Bye Lance

[spesh]

so the riders who might benefit from LA's loss are themselves proven or suspected drug cheats

(Assuming USADA can force UCI's hand) - yes    Though LA probably falls into the "suspected" category;  Ullrich too (AFAIK) never failed a test ...

Rhetorical question:  how low down the results list do you go (in the post-Festina, Armstrong era) in order to be confident of finding a clean rider?

On that basis, there's little point in "stripping" LA of his wins; even if that were to happen, in the eyes of many he'd still have "won". 

Better (maybe) as others have suggested, just to draw a line through the entire period, with a footnote saying "Some results may have been performance-enhanced, but the effect of this on standings cannot be quantified; but hey - wasn't it all exciting?" 

It's almost funny, but I did see a number of comments elsewhere during this year's TdF about how dull the racing was because of a lack of riders launching themselves up the mountains a la Armstrong or Pantani, and then you have people creaming their pants over Contador's attacking riding in la Vuelta.

Never mind the doping, feel the entertainment...

[Toady]

I find myself oddly unconcerned by a lot of this.  If LA had been busted while he was winning I'd have felt cheated, but I enjoyed the Armstrong era, even though LA was never my favourite rider.  Now,  really, even if they had film of Lance shouting "hey, inject more really illegal drugs in my butt right now, man!  I can't win without them!" it wouldn't change the fact that I enjoyed that era, but it's over.  I'm more interested in what's going on now.

Rhetorical question:  how low down the results list do you go (in the post-Festina, Armstrong era) in order to be confident of finding a clean rider?

On that basis, there's little point in "stripping" LA of his wins; even if that were to happen, in the eyes of many he'd still have "won". 

Better (maybe) as others have suggested, just to draw a line through the entire period, with a footnote saying "Some results may have been performance-enhanced, but the effect of this on standings cannot be quantified; but hey - wasn't it all exciting?" 

^ agree very much with this.

[simonp]

so the riders who might benefit from LA's loss are themselves proven or suspected drug cheats

(Assuming USADA can force UCI's hand) - yes    Though LA probably falls into the "suspected" category;  Ullrich too (AFAIK) never failed a test ...

Rhetorical question:  how low down the results list do you go (in the post-Festina, Armstrong era) in order to be confident of finding a clean rider?

On that basis, there's little point in "stripping" LA of his wins; even if that were to happen, in the eyes of many he'd still have "won". 

Better (maybe) as others have suggested, just to draw a line through the entire period, with a footnote saying "Some results may have been performance-enhanced, but the effect of this on standings cannot be quantified; but hey - wasn't it all exciting?" 

It's almost funny, but I did see a number of comments elsewhere during this year's TdF about how dull the racing was because of a lack of riders launching themselves up the mountains a la Armstrong or Pantani, and then you have people creaming their pants over Contador's attacking riding in la Vuelta.

Never mind the doping, feel the entertainment...

Refers to yesterday's Vuelta stage:

(click to show/hide)

The difference I noticed is that (so far) Contador's attacks have proved unsuccessful. Sky's ride at the end of yesterday's stage was much more believable because Froome used two riders to pace him and both buried themselves before he launched, and he was still caught before the line.

People who are tempted to dope need to know that they won't be allowed to get off the hook.

[citoyen]

He's faced, not with physical proof that he took drugs...

Except those failed tests that he apparently didn't fail because he got a note from his mum. Or a complicit doctor. Whatever.

This isn't some Schroedinger's cat situation - we know the evidence exists because the USADA have built a case on it, and Lance is effectively admitting that their case is a strong one by his refusal to fight it.

Anyway, I somehow get the feeling that the True Believers will continue to find reasons to question the evidence even after it has been published (as Tygart says it will be) and they've seen it with their very own eyes.

d.

[spesh]

As usual, the Inner Ring has a good piece on the latest developments.

http://inrng.com/2012/08/lance-armstrong-quits/

I just love how Hein Verbruggen is described as "Honorary President" of the UCI.

[Exit Stage Left]

People also need to know who to put their faith in. Someone in a Jersey decorated with the logos of multi-national companies, being paid hundreds of thousands of Euros to draw attention to the sponsor's message during a lull in the sporting season is not going to be the most appropriate vehicle for our hopes and fears

[simonp]

Remember there's the 1999 tour samples that were re-tested and then linked to Armstrong

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

There is no B sample to compare with but this is not consistent with Lance being clean.

[RJ]

As usual, the Inner Ring has a good piece on the latest developments.

http://inrng.com/2012/08/lance-armstrong-quits/

I just love how Hein Verbruggen is described as "Honorary President" of the UCI.

Yes, that's a good piece.

But play the café contest of reviewing past results and only two riders from the top five in the Tour de France from 1999-2005 were never linked to doping, the late André Kiviliev and Haimar Zubeldia and this still doesn’t mean much so it feels unsatisfying to see those linked to doping scandals being awarded the win.

If you think it is a joke to award the result to Jan Ullrich, Fernando Escartin or Joseba Beloki then the same logic dictates it is a farce for Armstrong to keep the win because he was doing the same. At the same time we can take some tiny satisfaction the rules are being applied to the letter, a refreshing change. But away from the rules the moral lesson is that there are no winners and those who could be declared a winner never stood on the podium, never wore yellow in Paris or made millions from the glory. They remain losers, it’s a farce, so don’t dwell on it.

And on Armstrong's statement:

I don’t think his statement helps him as much of it doesn’t add up. It reads like bluster. Far from demonstrating a “witch hunt” he appears to quote Judge Sparks when it suits but ignores the basic premise of the judges ruling: USADA is the legitimate body. The agency was only cited for weak paperwork. But Armstrong’s statement is for wider public consumption and if some of us have the time to examine it against rulings from Federal courtrooms, most don’t and many will pick up the persecution vibe as he tries to claim he’s the victim not than the perpetrator.

[TimC]

He's faced, not with physical proof that he took drugs...

Except those failed tests that he apparently didn't fail because he got a note from his mum. Or a complicit doctor. Whatever.

This isn't some Schroedinger's cat situation - we know the evidence exists because the USADA have built a case on it, and Lance is effectively admitting that their case is a strong one by his refusal to fight it.

Anyway, I somehow get the feeling that the True Believers will continue to find reasons to question the evidence even after it has been published (as Tygart says it will be) and they've seen it with their very own eyes.

d.

I think there is some merit in not playing with the results but applying a general 'we think these results were achieved with pharmaceutical help', as it's impossible now to know who doped and who didn't - and anecdotal evidence suggests that all the contenders did, so taking a Tour from one doper and giving it to another seems highly unsatisfactory. By all means let us see the evidence against Armstrong, but (if the evidence is conclusive) I think it would be misleading to suggest that he was the only culprit, or even one of a few.

[docsquid]

I think there is some merit in not playing with the results but applying a general 'we think these results were achieved with pharmaceutical help', as it's impossible now to know who doped and who didn't - and anecdotal evidence suggests that all the contenders did, so taking a Tour from one doper and giving it to another seems highly unsatisfactory. By all means let us see the evidence against Armstrong, but (if the evidence is conclusive) I think it would be misleading to suggest that he was the only culprit, or even one of a few.

I think that is the only fair thing to do - just asterisk the results (e.g. all those who have had doping penalties applied have an asterisk against their names, and people can draw their own conclusions).  Most of the top 10 in most of these years subsequently had doping issues, and since we don't really know who was doping, with what, or when, then retrospectively awarding the win to anybody else is difficult - Evans, Zubeldia, Sastre and Kivilev aside (unless I have missed something, and there are questions over them as well!).  Trying to untangle all of this now is not going to be helpful.

[Ray 6701]

Yep!  Just have a look at the top 10 in 2000.  Pick a clean rider out of that lot 

1   Lance Armstrong (USA)  US Postal Service  92h 33' 08" 
2   Jan Ullrich (GER)  Telekom  +6' 02" 
3   Joseba Beloki (ESP)  Festina  +10' 04" 
4   Christophe Moreau (FRA)  Festina  +10' 34" 
5   Roberto Heras (ESP)  Kelme  +11' 50" 
6   Richard Virenque (FRA)  Polti  +13' 26" 
7   Santiago Botero (COL)  Kelme  +14' 18" 
8   Fernando Escartín (ESP)  Kelme  +17' 21" 
9   Francisco Mancebo (ESP)  Banesto  +18' 09" 
10   Daniele Nardello (ITA)  Mapei  +18' 25" 

[spesh]

Yep!  Just have a look at the top 10 in 2000.  Pick a clean rider out of that lot 

1   Lance Armstrong (USA)  US Postal Service  92h 33' 08" 
2   Jan Ullrich (GER)  Telekom  +6' 02" 
3   Joseba Beloki (ESP)  Festina  +10' 04" 
4   Christophe Moreau (FRA)  Festina  +10' 34" 
5   Roberto Heras (ESP)  Kelme  +11' 50" 
6   Richard Virenque (FRA)  Polti  +13' 26" 
7   Santiago Botero (COL)  Kelme  +14' 18" 
8   Fernando Escartín (ESP)  Kelme  +17' 21" 
9   Francisco Mancebo (ESP)  Banesto  +18' 09" 
10   Daniele Nardello (ITA)  Mapei  +18' 25"

Going from a Cycling Weekly article, and allowing for more recent info:

Armstrong - fingered by USADA
Ullrich, Beloki, Botero and Mancebo - named in Operacion Puerto documents, Ullrich also popped for an OOC amphetamine positive.
Moreau, Virenque - Festina affair
Heras - popped for EPO at the 2006 Vuelta a Espana, which he had won. Stripped of that race win and banned for two years

Which leaves Escartin and Nardello...

We could discard Escartin because former Kelme  rider Jesús Manzano exposed systematic doping in the team in an interview in 2004. Although Escartin left Kelme at the end of the 2000 season, we can't be sure how far back from 2004 any team-wide doping was going on for.

Thus Nardello might possibly be the moral victor of the 200 TdF.

The following blog post shows why trying to rewrite the post-LeMond/Indurain years is fraught with difficulty. See just how far down the GC the author had to go to get a plausibly clean top 10!

http://cypresstrees.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/revised-tour-de-france-top-10-clean.html

[andyoxon]

wiki has...

In June 2012, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) officially charged Armstrong with the consumption of illicit performance enhancing drugs,[6] based on blood samples from 2009 and 2010, and testimonies from other cyclists. On August 23, 2012, Armstrong announced that he would not be fighting the USADA's charges.[

I haven't read all the thread or even much on LA, but in summary how are they about to strip him of TdF titles from 99-05, based on "testimonies from other cyclists"?  Are there actually no test results positive for this time?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Only dim athletes get caught, beating the tests is pretty easy. Off-season testing is more useful than in-competition testing but that is difficult to carry out on a small island or other isolated area without tipping off your quarry. How many biopassport prosecutions have there been recently and indeed, why has biopassport testing dropped recently? Even if you are caught, the 'favoured few' get a pass from the UCI and/or their national organisation.

I wonder why there aren't more positives...

As has been said previously on this forum, corroborated witness testimony is plenty good enough for a murder trial. Why isn't it good enough to be sure LA is a doper?

[rogerzilla]

If the witnesses are lying they could end up doing bird for a long time, in a US prison.  Therefore they're probably telling the truth.

It's interesting to look up what happened to Greg LeMond when he suggested Armstrong might not be clean (shortly after Armstrong's comeback).

[spesh]

Only dim athletes get caught, beating the tests is pretty easy. Off-season testing is more useful than in-competition testing but that is difficult to carry out on a small island or other isolated area without tipping off your quarry. How many biopassport prosecutions have there been recently and indeed, why has biopassport testing dropped recently? Even if you are caught, the 'favoured few' get a pass from the UCI and/or their national organisation.

I wonder why there aren't more positives...

Why the biopassport program isn't prosecuted as aggressively as it could, or ought to, be is best explained in the following story on Cycling News:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vroomen-and-ashenden-criticise-lack-of-biological-passport-testing

It basically boils down to the sheer legal costs, time and effort that would arise if the program caught a significant number of riders. When you consider how long some popped dopers have dragged out their cases before being finally sanctioned...

Like Vroomen, Ashenden raised the issue over funding. The 18 ProTeams currently pay 120,000 Euros to be part of the testing pool. While there is no set guidelines on how many tests each rider or team should face, a lengthy gap is still a concern. Ashenden is tasked with only analyzing data given him to the UCI that they feel could be threatening to the sport’s credibility. If he is given data that has potentially missing data his task becomes harder.

“I don’t know whether it’s a funding issue. But obviously it’s true that the passport cases that have been prosecuted so far took an enormous amount of time and energy and money. I don’t pretend to be Nostradamus, but at the Play the Game conference in 2007 I did flag the possibility that legal costs could prove a major obstacle if we ever introduced a passport that actually caught a lot of athletes.”

“Using a hypothetical example, if 10% of 800 riders are doping and you introduce a test that catches all of them, you are going to be confronted with a legal bill for 80 doping cases in your first year. Common sense tells you that this is untenable for any federation to absorb. I’m still not sure if the anti-doping world have gotten their heads around that problem yet.”

See also:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-speaks-out-on-leaving-biological-passport-panel
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-ashenden-resigns-from-ucis-biological-passport-panel

[spesh]

It's interesting to look up what happened to Greg LeMond when he suggested Armstrong might not be clean (shortly after Armstrong's comeback).

And check up what happened to Frankie Andreu and his wife. It goes some way to explaining why most Americans on the Cycling News forum positively despise Armstrong.

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/5-questions-betsy-andreu

[citoyen]

I think there is some merit in not playing with the results but applying a general 'we think these results were achieved with pharmaceutical help', as it's impossible now to know who doped and who didn't - and anecdotal evidence suggests that all the contenders did, so taking a Tour from one doper and giving it to another seems highly unsatisfactory. By all means let us see the evidence against Armstrong, but (if the evidence is conclusive) I think it would be misleading to suggest that he was the only culprit, or even one of a few.

You're conflating two slightly separate issues. The USADA's case against Lance is about whether or not he was involved in systematic doping and fraud. They don't really care about the TdF titles - they aren't theirs to take away from Lance; that's for ASO to decide. But in any case, taking the titles away from Lance doesn't necessarily have to mean giving them to someone else.

This is all idle speculation anyway. I have no comment to make about the specific details of the USADA's evidence against Lance because I haven't seen it. But I take the fact that Lance is refusing to fight as a fairly strong indicator that he knows they have a good case against him.

Anyone who persists in the belief that there is no evidence against Lance is only deluding themselves.

d.

[Cudzoziemiec]

This, according to the Times of India

I like the source - the interactive ads are entertaining!

[LittleWheelsandBig]

spesh, I know the problem with the biopassport is money. If you don't want to catch dopers, don't fund anti-doping. Teams don't want their riders to be identified as dopers, so don't want it to be more effective.

[citoyen]

we don't really know who was doping, with what, or when, then retrospectively awarding the win to anybody else is difficult - Evans, Zubeldia, Sastre and Kivilev aside (unless I have missed something, and there are questions over them as well!).  Trying to untangle all of this now is not going to be helpful.

Kivilev is an interesting case and highlights some of the problems with retrospective analysis of the results. It would be pretty distasteful to go after him but would it be safe to assume he was riding clean?

d.

[spesh]

spesh, I know the problem with the biopassport is money. If you don't want to catch dopers, don't fund anti-doping. Teams don't want their riders to be identified as dopers, so don't want it to be more effective.

In this instance, I'll defer to Jonathan Vaughters - the following is an excerpt from an interview with Bicycling magazine (my bold):

http://www.bicycling.com/print/67431

You mentioned we’re in a better place than we’ve been in, but in the op-ed you also mentioned better enforcement. What do we need?

Listen—I personally think that there are a few steps to take. Some that are for optics reasons and some for real reasons. Money is a big one. I feel that despite that everyone bitches and moans that anti-doping costs a lot, race promoters complain about this, but teams fund most of it. And as president of the teams union I feel we need more funding (for anti-doping). Race organizers are the most profitable entity in the sport in Europe, but ASO puts less than one percent of its profits to anti-doping. They need to put in a much larger sum of money. But there’s hesitation. Why? Because everyone wonders if their money is being used efficiently and correctly. Right now you have the governing body of the sport, which is promoting the sport worldwide and running its own races, and they do anti-doping. There should be greater funding and greater separation of church and state.

That’s not to say that Francesca Rossi shouldn’t be doing what she’s doing. She should absolutely do it. But maybe ultimate auditory power comes from WADA or a third party. UCI anti-doping is doing a good job, but when I go to team managers and say, ‘We should put in more money,’ I almost get spit in my face. They’re like ‘Fuck that. Why would I put in more money to an organization that only seeks to hurt my team? Not through anti-doping, but by forcing us to do races they make money off of, by imposing regulations that are counterproductive to sponsorship and to innovation in sport. This is an organization that is fundamentally hurting my organization over and over again, and I’m supposed to contribute more money to THEM? Forget about it!’ There are conflicts of interest that need to be resolved. I think every team in cycling would be willing to double their contribution and the race promoters would too if they absolutely trusted the process. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect, but they trust the process. It’s irrelevant whether there’s truth to it, but if there’s not trust to it it doesn’t work.

[Séamas M.]

In this instance, I'll defer to Jonathan Vaughters - the following is an excerpt from an interview with Bicycling magazine (my bold):

http://www.bicycling.com/print/67431

That Vaughters interview is very good. I was impressed by his reasoning against legalised doping and his description of the variation in effectiveness of doping for different athletes.

I'm one of those who really wanted Armstrong to be clean. I can remember watching the Nike ad where he rode past a group of child cancer patients and thinking "you'd better be clean, you bastard". I lost faith in him a  long time ago, my Livestrong bracelets have been replaced by Bike-Pure.

[welshwheels]

 there have been around 100 TDFs now, I reckon you can void most, like 90% of them. Let's start with the first one in 1903: he took the train. 1904: "Stories spread of riders spreading tacks on the road to delay rivals with punctures, of riders being poisoned by each other or by rival fans. Lucien Petit-Breton said he complained to an official that he had seen a rival hanging on to a motorcycle, only to have the cheating rider pull out a revolver". Now that is proper cheating, racing with a gun. Do they make carbon fibre guns?   I am sure most of the top riders in the peleton at the moment are doping they just have better products to mask the EPO or whatever other crap they are taking !! TBH the racing was better when they were all drugged up to their eyeballs 

[rogerzilla]

In the good old days of Merckx and Anquetil there was fairly widespread use of amphetamines to keep them going (stages were longer) and pretty much everyone was doing it; I'm not sure what the testing regime was like back then.  If there is a sliding scale of doping then whizz is probably at the lower end of the scale, as it's a temporary effect and doesn't change the body composition and simulate extra training, like the more modern drugs (testosterone, HGH, and EPO).

It's odd that caffeine is controlled for most sports but not cycling.  A lot of caffeine is like a mild amphetamine and diuretic rolled into one.  I'm not sure if sodium bicarbonate is controlled; apparently if you take a large dose just before a TT, it helps buffer the lactic acid.  You pay for it later on the toilet, though - if you make it to the toilet on time, that is.