choice. I just wish they could get this truth and reconciliation up and running so Lance can tell us his real story.
Yes, great book isn't it.
This is why I wish Armstrong would just come clean and admit he was doping just like everyone else.
A statement years ago along the lines of "Fuck yeah I doped, but everyone did, it was within UCI limits and it was the only way anyone could compete at the top level." would have, if not exonerated him, but at least made everyone understand what was going on in cycling at the time. I doubt it would have unduly affected his charity work and he would still have been the best cyclist in the World, albeit the best in a warped, drugged-up sport.
-
Judgement has just been released its looks pretty damning.
-
The latest to fess up is George Hincapie.
http://www.georgehincapie.com/news/Statement-from-George-Hincapie/
This months Pro Cycling makes interesting reading with a timeline of what if's? It points to things being a lot worse without Lance Armstrong.
-
Hincapie's evidence will be the most damning testimony. I think it will change public opinion in America decisively.
-
A link to the BBC's summary of the judgement:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716
-
Michael Barry (ex Sky) just fessed up too. Lance mate, its really really over now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109619079/Reasoned-Decision
Boom. This is dynamite.
-
'Its not about the bike' was Lance's first book, looks like he had a point.
-
Told you!
-
Told you!
How very humble of you.
Did I say humble? I meant smug.
This is such a shame for the sport. I've got unbelievable respect for the guys who ride the Tour de France and to find that basically a decade of the sport meant nothing because of institutionalised doping is so depressing.
Today isn't a day to celebrate. Especially when you consider that the UK leads the world in cycling at the moment and this will once again make the general public think that cyclists can't be trusted.
I just hope this is as bad as it gets and that no Brits are involved in anything.
-
You did, still don't want to believe it though, especially that bastard Hincapie, he was another hero who just pissed on my chips.
-
Told you!
Today isn't a day to celebrate. Especially when you consider that the UK leads the world in cycling at the moment and this will once again make the general public think that cyclists can't be trusted.
I have mentioned this elsewhere but I'll plug it again. The 4 part Sky documentary "The Road To Glory" is excellent. Within it they are VERY proud to announce, on numerous occassions, that they are clean. If they're lying they're putting every ounce of their reputations on the line.
-
Michael Barry (ex Sky) just fessed up too. Lance mate, its really really over now.
When you read "Sky's The Limit", Barry is fingered (by Landis I think) as a drugs cheat not long after the Sky Team is formed and he and Dave Brailsford are telling all and sundry that it's all lies.
The whole omerta thing of the peleton must seriously mean business.
-
So, quick straw poll, are the current Sky team clean?
-
So, quick straw poll, are the current Sky team clean?
Yes, I think they are. The fact that observers of the Tour said this year's lacked the panache of outrageous attacks and it was almost attritional seems to suggest either everyone is doping to the same extent or everyone is now pretty much clean.
-
Told you!
How very humble of you.
Did I say humble? I meant smug.
This is such a shame for the sport. I've got unbelievable respect for the guys who ride the Tour de France and to find that basically a decade of the sport meant nothing because of institutionalised doping is so depressing.
Today isn't a day to celebrate. Especially when you consider that the UK leads the world in cycling at the moment and this will once again make the general public think that cyclists can't be trusted.
I just hope this is as bad as it gets and that no Brits are involved in anything.
Oh I see, when I'm right about something because I read up on the facts and studied the evidence then I'm being smug?
Oh, and I think it is a day to celebrate. Armstrong cheated his way to the top and now, in black and white for all to see, is the evidence. Cheats in sport need to be bought to book, it's a very, very good day for a sport that needs to draw a line under a very bad period and start afresh.
-
The saddest thing is, as someone who loves the sport, is that, yet again, it makes it difficult to believe that great achievements are on the back of great talent and dedication. Armstrong was an outstanding athlete and an amazing bike handler (drugs don't enable you steer at speed across a corn field...
). Yet he still felt compelled to cheat.
Someone said to me a few weeks ago that this just proves that the sport is totally corrupt and that British Cycling's tremendous last decade is the result of just being ahead of the game as far as doping is concerned. I truly believe Cav, Wiggins, Hoy, Pendleton, et al's achievements are clean. However, I can see why someone with only a passing interest in the sport would question the whole edifice of professional cycling.
-
Armstrongs 2003 Tour winning Trek Madone was in the window of my favourite UK bike pornography shop (Sigma Sport) until yesterday, this morning it's been removed.
Anyway, onto other matters, Livestrong Foundation hasn't given any funding to cancer research for a few years now, I wonder how long it will be before the IRS & other interested parties start digging into that?
The UCI need to be investigated as well, how did the UPS team get away with it? Sponsors money paying off officials at UCI has been rumoured & of course the principal sponsor is a US taxpayer funded goverment department.
-
I hope, if anything comes out of this, that the drug taking deniers, be it the UCI or the public who refused to believe Armstrong took drugs despite all the evidence pointing elsewhere, learn from their naiveity. Also the heads of the UCI If found to have wilfully covered up positive tests, are charged with the full force of the law.
-
how did the UPS team get away with it?
It is strongly alleged that political pressure made the original Federal Investigation go away (certainly the prosecutors were left very frustrated).
-
Today isn't a day to celebrate. Especially when you consider that the UK leads the world in cycling at the moment and this will once again make the general public think that cyclists can't be trusted.
I disagree. It is a day to celebrate.
Armstrong was a sophisticated doper, terrified his rivals into silence, was an aggressive litigator and was immensely powerful (both inside the sport and politically). He still was brought down. It probably would not have happened at any other time (and arguably in any other country) so it shows the progress that has been made in catching cheats.
Many of the techniques developed to convict cheaters like him (freezing samples for future testing, blood passports, independent drug bodies etc) will be used across the board to catch drug cheats in the future.
-
Does anyone have any EPO I can borrow? I'm doing a 116 mile Sportive Sunday, hilly one as well, 2600 metres of climbing.
-
Oh I see, when I'm right about something because I read up on the facts and studied the evidence then I'm being smug?
Nope. Gloating about the demise of someone who was considered a legend to millions around the world and the immense damage caused to the reputation of cycling as a sport is you being smug.
It's absolutely right that he's been brought to book for cheating but gloating about any kind of severe negative is not particularly pleasant.
-
Adam I'd point your ire at being hoodwinked at Lance and the UCI rather than Plumbett.
Does anyone have any information on how the Livestrong foundation has spent it's money recently? Does it ALL go to cancer research?
-
Am I alone in thinking/hoping that Armstrong did not do anything wrong?
-
Adam I'd point your ire at being hoodwinked at Lance and the UCI rather than Plumbett.
Does anyone have any information on how the Livestrong foundation has spent it's money recently? Does it ALL go to cancer research?
85c in every $ went to programmes in 2011, in 2011 no funding went to new research into cancer, 30 ongoing programmes were supported.
Other monies went on community programmes, survivor networks & education.
You can find their full reports online at livestrong.org
-
Am I alone in thinking/hoping that Armstrong did not do anything wrong?
Hoping - I'd doubt it, with no cheating or evidence of it he's a marketing dream; recovers from a serious illness to win one of the prestigious sporting events 7 times in a row whilst gaining millions for charity.
Thinking - I can't believe any seriously thinks he's done nothing wrong, technically he has never been banned for failing a test (note I said banned not caught, which he has been at least once), that's irrefutable, but his samples clearly show large traces of Synthetic EPO (as confirmed by independent specialists) over a prolonged period of time and there is far too much witness testimony to ignore.
Ad@m - to me your argument reads as you being a little upset that you've been proven wrong. If this is handled correctly cycling won't see much damage to it's reputation, it's not as if the sport was considered clean until this, there's been lots of news out there just not so high profile. Personally I think it's fantastic news that even someone who was a 'legend' isn't above being brought to justice. From everything I've read since this really hit the news it's been common knowledge in cycling circles for a long time but because anything against him was done in solitude he repeated 'the armstrong defense' (love that by the way) and threatened to sue. He also ruined the careers of reporters by effectively banning them from the tour if they didn't report things as he wanted. All in the guy comes across as a bit of a dick and I'm glad that the world at large is seeing him in a true light.
I'm not seeing many people defending Jimmy Saville right now and, whilst this is nothing like as serious, I don't agree with anyone trying to defend Armstrong, he's built a reputation on lying and cheating and is rightly seeing it fall apart, needs to happen to people like this far more often in my opinion.
-
The reality is that he's a false idol and sounds like a very unpleasant man.
-
'The deceitful pursuit of glory' sounds a bit nicer than 'cheating bastard'
-
The reality is that he's a false idol and sounds like a very unpleasant man.
His book "It's Not About the Bike" is excellent yet he still comes across as an See You Next Tuesday.
Did he write the book or did he have a ghost writer?
-
Ad@m - to me your argument reads as you being a little upset that you've been proven wrong.
Could you please explain how I've been proven wrong.
My views on this thread have been about USADA stripping someone of their titles whilst the only publicly available 'evidence' was the testimony of a couple of former teammates. Now that actual evidence has been provided which I expect will be ratified by the UCI I'm happy to accept that Armstrong was a cheat.
That's not me changing my mind on anything, nor is it me being wrong.
As for cycling not seeing much damage to its reputation as a result of this, have you picked up a newspaper, read any news websites, or listened to any interviews with anyone involved in the sport today? This has caused huge damage to the reputation of cycling when it was just about dragging itself out of the gutter. Already people are questionning whether Team GB and Team Sky are clean - both on here and in the mainstream press. They weren't doing that last week.
-
i've watched plenty of episodes of 'lie to me' and i could tell straight away he was guilty
-
Ad@m - to me your argument reads as you being a little upset that you've been proven wrong.
Could you please explain how I've been proven wrong.
My views on this thread have been about USADA stripping someone of their titles whilst the only publicly available 'evidence' was the testimony of a couple of former teammates. Now that actual evidence has been provided which I expect will be ratified by the UCI I'm happy to accept that Armstrong was a cheat.
Throughout this thread I have mentioned many of the things now published in the USADA report. If these were not 'publicly available' then how did I know about them? Do you think I've got some sort of inside track in the cycling world or something?
No, I just read books, magazines and articles about a sport I love to watch. All of it was out there, it's just that those who put Armstrong up on a pedestal have refused to believe it.
What I don't think this will do is destroy cycling, on the contrary, it will draw a line under a dark time for the sport. Those racing now are, if not totally clean, there will be some still trying to get away with things, the cleanest ever because the testers are right on top of them now.
And of course you are never wrong Ad@m, in almost every debate we've had on here you have never had the courage of your convictions to categorically state your absolute viewpoint. Just admit it, you didn't think Armstrong doped, you were wrong, I've been wrong loads of times, it happens!
-
Yes Ad@m you are coming across as a little defensive now.
-
Ad@m - to me your argument reads as you being a little upset that you've been proven wrong.
Could you please explain how I've been proven wrong.
My views on this thread have been about USADA stripping someone of their titles whilst the only publicly available 'evidence' was the testimony of a couple of former teammates. Now that actual evidence has been provided which I expect will be ratified by the UCI I'm happy to accept that Armstrong was a cheat.
Throughout this thread I have mentioned many of the things now published in the USADA report. If these were not 'publicly available' then how did I know about them? Do you think I've got some sort of inside track in the cycling world or something?
No, I just read books, magazines and articles about a sport I love to watch. All of it was out there, it's just that those who put Armstrong up on a pedestal have refused to believe it.
What I don't think this will do is destroy cycling, on the contrary, it will draw a line under a dark time for the sport. Those racing now are, if not totally clean, there will be some still trying to get away with things, the cleanest ever because the testers are right on top of them now.
And of course you are never wrong Ad@m, in almost every debate we've had on here you have never had the courage of your convictions to categorically state your absolute viewpoint. Just admit it, you didn't think Armstrong doped, you were wrong, I've been wrong loads of times, it happens!
What a load of rubbish.
You've mentioned all the things in the USADA report because you just swallowed everything they said without a second thought. Sitting on a desk at the USADA is not publicly available. The USADA telling the world they have proof is not publicly available. Now they've produced the evidence, good, that was all they had to do.
As for drawing a line under this, that's exactly what was said every time every other TdF winner got convicted of doping. But it didn't, it just made the public more sceptical of the remaining riders. And the testers being right on top of them? I'm sure the testers thought they were doing a great job throughout the 90s and 00s and look how that panned out. Drugs regulators are always one step behind and you can never be sure there isn't something else out there which doesn't show up on tests.
And 'just admit it, you didn't think Armstrong doped...'? My very first post on the first page of this thread started with 'I also thought it seemed implausible, especially as before his illness he never looked like getting close.'.
Yet again, you're spouting nonsense.
-
What a load of rubbish.
You've mentioned all the things in the USADA report because you just swallowed everything they said without a second thought. Sitting on a desk at the USADA is not publicly available. The USADA telling the world they have proof is not publicly available. Now they've produced the evidence, good, that was all they had to do.
Wrong again (oh, sorry, misinformed not wrong, because you are never wrong, right?).
I had read books and magazine articles both for and against Armstrong years before USADA even picked up the case. I suppose I first got interested because my cousin had testicular cancer around the same time as Armstrong and i was amazed at how a man could recover from something which made my cousin into a physical wreck for two years and go and win bike races. Of course there were whispers back then but such was the aura surrounding Armstrong, most people dismissed doping claims.
So I read some books, Rough Ride by Paul Kimmage is the one that stands out, a tale of a cyclist who had all the talent in the world but found he just could not keep up with even the most mediocre of Peleton riders until he started doping.
So in short, I haven't swallowed anything USADA have said, all USADA did was confirm what a lot of us already knew.
-
Ad@m for a couple you mean 11.Lendme a couple of hundred quid will ya?
-
The fact that observers of the Tour said this year's lacked the panache of outrageous attacks and it was almost attritional seems to suggest either everyone is doping to the same extent or everyone is now pretty much clean.
Wait, so it's okay if everyone is doping to the same extent? Because that's essentially what was happening in the Lance years. Or if someone is cheating better than other, then it's wrong? I'm confused.
Also, I like to know what exactly we're celebrating today? We've brought down a 7 time Tour winner and handed the victories to the next big doper in line. Is that a win? We've handed him the largest penalty ever given to a cyclist and stripped away all victories ... while every other cyclist of that era, who more than likely cheated just as much as he did served much lighter sentences and for the most part, retained their Tour titles and other victories. Is that the big win? We've "justified" the waste of millions of tax dollars by USADA to conduct a witchunt that proved that one guy cheated just like everyone else 10 years ago, so they can ultimately stick their big head on a stick, inflate their egos and ultimately change absolutely nothing in the current context of the sport. So I suppose that's the big win? We've also cheapen a very noble charity, regardless of who started it ... but hey, the guy that did started was cheating with everyone else in his sport ... so who cares what he did for the fight against Cancer right? Is that what we're celebrating?
-
So people who do lots of things for charity can get away with things then?
I take it Jimmy Saville hasn't the NBC nightly news with Tom Carver?
-
I've always admired Lance Armstrong and always defended him, but he has let us all down (imho). I thought after what he went through after the cancer then he would want to stay clean and not put shit in his body. I guess the need to win was a bigger draw.
Secondly what is the point of stripping him of his titles, it seems that drugs were rife when he won the titles so maybe he won on an even playing field. How far down the finishing positions in the TDF will you have to go to prove a rider was clean when Armstrong won his titles?
-
The fact that observers of the Tour said this year's lacked the panache of outrageous attacks and it was almost attritional seems to suggest either everyone is doping to the same extent or everyone is now pretty much clean.
Wait, so it's okay if everyone is doping to the same extent? Because that's essentially what was happening in the Lance years. Or if someone is cheating better than other, then it's wrong? I'm confused.
Also, I like to know what exactly we're celebrating today? We've brought down a 7 time Tour winner and handed the victories to the next big doper in line. Is that a win? We've handed him the largest penalty ever given to a cyclist and stripped away all victories ... while every other cyclist of that era, who more than likely cheated just as much as he did served much lighter sentences and for the most part, retained their Tour titles and other victories. Is that the big win? We've "justified" the waste of millions of tax dollars by USADA to conduct a witchunt that proved that one guy cheated just like everyone else 10 years ago, so they can ultimately stick their big head on a stick, inflate their egos and ultimately change absolutely nothing in the current context of the sport. So I suppose that's the big win? We've also cheapen a very noble charity, regardless of who started it ... but hey, the guy that did started was cheating with everyone else in his sport ... so who cares what he did for the fight against Cancer right? Is that what we're celebrating?
The bit in bold is the key for me. He's been allowed to get away with this for the length of time he has on the back of this, no matter how much charity work someone has done if they're a cheat they deserve to be treated as a cheat.
What is being 'celebrated' (your words not those of anyone who is happy with the news) is that someone who earned a title of sporting legend and was being regarded in the same way as people like Ali, Pele, etc has been shown to be a fraud and a precedent has been set that you can't get away with cheating, regardless of who you are.
-
Also, I like to know what exactly we're celebrating today?
You should celebrate that America is possibly the only country in the world that would (rightly) bring down a sporting star of such worldwide fame for systematic cheating. I'm struggling to think of any other country which would do the same. For example, there's pretty strong evidence that France's 2nd greatest footballer (after Platini) was a regular visitor to Switzerland in order to blood dope but such matters are brushed under the carpet in other countries.
Political pressure caused the federal investigation into Armstrong to collapse (for probably the same sentiment that you have expressed here) but the cheat was still unmasked - wonderful!
It sends a message to every doping athlete in the world - Yes, you may be one step of the testers now, but you can still be brought down - no matter how powerful you are. If it stops a handful of stars doping, it will be worth it.
The techniques developed to catch cheats in cycling (testing, blood passports, freezing of samples etc) will be implemented in other sports to catch more cheats in the future and hopefully increase the deterrent for up and coming athletes.
Lastly, cycling will recover. It's a fantastic sport and provides great drama. There are and still will be dopers (just like in all sports) but the days of teamwide systematic doping and 'omerta' look numbered. I think we're currently looking at the cleanest racing for half a century. That definitely should be celebrated.
-
You should celebrate that America is possibly the only country in the world that would (rightly) bring down a sporting star of such worldwide fame for systematic cheating. I'm struggling to think of any other country which would do the same.
This is the same America that covered up Carl Lewis's drug taking according to the BBC documentary before the Olympics.
-
You should celebrate that America is possibly the only country in the world that would (rightly) bring down a sporting star of such worldwide fame for systematic cheating. I'm struggling to think of any other country which would do the same.
This is the same America that covered up Carl Lewis's drug taking according to the BBC documentary before the Olympics.
That was before National Anti Doping Organisations (such as USADA) and WADA existed (I did say in an earlier post that it would not have happened at a different time).
Political pressure tried to make the case go away (ref Armstrong) but the truth still came out largely thanks to the efforts of these independent bodies.
-
Short interview with the woman who began the whole thing.
http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/5-questions-betsy-andreu
A brave woman. Betsy Andreu.
-
Documentary on 5Live now. Its going to be good.
-
Can we have one of those word filter thingies so that Armstrong becomes Pharmstrong?
-
Or Dopestrong? Either way he is a cheating fcuker.
-
My favourite so far is liestrong
livewrong is pretty good as well.
-
Why did Lance give the UCI $100,000?
-
Why did Lance give the UCI $100,000?
Officially? To help them in the fight against doping.
Really? To keep them onside.
-
Why did Lance give the UCI $100,000?
More pertinent is the question - why (the hell) did the UCI accept $100,000 from Lance?
-
Why did Lance give the UCI $100,000?
As I understand it this is made a lot more shady by the fact that a large portion of that money was used to give a specific lab in Switzerland free access to a blood testing machine. A lab that was, at the time, conducting tests on samples from Lance Armstrong.
That Landis and Hamilton have both said under oath (as it's under oath and part of a federal investigation you'd have to suggest that they weren't aware that the other had said anything, yet they both mentioned the same dates) that Armstrong then boasted about getting away with a positive test just adds to the perception that something very dodgy went on with that, and is a big part of the reason why a lot of people have questioned how much UCI were aware of and decided to ignore in favour of profiting from the cancer-survivor to champion marketing dream.
Until he chooses to actually defend himself I take it as he was a serial doper who encouraged others to follow suit and was willing to pay backhanders to officials and was far too quick starting litigation proceedings against anyone who questioned him to suggest he had nothing to hide. I also firmly believe that at least some senior members of UCI were fully compliant in allowing this to continue.
-
If you have a spare 40 minutes watch this:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/11/3608613.htm
And if you have more time then watch the full length interviews on the website with the key participents.
-
So, and please don't take this as me gloating or being smug and all that, is there anyone who was previously either pro-Armstrong, or maybe doing a bit of fence sitting, who still thinks he wasn't a drug cheat?
-
So, and please don't take this as me gloating or being smug and all that, is there anyone who was previously either pro-Armstrong, or maybe doing a bit of fence sitting, who still thinks he wasn't a drug cheat?
I think you would have to be very foolish to think that now Dave. I've always really admired Lance Armstrong and his fightback after cancer and honestly believed him when he said he didn't take performance enhancing drugs (I so wanted this to be true). I don't believe him now though.
-
So, and please don't take this as me gloating or being smug and all that, is there anyone who was previously either pro-Armstrong, or maybe doing a bit of fence sitting, who still thinks he wasn't a drug cheat?
I think you would have to be very foolish to think that now Dave. I've always really admired Lance Armstrong and his fightback after cancer and honestly believed him when he said he didn't take performance enhancing drugs (I so wanted this to be true). I don't believe him now though.
Same here.
Not sure what your point is though Dave if it's not to gloat?
-
Same here.
Not sure what your point is though Dave if it's not to gloat?
It's hardly surprising that someone would like to know whether the revelations have changed people's opinions on him. I know I do, and that I don't care enough about it to be accused of gloating.
-
So Nike have dropped Lance and he's resigned as chairman of Livestrong "to spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding my cycling career".
-
Of course he would have spared Livestrong a lot of the negative effects if he had come clean years ago with a statement along the lines of:
"Okay, i doped, but we all did. I still beat cancer and overcame the odds to be the best among equals at my sport. I made mistakes, but you should continue to support this wonderful charity,"
But he didn't, and now it's too late, shame.
-
Adam I'd point your ire at being hoodwinked at Lance and the UCI rather than Plumbett.
Does anyone have any information on how the Livestrong foundation has spent it's money recently? Does it ALL go to cancer research?
85c in every $ went to programmes in 2011, in 2011 no funding went to new research into cancer, 30 ongoing programmes were supported.
Other monies went on community programmes, survivor networks & education.
You can find their full reports online at livestrong.org
That's inconsistent with reports that Livestrong hired a lobbyist to reduce the power of USADA.
-
Armstrong you fucking dope.
-
On the back of Armstong's doings Rabobank have pulled out of professional cycling.
Might free up Renshaw to go to join Cav at OmegaQS. Better the best lead out man for the best sprinter rather than a standard printer.
-
Has Sean 'Motorola' Yates said anything yet?
-
I wonder what Fiorenzo Magni the original Lion Of Flanders would have made of all this as he passed away in the early hours of today aged 91.
Hard as fackin nails.
-
Yates will get the boot. His 'I only drove the car' line was classic. Julich, Rogers, Porte will probably also get the boot from Sky too. Rabobank are still paying the bills for the team next year but with no branding so it'll stay together. Its late to be swapping teams now. I'd bet that the Rabos get lots of good results next year as they look for a new sponsor.
UCI presser on Monday. Let's see what they say. The whole thing is a mess. We need radical action.
-
So, and please don't take this as me gloating or being smug and all that, is there anyone who was previously either pro-Armstrong, or maybe doing a bit of fence sitting, who still thinks he wasn't a drug cheat?
I think you would have to be very foolish to think that now Dave. I've always really admired Lance Armstrong and his fightback after cancer and honestly believed him when he said he didn't take performance enhancing drugs (I so wanted this to be true). I don't believe him now though.
Exactly my feelings, too. I feel very let down.
Of course he would have spared Livestrong a lot of the negative effects if he had come clean years ago with a statement along the lines of:
"Okay, i doped, but we all did. I still beat cancer and overcame the odds to be the best among equals at my sport. I made mistakes, but you should continue to support this wonderful charity,"
But he didn't, and now it's too late, shame.
Exactly. In 2000 it would have been accepted with a shrug and he would have been forgiven. In 2012 he won't.
-
I wonder what Fiorenzo Magni the original Lion Of Flanders would have made of all this as he passed away in the early hours of today aged 91.
Hard as fackin nails.
If Magni had anything on his mind as he passed away, I'd imagine it might have more likely to have been his alleged role in a fascist militia during the Second World War.
Either that, or how he found a non-pharmaceutical means of cheating his way to winning the 1948 Giro D'Italia: he deployed fans at intervals up the big mountain climbs to give him a push.
-
The problem with this is I question every great performance now. Thor Husovd goes from sprinter to being able to climb, he's probably a great athlete but I now question it in my mind possibly subconsciously.
As I reflect on past high profile performers who do I know to be absolutely clean? Chris Boardman that bloke won Olympic gold and world hour record (admittedly on the track) but a week into the Tour he was outside the top 5 and looked utterly spent. Greg Lemond, Cadel Evans, Charly Mottet (once touted as a tour winner but ended up readjusting to be a stage winner), Chrisophe Bassons then I begin to struggle...Now I'm not saying anyone else doped here just the recent Armstrong stories begin to mAke to question everyone and that really p!seses me off.
-
Good interview with Paul Kimmage (http://soundcloud.com/off-the-ball/paul-kimmage-on-tonights-off)
-
They're after his winnings now. I get the feeling that due to the aggressive way he defended himself throughout his career - suing people and the like - that there is very little sympathy for the guy and everyone wants their piece of the meat.
I predict he'll file for bankruptcy and admit to his crimes at the same time. But first he'll be getting his money men to weasel enough money away.
-
I am dressing up as LA for our work's halloween party, got the livestrong t-shirt, bike helmet, sunglasses and of course pill bottles and syringes... just thought i'd share that with you!
-
I am dressing up as LA for our work's halloween party, got the livestrong t-shirt, bike helmet, sunglasses and of course pill bottles and syringes... just thought i'd share that with you!
This is even more proof that I don't understand Halloween.
-
It's a North American thing
-
He's on Oprah next Thursday evening, I suspect he'll be strenuously denying his previous denials.
-
I fear his appearance will not be the "throw himself at our mercy" apology it should be. It will be more like the defiant read all about it in my new book. the fact that the programme is advertising it as "allegations" of doping etc doesnt install much confidence.
-
I fear his appearance will not be the "throw himself at our mercy" apology it should be. It will be more like the defiant read all about it in my new book. the fact that the programme is advertising it as "allegations" of doping etc doesnt install much confidence.
I think there'll be a confession and apology of sorts, but he doesn't strike me as the sort of man who does contrition well, so he'd probably be better off sticking to his guns.
He's denied it for so long he's probably convinced himself by now.
-
He'll be looking purely at getting a ban lifted so he can compete on the Ironman circuit, after all he started life as triathlete, if I see him out on the Ironman Wales course in September I'll trip the twat up and swim over the cheating bastard in the washing machine.
-
He'll be looking purely at getting a ban lifted so he can compete on the Ironman circuit, after all he started life as triathlete, if I see him out on the Ironman Wales course in September I'll trip the twat up and swim over the cheating bastard in the washing machine.
You'll have to as you won't catch him on a bike, even if your as high as Keith Richards.
-
He'll be looking purely at getting a ban lifted so he can compete on the Ironman circuit, after all he started life as triathlete, if I see him out on the Ironman Wales course in September I'll trip the twat up and swim over the cheating bastard in the washing machine.
You'll have to as you won't catch him on a bike, even if your as high as Keith Richards.
I'll be chuffed to finish the bike leg, 112 miles with 2500 metres of climbing, it's like a stage of the tour on its own, just before I run a marathon, looking forward to it!
-
No confession.
He has apologised to Livestrong employees.
That is all, what a fucking tool.
-
I know nothing about the Tour De France, and nothing about Lance Armstrong, but I know that I can't stand the guy.
I hope that everyone he sued for Libel over the juice sues him back with interest.
-
I know nothing about the Tour De France, and nothing about Lance Armstrong, but I know that I can't stand the guy.
I hope that everyone he sued for Libel over the juice sues him back with interest.
I'm actually very interested in this side of things. Over the years he's successfully sued a lot of people for a hell of a lot of money, if he now admits that he was lying and they were telling the truth will there be a legal case for him to pay it back and publically apologise over tarnishing their reputations?
-
I know nothing about the Tour De France, and nothing about Lance Armstrong, but I know that I can't stand the guy.
I hope that everyone he sued for Libel over the juice sues him back with interest.
I'm actually very interested in this side of things. Over the years he's successfully sued a lot of people for a hell of a lot of money, if he now admits that he was lying and they were telling the truth will there be a legal case for him to pay it back and publically apologise over tarnishing their reputations?
They will be queuing up to sue him, with the Sunday Times at the front of it.
-
Sunday Times is already on it. They took out a full page advert in the main Chicago daily paper today (Chicago is Oprahs hometown) with 12 questions for Lance. I hope they take him for every penny. He a lying, cheating, twat.
-
What were the questions?
-
Sunday Times is already on it. They took out a full page advert in the main Chicago daily paper today (Chicago is Oprahs hometown) with 12 questions for Lance. I hope they take him for every penny. He a lying, cheating, twat.
My biggest problem with him is the number of people he's fucked over to try to keep the myth going. Now he's admitted it I hope they nail him to the wall and take him for everything.
-
Didn't bother staying up for it last night (but recorded it so will watch it later). Going by the reaction he came across very badly in the interview, and by not admitting to doping in 09 or 10 appears to be looking to circumvent WADA's statute of limitation. In away you have to admire the sheer nerve of the guy.
-
What were the questions?
I'm sure you can find it online.
Right off the bat though, she asked him if he used performance enhancing drugs - yes.
Did you use EPO - yes
Did you use other banned substances - yes
Did you cheat in all 7 victories of the TDF - yes
Would it have been possible to win all 7 without cheating - no.
-
What a c**t that bloke is - the cheating is unforgivable in itself but the strong-arm tactics used to keep it secret all this time is even worse. He didn't look like a man who is mortally ashamed of himself, as he damn well should.
-
Would it have been possible to win all 7 without cheating - no.
"Did you even try?" would have been a good follow-up.
-
I'd have liked to have seen:
Do you feel remorse over attempting to destroy the professional careers of a numbers of cyclist, medical professionals and journalists who you have successfully sued for damages regarding allegations of drug use which you are now admitting to?
Are you going to pay the money back and formally apologise for every single one of those legal cases?
Do you think you should be prosecuted for your actions, given the huge amount of courtroom hours wasted in legal cases to serve no purpose other than to extend the myth and make you very wealthy?
Forget the cheating for a second, lots of people have done it in sport and either got away with it or been caught and punished, what makes Armstrongs case so sickening is the way he went about trying to cover it up for such a long time, forget lifetime bans, the fucker should be making military helmets and number plates for the rest of his life. Pure scumbag.
-
Part 2 is tonight- you may see some of that, or not.
-
Paul Kimmage is on Today FM at the moment talking about this, and is meant to be on Off the Ball later on newstalk (www.newstalk.ie), highly recommend tuning in, it's a brilliant sports show.
-
Sorry but Kimmage is an arsehole Ger, just my opinion.
-
I'm interested how he could use UK laws to sue the Sunday Times for printing something which was the truth. The law needs changing. Also in the case where he sued his sponsors to pay TdF win bonuses I'm pretty sure he stated under oath that he never took performance enhancing drugs. Is this not perjury? Doesn't that mean he should be in prison?
Finally there was no mention of whether he told doctors of the drugs he was on when being diagnosed with cancer. Betsy Andreu used this against Armstrong and she deserves an apology.
-
Sorry but Kimmage is an arsehole Ger, just my opinion.
I'd be interested why you think that Jon.
Kimmage in my book always came over as very bitter and twisted but I put this down to the frustration he must have felt through years of telling everyone that Armstrong and many others were cheating bastards and continuously battering his head against a brick wall.
I wouldn't blame him for feeling very vindicated just now.
-
In the USA Today newspaper yesterday they reckon Lying Lance is down to his last $150 million, if the sued all sue him back, he'll be on welfare by this time next year.
The Sunday Times took out a full page advert in the Chicago Herald yesterday laying out it's strategy in suing Lying Lance for every penny he has.
-
And to think I started off as a fan who so much wanted to believe the myth. He's now beneath contempt.
-
Sorry but Kimmage is an arsehole Ger, just my opinion.
I'd be interested why you think that Jon.
Kimmage in my book always came over as very bitter and twisted but I put this down to the frustration he must have felt through years of telling everyone that Armstrong and many others were cheating bastards and continuously battering his head against a brick wall.
I wouldn't blame him for feeling very vindicated just now.
Because he now thinks Wiggins is doping, and has stated that 'Wiggins is using the Armstrong blueprint for success' he got it right about Lying Lance but he's a bore now.
-
The Sunday Times took out a full page advert in the Chicago Herald yesterday laying out it's strategy in suing Lying Lance for every penny he has.
That would be one News International campaign I'd wholly heartedly support.
-
Sorry but Kimmage is an arsehole Ger, just my opinion.
I'd be interested why you think that Jon.
Kimmage in my book always came over as very bitter and twisted but I put this down to the frustration he must have felt through years of telling everyone that Armstrong and many others were cheating bastards and continuously battering his head against a brick wall.
I wouldn't blame him for feeling very vindicated just now.
As I say, bitter and twisted, probably finds it impossible to believe anyone can win clean, even now.
Because he now thinks Wiggins is doping, and has stated that 'Wiggins is using the Armstrong blueprint for success' he got it right about Lying Lance but he's a bore now.
This is true, but I reckon he just thinks thatSorry but Kimmage is an arsehole Ger, just my opinion.
I'd be interested why you think that Jon.
Kimmage in my book always came over as very bitter and twisted but I put this down to the frustration he must have felt through years of telling everyone that Armstrong and many others were cheating bastards and continuously battering his head against a brick wall.
I wouldn't blame him for feeling very vindicated just now.
Because he now thinks Wiggins is doping, and has stated that 'Wiggins is using the Armstrong blueprint for success' he got it right about Lying Lance but he's a bore now.
-
Sorry but Kimmage is an arsehole Ger, just my opinion.
I'd be interested why you think that Jon.
Kimmage in my book always came over as very bitter and twisted but I put this down to the frustration he must have felt through years of telling everyone that Armstrong and many others were cheating bastards and continuously battering his head against a brick wall.
I wouldn't blame him for feeling very vindicated just now.
Because he now thinks Wiggins is doping, and has stated that 'Wiggins is using the Armstrong blueprint for success' he got it right about Lying Lance but he's a bore now.
I have to admit that I'm not a close enough follower of cycling to know the full ins and outs of it, but I read an article on team sky that, if certain elements of it were true, would at least put questions over how squeaky clean they are. Due to the sport's history, it's hardly surprising people are suspicious. And I bet you there were plenty calling him an arsehole over the whole Armstrong issue too.....
-
I would love to read some of these allegations about Team Sky. Please post some links.
-
Here's the thrust of it (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx)
-
You could never say never, especially in a sport like cycling, but I would be absolutely flabbergasted if there was any doping within team sky, or specifically Wiggins. Sky were dominant in the last tour, but they've recruited brilliantly and have the best coaching team in cycling.
Wiggins and Brailsford both come across as much more convincing than Armstrong ever did in interviews and press conferences.
-
The Sunday Times took out a full page advert in the Chicago Herald yesterday laying out it's strategy in suing Lying Lance for every penny he has.
That would be one News International campaign I'd wholly heartedly support.
To be honest, I do feel sorry for Armstrong's children, who will have to deal with the ramifications of their fathers actions for the rest of their existence.
They don't deserve that.
-
Sky were dominant in the last tour, but they've recruited brilliantly and have the best coaching team in cycling.
I don't think Wiggo is cheating, but you need the best people around you whether you are clean or not. Let's not forget, even without the cheating, Armstrong was one hell of an athlete.
-
Here's the thrust of it (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx)
There's a hell of a lot of Kimmage's opinion in that, which isn't backed up by facts.
I firmly believe Team Sky are clean, I also believe the main reason Wiggins didn't want a journalist recording everything was that they've made a lot of advances in the training and team tactics, why would they give that all away to a journalist before they'd even proven it as successful. Kimmage has never accepted that and seems hell bent on hassling Wiggins because of it.
-
Here's the thrust of it (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx)
There's a hell of a lot of Kimmage's opinion in that, which isn't backed up by facts.
I firmly believe Team Sky are clean, I also believe the main reason Wiggins didn't want a journalist recording everything was that they've made a lot of advances in the training and team tactics, why would they give that all away to a journalist before they'd even proven it as successful. Kimmage has never accepted that and seems hell bent on hassling Wiggins because of it.
In that series on Sky where they followed the team about for a season they were so determined to come across and kept saying that they were clean. Brailsford's motto - if you like - was all about the marginal gains involved. For example he wanted to make sure they slept well so they'd take mattresses with them on tour and strip the hotel bedrooms. To paraphrase he said "if Lance had channelled their effort into those things rather than a convoluted ways of supplying himself with drugs then the benefits many have been just as good".
Didn't Wiggo also quit a team when it was discovered that their lead cyclist was doping?
I just hope that the whole sport is cleaner now (everyone is that little bit slower) and Team Sky's marginal gains are the difference.
Remember also that Brailford's tentacles transcend the Team GB cycling as well (who are doing brilliantly). This covers everyone from the BMX girl to Sir Chris Hoy. Surely there would be a mole in the camp that large if doping was prevalent.
I can't see it, but would be gutted if it was true.
-
Here's the thrust of it (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx)
There's a hell of a lot of Kimmage's opinion in that, which isn't backed up by facts.
I firmly believe Team Sky are clean, I also believe the main reason Wiggins didn't want a journalist recording everything was that they've made a lot of advances in the training and team tactics, why would they give that all away to a journalist before they'd even proven it as successful. Kimmage has never accepted that and seems hell bent on hassling Wiggins because of it.
Quite, he's a spoilt little brat who had his toys taken away from him, he can do one.
-
You could never say never, especially in a sport like cycling, but I would be absolutely flabbergasted if there was any doping within team sky, or specifically Wiggins. Sky were dominant in the last tour, but they've recruited brilliantly and have the best coaching team in cycling.
Wiggins and Brailsford both come across as much more convincing than Armstrong ever did in interviews and press conferences.
That's the tragedy of it, there is always going to be that suspicion around any cyclist who achieves major success. They can't get away with the "bad apple" argument any longer. For what it's worth, I agree with you about Wiggins but the succession of scandals means that there is a shadow over the sport that will take years to escape from.
-
Sky were dominant in the last tour, but they've recruited brilliantly and have the best coaching team in cycling.
I don't think Wiggo is cheating, but you need the best people around you whether you are clean or not. Let's not forget, even without the cheating, Armstrong was one hell of an athlete.
The 4 years 93-96 he withdrew from the tour 3 times and finished 36th one year, granted he had some success in the Spring classics & a few US events but not a hell of an athlete really.
-
Dear ITV
I have been an avid watcher of the Tour de France for many years now and greatly enjoy the coverage on ITV. I do now think its time to freshen up the commentary team of Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwin. These two have been on the coverage for years and I feel both have been too closely associated with the doping era and in particular the American teams of Lance Armstrong.
For many years Phil stood by Armstrong when most cyclist enthusiasts knew he was guilty and I feel this undermines the integrity and objectivity of Liggett and once a journalists loses these there is nowhere else to go.
Sherwin was once a professional cyclist during times of extensive drug taking (but before Armstrong and EPO). For the sport to move forward we need to move away from this era and anyone tainted by the past should not be part of the future. This is an ethos extolled by team sky. Unless Sherwin is prepared to come clean about what went on and what he saw, he will remain part of the omertà, an enabler if you like. This is what cycling should move away from.
Thanks for the excellent coverage otherwise.
Regards etc
-
For many years Phil stool by Armstrong
Ewwwww! Even if he is a drug cheat there's no need for that.
-
For many years Phil stool by Armstrong
Ewwwww! Even if he is a drug cheat there's no need for that.
Thanks for spotting it, now changed.
-
The tour without Liggett and Sherwin is like formula 1 without Murray Walker.
They even use them on the US coverage!
-
Dear God...no !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21120453
-
I'm with you Dr, it will just be a Lying Lance propaganda film.
-
An American competing in a strange land,
finds that to compete, he must do things
he never dreamed of.
Every success has its price.
But one man was willing to pay.
Telly Savalas Pictures presents:
Lance: Road of Justice
-
The tour without Liggett and Sherwin is like formula 1 without Murray Walker.
They even use them on the US coverage!
Agreed. They are brilliant. When we had to listen to the BBC's Hugh Porter during the Olympics you realise what a good job they do.
Hugh Porter was out of his depth in the road race. He sounded like he'd have problems recognising his own reflection in the bathroom mirror.
-
Going back to the Oprah interview, does anyone believe that he didn't get his failed drug test in the Tour de Suisse covered up by the UCI.
No matter how he puts it he failed. And the UCI accepted a back dated medical cert despite Armstrong declaring before the test he wasn't on any meds.
-
With regards to the honesty of Team SKY, in the Sunday Times there was an article by the journalist David Walsh (I think that's his name) where he has been offered full access by Brailsford. They're booking him rooms in the hotels, he's travelling in the bus, access all areas. The only rule "don't piss off the riders".
Unfortunately due to the Times' pay restrictions I cannot post it.
Fair play to Brailsford for being so open and ultimately good for the sport. Not so good for Team Sky as if there's no drugs then the journalist will find another angle to create a story.
-
I think every cycling journalist in the world is licking their lips at the prospect of Froome v Wiggins for the rest of the year, there won't be any need to go looking for any other story.
-
I think every cycling journalist in the world is licking their lips at the prospect of Froome v Wiggins for the rest of the year, there won't be any need to go looking for any other story.
Are you suggesting that Wiggins will not accept being #2 to Froome with good grace?
-
Not sure about good grace, there's no reason on earth why Wiggins should be #2 to the Froome dog this year or in fact for the forseeable.
-
i think Brailsford is sufficiently a switched on to ensure they have non overlapping goals and can help each other. its been done before.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/384014_4630102995785_1493680482_n.jpg)
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/384014_4630102995785_1493680482_n.jpg)
Quality
-
If you have a spare hour or two today flick Eurosport on to watch the Paris-Roubiax race. It should finish around 3:30pm Its brutally hard as there are so many cobbled roads that they ride on. Makes for great viewing (so much so that I am in France at the finish line!).
-
If you have a spare hour or two today flick Eurosport on to watch the Paris-Roubiax race. It should finish around 3:30pm Its brutally hard as there are so many cobbled roads that they ride on. Makes for great viewing (so much so that I am in France at the finish line!).
Highlights ITV4 at 9. Spartacus!
-
Spartacus (Cancellara) won. it was a great race that ended in a sprint in the Velodrome where we were. What a day. It was sunny, the Juplier was cheap, and we blagged our way into the middle for the finish. Just got home now (thanks Eurostar). Thats a sport theat reminds me of football 20 years ago.
-
Check out Yoann Offredo's crash yesterday. Fackin' nails.
-
The Broom Wagon on Paris - Roubaix, some broken men here.
http://nos.nl/video/493569-de-achterkant-van-de-hel.html
-
Got a spare 78mil, Lance? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/22276536)
Ouch, though it says in the small print that 'whistleblower', and Yellow Jersey winning cheat, Floyd Landis, can expect 15-25% of any damages..
-
I'm not sure we'd be where we are today without Landis' whistle blowing.
-
I woke up this morning safe in the knowledge that I've won just as many Tour de France titles as Lance Armstrong.
-
...and you're not a liar and a cheat (are you?)
-
Fair enough, I'm deleting that comment.
-
I think that's over the line.
-
Should be interesting to see how Team Colombia perform at the Giro, a team packed with climbers, they'll attack at every opportunity in the climbs, should be a stiff challenge to Wiggo's Giro ambitions.
-
Agree about Colombia. Looking forward to the Giro a lot. Looking forward to seeing Contador in le Tour too. Apparently his training at Godolphin is going well. Boom, boom!
-
Gonna start a new thread to keep the proper cycling with proper cyclists out of the thread about the drug cheat.
-
On a related note Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell test positive for drugs, sick of all this really.
-
On a related note Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell test positive for drugs, sick of all this really.
Very very depressing especially as Gay requested previously that he be tested at additional times.
As Brendan Foster said many years ago 'if Zatopek won 3 Golds nowadays who would believe it was clean?
Then again Cycling and Athletics seem to catch them. Football and Tennis I think have serious flaws in the number of tests especially out of competition.
-
It's very sad that so many feel the need to ruin sport.
-
Gay's quote is an interesting one. Does this mean he trusted someone in the sense that they promised he'd never get caught, or that they duped him into using banned substances?
"I don't have a sabotage story... I basically put my trust in someone and was let down," he said.
"I know exactly what went on, but I can't discuss it right now.
"I hope I am able to run again, but I will take whatever punishment I get like a man."
Do people think the testers now have a new bit of kit / advanced methods? With Armstrong and Fuentes "on trial" they'd probably be quite keen to disclose information to absolve their guilt.
-
Certainly some of the pharma companies are now starting to help provide information and testing methods for some of their products that could provide an advantage.
-
Those quotes from Gay read like he was told there was nothing he'd get banned for in whatever he was given. The cynic will suggest he should have known that means they don't test for it well, the naive will think he took it to mean it was legal.
Knowing which is correct requires you to know who gave him it and what they told him. Will be interesting to hear how this pans out.
Not sure what to think of Powell, I don't think he was taking drugs earlier in his career, maybe falling so far behind Bolt has got to him.
-
Why not make it illegal for pharmaceutical companies to supply products which are likely to be used by sportsmen, without a test being available? In cycling CERA was used by cyclists who didnt think a test was available and then Ricci got caught.
-
Why not make it illegal for pharmaceutical companies to supply products which are likely to be used by sportsmen, without a test being available? In cycling CERA was used by cyclists who didnt think a test was available and then Ricci got caught.
Because most of these substances are used quite legally for medicinal purposes by people who aren't professional sportsmen.
-
Why not make it illegal for pharmaceutical companies to supply products which are likely to be used by sportsmen, without a test being available? In cycling CERA was used by cyclists who didnt think a test was available and then Ricci got caught.
Because most of these substances are used quite legally for medicinal purposes by people who aren't professional sportsmen.
Indeed. I don't remember any pharmaceutical companies advertising a new product as making you run really really fast with none of the pesky side effects of positive drug tests!!
-
Ex-Lax?
-
I've said many times before that i did not believe that jamaica could produce this many of top class world leading sprinters. The odd one or two maybe but for a small island in teh caribbean it is not possible to produce what they are producing. i thought it was clear as anything that drugs were involved. I doubt that all the cheats have been found eiher.
-
Can anyone think of a top performing Jamaican who has yet to be caught?
-
just the best one.
-
It is a worry, but innocent until anything is found. The only thing with Bolt is than he's a completely different body shape to other sprinters.
-
just the best one.
Bolt was running faster than most top sprinters at age 15. It would be sad to think anyone would get caught up in doping as a child. So I believe he is clean. He also has a different physique to the others, which offers a more palatable explanation of his speed.
-
Bolt also seems a bit too down to earth to be doing anything dirty. He just comes across as a guy who realised when he was young that sprinting for a living was easy, fun and could make him money. The first bit is the key, I don't think he'd be a sprinter if it wasn't easy. Just watch him in interviews, he's so different to most top sportsmen (more so when he was younger to be fair), he always came across as someone who'd be just as happy selling drinks in a beach bar, so long as it was fun and easy, he just doesn't fit the profile of the average doper (who tend to be the guys who've trained the hardest and pushed as far as they can but have come up just short).
-
Bolt may well turn out to be a cheat, who knows, but it does seem like these other top guys - Powell, Gay - resorted to cheating because they knew there was no other way to compete with Bolt. It must be a nightmare to be a world class sprinter who isn't Bolt.
-
Bolt may well turn out to be a cheat, who knows, but it does seem like these other top guys - Powell, Gay - resorted to cheating because they knew there was no other way to compete with Bolt. It must be a nightmare to be a world class sprinter who isn't Bolt.
Or you could accept the fact that someone else is faster than you and be proud of what you do achieve. These guys may or may not be judged as cheats, but if they are, then their reputations are ruined and they still didnt beat Bolt. Surely a clean silver medal would have meant more to an athlete than a dirty one.
-
I don't know. its difficult for Jo Public to put themselves in the shoes of a professional sportsman. If you've spent your whole life practicing one spot and how you perform dictates how much money you get/your quality of life and you line up with the best natural ability, you look down the line and see 7 competitors on drugs who you know you could beat on a level playing field - who amongst us would accept clean 8th?
-
Those quotes from Gay read like he was told there was nothing he'd get banned for in whatever he was given. The cynic will suggest he should have known that means they don't test for it well, the naive will think he took it to mean it was legal.
Knowing which is correct requires you to know who gave him it and what they told him. Will be interesting to hear how this pans out.
Haven't WADA said/legislated that athletes are 100% responsible for whatever is found in their bodies? Thats why I'm always a bit cynical/wary of accepting the old 'my coach/doctor/whoever said take this and I trusted them' - because they all know the risks involved.
And this is how relaxed Usain Bolt is - celebrating his World Championships victory in Berlin:
(http://imageshack.us/content_round.php?page=done&l=img703/4593/if3l.jpg)
-
Another Jamaican fails drug test.
-
There's a great book called Bounce which looks at the reasons why certain athletes/people excel at sport/life.
There's a chapter in the book where he talks about the systematic use of steroids in East Germany. Unfortunately I can only find a wiki summary but the story therein of Heidi/Andreas Kreiger is all you need to know about why performance enhancing drugs should never be used.
I wish someone would make a documentary (or film) on the him/her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Krieger
-
Its a pity because Yohan blake may well be injured. I just don't believe him, or any jamaican sprinter. Granted Usain Bolt may be a freak of nature but I still doubt it.
-
There's a great book called Bounce which looks at the reasons why certain athletes/people excel at sport/life.
There's a chapter in the book where he talks about the systematic use of steroids in East Germany. Unfortunately I can only find a wiki summary but the story therein of Heidi/Andreas Kreiger is all you need to know about why performance enhancing drugs should never be used.
I wish someone would make a documentary (or film) on the him/her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Krieger
Brilliant documentary on East Germany here, with an interview about Andreas Krieger:
http://youtu.be/3dFdKjhgt3k
-
The Lying Lance movie has a title - The Armstrong Lie
http://road.cc/content/news/89238-long-awaited-lance-armstrong-movie-be-released-year-armstrong-lie
-
The volte-face in Dodgeball is going to be an uncomfortable watch now, that's for sure. They should film an insert with Vince Vaughn saying "We may be average, but at least we're clean, you donkey-fuck."
-
A Jamaican footballer failed a drugs test following a World Cup qualifier against Honduras on 11 June.
It is a further blow to sport in the country after sprinters Asafa Powell and Sherone Simpson tested positive for the banned stimulant oxilofrine last month.
The Jamaican Football Federation (JFF) has confirmed it had been informed by Fifa of the positive result.
An internal investigation has been opened by the JFF.
Jamaica lost the qualifier 2-0 in Honduras.
-
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/athletics-wada-chief-furious-jamaica-stonewalling-013215054--spt.html
No smoke without fire?
-
Poacher turns gamekeeper maybe?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/24724501
-
Ryder Hesjedal ''admits'' to doping over 10 years ago.
Now does anyone actually believe it was for a very short period such a long time ago?
Apparently he confessed to Wada sometime early this year. This in my eyes is only because Rasmussen came out and said he was telling everything and he shit himself. I would have thought more of him if he'd come out in public and admitted the whole truth rather than keep it in the shadows for as long as he could.
Definately cannot see him having ridden on Discovery and Phonak (both massive doping squads) without being juiced, which makes his story exactly that, a story.
I really do pity the clean ones.
-
I can't wait for 10 years time when we find out who's juicing now.
The sport is a farce.
-
I think it is time for the authorities to start from scratch. A year zero. Give an amnesty for a certain period. All individuals, teams, helpers with knowledge or anything to admit can come forward and reveal EVERYTHING. In return there is no punishment.
Anyone not revealing information about themselves or others outside of this period are subject to a lifetime ban in the sport. Be it as a rider or anything to do with the running of a team.
Maybe that is the only way we can end these false testimonies. Nearly everyone who comes out speaks about things they did outside of the statute of limitations for the sport, so nothing can really be done about it. We are meant to believe that after 2006 virtually everyone stopped, we are being taken for idiots.
-
Poor old Lance...my heart is really bleeding, especially after reading this:
theguardian.com, Monday 11 November 2013 10.13 GMT
Lance Armstrong
Lance Armstrong said he would testify with '100% transparency and honesty' at any doping inquiry. Photograph: Michael Paulsen/AP
Lance Armstrong has questioned the validity of cycling's inquiry into doping and complained that he had "experienced massive personal loss... while others have truly capitalised on this story".
"Do I think that this process has been good for cycling?" he said in a BBC interview. "No. I don't think our sport has been served well by going back 15 years.
"I don't think that any sport, or any political scenario, is well served going back 15 years. And if you go back 15 years, you might as well go back 30."
However, the disgraced former seven-times Tour de France winner said he would testify with "100% transparency and honesty" at any future inquiry after the new president of the UCI, Brian Cookson, announced an independent commission to get to the bottom of drug use in the sport.
The United States Anti-Doping Agency had accused him of conducting "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme sport has ever seen" and Armstrong said he would be prepared to take any punishment as long as it was on a level playing field: "If everyone gets the death penalty, then I'll take the death penalty.
"If everyone gets a free pass, I'm happy to take a free pass. If everyone gets six months, then I'll take my six months."
But he bemoaned the cost to himself, both in terms of his reputation and the threat to his own personal fortune, estimated to be around £78m.
"It's been tough," he said. "It's been real tough. I've paid a high price in terms of my standing within the sport, my reputation, certainly financially because the lawsuits have continued to pile up.
"I have experienced massive personal loss, massive loss of wealth while others have truly capitalised on this story."
-
Transparency first and deal wih any potential lightening of sanctions after.
he said his Oprah interview would be no holds barred but didn't name anyone.
Lie to me once - bad on you lie to me twice - bad on me.
-
Poor old Lance...my heart is really bleeding, especially after reading this:
theguardian.com, Monday 11 November 2013 10.13 GMT
Lance Armstrong
Lance Armstrong said he would testify with '100% transparency and honesty' at any doping inquiry. Photograph: Michael Paulsen/AP
Lance Armstrong has questioned the validity of cycling's inquiry into doping and complained that he had "experienced massive personal loss... while others have truly capitalised on this story".
"Do I think that this process has been good for cycling?" he said in a BBC interview. "No. I don't think our sport has been served well by going back 15 years.
"I don't think that any sport, or any political scenario, is well served going back 15 years. And if you go back 15 years, you might as well go back 30."
However, the disgraced former seven-times Tour de France winner said he would testify with "100% transparency and honesty" at any future inquiry after the new president of the UCI, Brian Cookson, announced an independent commission to get to the bottom of drug use in the sport.
The United States Anti-Doping Agency had accused him of conducting "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme sport has ever seen" and Armstrong said he would be prepared to take any punishment as long as it was on a level playing field: "If everyone gets the death penalty, then I'll take the death penalty.
"If everyone gets a free pass, I'm happy to take a free pass. If everyone gets six months, then I'll take my six months."
But he bemoaned the cost to himself, both in terms of his reputation and the threat to his own personal fortune, estimated to be around £78m.
"It's been tough," he said. "It's been real tough. I've paid a high price in terms of my standing within the sport, my reputation, certainly financially because the lawsuits have continued to pile up.
"I have experienced massive personal loss, massive loss of wealth while others have truly capitalised on this story."
He really is a prick.
-
He's still adamant he wasn't doping in 2009 ;D
-
COTHO
-
COTHO
I had to google that.
And yes he is.
-
COTHO
I had to google that.
And yes he is.
I guess you're not familiar with www.velominati.com? Try the Lexicon for some fantastic roadie slang.
-
Saw David Walsh in Cambridge yesterday evening. He gave a talk on his book - 7 deadly sins, which is about him chasing the lance story. Powerful stuff and he talks well. I was impressed with his dogged dedication. He said that he was convinced that Armstrong was a fraud from his first post cancer races onwards. Worth going to see him if he is local to you.