Bye Lance

[Tigerrr]

Of course! How do you think that drug testing methods can come close to keeping up with ever-evolving avoidance techniques and drugs?

Hit dopers hard and be relentless, otherwise the rewards far outweigh the risks. The ones to hit the hardest are the ones that have the most to lose.

I don't think Lance has anything to lose. He will always have a drugs taint for some, whether he is found guilty or not. Others will always believe he was a great sporting hero, whether he is found guilty or not. The imagined stripping of his tour victories is ridiculous and won't change history, and is unlikely to have any financial implication. It might add a few asterisks to the record books, that's all.

The ones with the most to lose are the ones who stand a chance of winning things now. USADA are wasting time and resources chasing ancient history.

Lance is an iconic figure, he laid out a huge story that transcended cycling - he was much bigger than any of the events or possibly the sport itself. IN the3 USA - which is where anything that matters matters more than anywhere else - teh Tour only exists in the minds of people because he made it so. Indeed sport cycling's popularity in the USA today is probably an extension of his franchise.
In the USA he is a demigod, living proof that cancer can be beat, not just beat but triumphed over through clean living, sporting endeavour, and uniquely american competitive spirit. He's a brand that represents american excellence, and has potential to become a political leader etc. The other pros were employees in his team, treated as such, bit players in his brand building.
All of this is based on his emphasis on being drug free and beating the cheats (characterised as perfidious european trolls).  Thats the lynchpin that makes it work for the wider public and that's what would get him to e.g  the white house in due course.
If he's a cheat the whole brand is exposed as a con. That's important, because people in the USA totally believe in his brand - if its a cynical lie it really is a big deal - and its not about cycling. 

[Karla]

The penalty should be the same for everyone, Amateur, Pro, successful, unsuccessful, famous, infamous or anonymous.

I don't see that you CAN make the penalty the same. Every situation will be different. Banning Lance from all future tours would have rather less effect than banning Hincapie!

I think George is retiring this year isn't he?

[Ray 6701]

The penalty should be the same for everyone, Amateur, Pro, successful, unsuccessful, famous, infamous or anonymous.

I don't see that you CAN make the penalty the same. Every situation will be different. Banning Lance from all future tours would have rather less effect than banning Hincapie!

I think George is retiring this year isn't he?

It's his last TDF in any case.

[mattc]

The penalty should be the same for everyone, Amateur, Pro, successful, unsuccessful, famous, infamous or anonymous.

I don't see that you CAN make the penalty the same. Every situation will be different. Banning Lance from all future tours would have rather less effect than banning Hincapie!

I think George is retiring this year isn't he?

You're missing the point somewhat.

[red marley]

What I find depressing about Lance's underlings' involvement in doping (apart from the obvious aspect of riders I had respected turning out to be cheating) is that they will have known how damaging their collective behaviour would be to the sport. Sure they would have been under pressure to 'dope or quit', but given Lance's success and his iconic status (esp. in the US as Tigerr points out), doping "all the way to the top" does much greater damage than a Rasmussen or Vino or even Festina. In that respect a 6 month off-season ban seems rather lenient to me.

[citoyen]

In that respect a 6 month off-season ban seems rather lenient to me.

Don't forget that it hasn't actually been confirmed who is receiving what punishment. Or even who has given what evidence. Never mind the reliability of witnesses, we shouldn't read too much into De Telegraaf's story.

d.

[mattc]

Hincapie made the point that BMC had nothing to do with old doping offences.

Now you may not think that should let him get off lightly, but it is a fair point. (You could argue that BMC should be more careful who they hire, but then what about innocent-until-proven-guilty ?)

[spesh]

What I find depressing about Lance's underlings' involvement in doping (apart from the obvious aspect of riders I had respected turning out to be cheating) is that they will have known how damaging their collective behaviour would be to the sport. Sure they would have been under pressure to 'dope or quit', but given Lance's success and his iconic status (esp. in the US as Tigerr points out), doping "all the way to the top" does much greater damage than a Rasmussen or Vino or even Festina. In that respect a 6 month off-season ban seems rather lenient to me.

How many times do I have to say this - the story in De Telegraaf about certain riders getting post-dated six-month bans in return for dobbing Armstrong in was shit-stirring by, or on behalf of, those accused in the USADA letter. It's a fishing expedition aimed at flushing out USADA's witnesses so that they can be either intimidated into changing/retracting their testimony, or be subject to a campaign of character assassination by Armstrong's shills in the media.

[Nuncio]

Apparently Bruyneel has written a Tour de France column for De Telegraaf in the past and has written for it again today.  Is it the suggestion that he was an anonymous contributor yesterday as well, for the reasons Spesh has given?

[red marley]

How many times do I have to say this - the story in De Telegraaf about certain riders getting post-dated six-month bans in return for dobbing Armstrong in was shit-stirring by, or on behalf of, those accused in the USADA letter.

Fair enough. I've not been following the whole affair in enough detail to have spotted this. Let's hope it was only shit-stirring.

[citoyen]

Now you may not think that should let him get off lightly, but it is a fair point. (You could argue that BMC should be more careful who they hire,

Reading Millar's book, I was reminded of the fundamental difference between Sky and Garmin - both teams were founded on the philosophy of cleaning up the sport, but while Garmin took a pragmatic approach and knowingly signed reformed dopers such as Millar, Sky took a firm stance on not employing anyone with doping convictions, which is pretty much the only reason Millar didn't join his mate Dave.

Sky were regarded as a bit naive at the time but now in their fourth season, they have the favourite to win the Tour on their team while Garmin are still a likeable team of mainly also-rans...

Of course, you could say Sky have been less than entirely honourable in other ways - not least how they managed to acquire that Tour contender (from Garmin, ironically), and although none of their riders have ever been convicted of doping offences, suspicions have been raised about one or two of them in the past...

Sky are lucky that they have the finances that mean they can afford to have strong principles. On the matter of doping, at least.

but then what about innocent-until-proven-guilty ?)

Irrelevant. They aren't being tried in a court of law.

d.

[mattc]

but then what about innocent-until-proven-guilty ?)

Irrelevant. They aren't being tried in a court of law.

d.

Of course it's relevant! Noone gets banned on suspicion of doping.

Yes, there will be PR benefits to avoiding suspected dopers (or ban-served ones, I guess). But the fact is that suspected dopers can race, win you stages, support your GC rider etc. Until proven guilty.

[citoyen]

Noone gets banned on suspicion of doping.

Rasmussen.

d.

[mattc]

<sigh>

Yet more pedantry. The point is that he broke the rules.

[citoyen]

Yeah, the rule about behaving suspiciously wrt doping, ie there's an actual rule that says you can be banned for doing something that gives rise to suspicions of doping.

The point being that such a rule wouldn't stand up in a court of law for the reason you mentioned.

Ergo the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is irrelevant here. QED.

d.

[rafletcher]

How many times do I have to say this - the story in De Telegraaf about certain riders getting post-dated six-month bans in return for dobbing Armstrong in was shit-stirring by, or on behalf of, those accused in the USADA letter. It's a fishing expedition aimed at flushing out USADA's witnesses so that they can be either intimidated into changing/retracting their testimony, or be subject to a campaign of character assassination by Armstrong's shills in the media.

And you know this how? Just interested in your sources.

[rafletcher]

Noone gets banned on suspicion of doping.

Rasmussen.

d.

And I thought I'd read upthread that Armstrong has been "banned"?

[citoyen]

And you know this how? Just interested in your sources.

The USADA has confirmed that the story is baseless - see link upthread.

d.

[mattc]

The point being that such a rule wouldn't stand up in a court of law for the reason you mentioned.

Ergo the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is irrelevant here. QED.

d.

The point is, he was guilty of breaking a rule. that's how sport works.

until he broke the rule, he was innocent. Sounds like you just don't like the rule.

Anyway, what point are you trying to prove that has actual relevance to how Lance and/or Hincapie should be dealt with? That might be more useful to discuss than the above semantics!

[citoyen]

Anyway, what point are you trying to prove that has actual relevance to how Lance and/or Hincapie should be dealt with? That might be more useful to discuss than the above semantics!

You asked a question: "what about innocent until proven guilty?"

I answered it: there is no presumption of innocence in this context.

As already mentioned, Lance has been suspended from triathlon simply because he is under investigation.

As regards Hincapie, there's so far no reason for him to be suspended. He's not "innocent" because he hasn't been charged with anything.

d.

[mattc]

As regards Hincapie, there's so far no reason for him to be suspended. He's not "innocent" because he hasn't been charged with anything.

Yes he is. That's why he's racing (last time I checked - no spoilers please!).

If he couldn't race, BMC wouldn't hire him.

[citoyen]

Innocent of what?

d.

[mattc]

Innocent of what?

d.

Of any offences that would prevent him racing.

[Am I missing something here?]

[Honest John]

Haven't you lot got a bike race to watch ?

Sport - where you're presumed guilty unless proved innocent. In fact, presumed guilty at all times anyway, especially if you're any good.

And doesn't it occur to anyone that one Dutch newspaper may have an agenda other than disseminating fact? When was the last time a Dutchman won anything important?

[citoyen]

[Am I missing something here?]

Apparently.

Hincapie hasn't been accused of any offence, therefore he is neither guilty nor innocent of any offence.

He is Schrödinger's Doper, if you like.

Sorry if I seem to be making a bigger deal of your comment than it deserves, it's just a knee-jerk reaction any time someone trots out the old "innocent until proven guilty" chestnut. It's an irrelevant platitude.

d.