Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Freewheeling => Racing => Topic started by: Rhys W on 03 July, 2010, 05:52:53 pm
-
This time in great detail, impeccably timed as usual: Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLETopNews)
-
He's completely lost the plot in a David Icke fashion.
-
Really? I find this latest outburst, in all it's detail, strangely credible. ???
-
Credible? I have no difficulty believing any of it.
Doping is pretty normal for TdF winners (Landis, Riis, Pantani, Ullrich etc )
-
Sorry I don't find them credible. The French hate Lance with a passion. If a French lab could find test him positive they would. There would have be an incredible conspiracy over seven years if he had been doping and all those test came back clean. Don't like Lance that much personally but Landis is a bitter man hitting out at anyone he can.
-
You have to remember that there was no test for epo until recently, and a retrospective test of Armstrong's urine contained it. Prior to this any organised athlete could beat the tests. Landis's comments bring together the various rumours that have been circulating for years.
I also think it highly likely that the huge sum of money that Armstrong donated to the UCI, but subsequently forgot about was not just a mere donation. Landis implies that Armstrong had an inside man giving notice of surprise blood tests. The AFDL complinednlast year that Armstrong's team were getting preferential treatment in doping controls, such as being given time to do other things before being controlled.
What Landis is saying ties in perfectly with the evidence Kohl gave in regard to how athletes can cheat the controls and even the blood passport.
I think Armstrong will disappear after or even during this tour.
-
Landis could well be speaking the truth, but the manner of his pronouncements makes him unbelievable following his own doping scandal (sue everyone, write a book about it then admit you were doping anyway).
He just looks like a nutter now.
-
.... but Landis is a bitter man hitting out at anyone he can.
He's bitter because he got caught doing what he knows others are doing and getting away with, as he did when at US Postal.
Landis isn't the only ex-Postal rider to get caught doping, surely that has to be more than a coincidence and, I for one, find his accounts very believable.
-
Sitting here I can't think of any very big names who have recently been caught out by testing positive (apart from Landis). Even Millar didn't test positive. He, Basso, Valverde, and Ullrich were all caught by being implicated in doping through discovery of blood bags or products.
That tells you something about dope testing. It only catches the small-fry who don't have the funds to organise themselves.
-
Nutrition is taking something that hasn't been banned yet.
-
Nutrition goes in through the mouth 'ole, not the needle. ;)
It's a credible story, but so is a lot of fiction, especially when run through a reporter to create a narrative (fighting that awful house style!).
Landis has changed his detail so much he's lost all claim of truthfulness IMO. Pretty story? Yes. Compelling evidence? Not a chance. Well-timed bitter smear? Looks a lot like it, hein?
-
Landis has changed his detail so much he's lost all claim of truthfulness IMO. Pretty story? Yes. Compelling evidence? Not a chance.
This time it is a little different, not just another doping saga and Jeff Novitzky who works as a federal agent for the Internal Revenue Service is actively working on the case because of possible fraud offences if US Postal used government sponsor money for buying drugs. It means all those interviewed will be subject to criminal proceedings if they lie during interview. Novitzky headed the Balco drug investigation which ended some top track athletes careers and put others involved in prison. This investigation is in a completely different league to the UCI or WADA.
-
This confrontation between Armstrong and Paul Kimmage last year is instructive.
YouTube
- Armstrong had a heated discussion with former pro Paul Kimmage.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPJj056zsyw)
-
What does it instruct us?
-
That Kimmage makes a living by stirring up cycling doping stories..... and that Armstrong is a very canny PR operative
-
We knew that already.
-
Considering the UCI has managed to get the French doping agency sidelined and there were so many stories I am ready to believe that doping is endemic. Doping is not in the interest of the UCI as it lessen their revenues so there is scope for collusion with the well off teams.
He has been caught when he moved to a less "professional" team who didn't know how to handle doping and defend its riders. Amstrong made a very well c oordinated counter offensive each time he's been accused.
-
What does it instruct us?
The moral basis that Armstrong is coming from, doping is neither here nor there for him. Millar gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Armstrong can respect his honesty in admitting to it, but at that point he has no less respect for Landis or Basso. Kimmage never reached an accomodation with drugs in the peleton, so he's the perpetual whistle-blower, relying on his moral integrity. Armstrong is quite rightly affronted by Kimmage's careless use of the C word, who can't sympathise with that? I think it shows why Armstrong is such a great 'Patron', he knows what buttons to press and anything he has done in the past is justified in the inspiration it has given to cancer sufferers.
In all I would be happier with a strong division between amateur and Pro riding, and the Olympics for amateurs. I do like the Tour, but I don't expect it to be won on mineral water.
-
I understood Armstrong did take EPO though, as part of his post-cancer rehabilitation therapy (since chemotherapy destroys red blood cells along with many other things). That was all perfectly legal and above board, since he wasn't competing at the time, nor was he expected to compete again.
EPO doesn't hang around in the blood for very long though, so by the time he started serious training it should have been long gone, as would any performance-enhancing benefits.
-
In all I would be happier with a strong division between amateur and Pro riding, and the Olympics for amateurs. I do like the Tour, but I don't expect it to be won on mineral water.
There is just too much money to be made in professional sport. With means disproportionate to the controllers', it is possible for them to go through the net. Stop watching it and the tour will become a fair competition!
French sponsors have reduced their commitment to the tour as they realise that French people are loosing interest.
-
I don't think that Armstrong could be said to have betrayed his public, even if he did dope. He is one of the people who have cheated death with the aid of medicine and he's won the Tour de France multiple times as inspiration. There's a different moral connection there than with fans who want their hero to have been 'clean'. The people who feel the greatest connection with Lance don't abhor drugs, they just want them to work. I don't think Lance can ever be 'shamed', which makes him less vulnerable.
-
There's so much jealousy of Armstrong that it really stinks.
He's spent a decade fending off constant accusations from the French cycling press (without them providing anything substantive). Every shamed rider says "Lance does it you know?" (Except they got caught and Armstrong, the most tested athlete in history, didn't).
Landis tested positive for being a total arse. Why would I believe Landis? (He even lied to supporters to get financial support for his appeal despite knowing he was guilty)
Armstrong is accused of being "canny" with his PR or having "coordinated counter-offensives" when he is accused. What else is he supposed to do? I have never heard Armstrong saying anything I would describe as offensive, he just comes across as extremely focussed and forthright.
Put up or shut up I say. Provide the evidence of guilt or sit in silence.
Supposing he's innocent and you witnessed one of the greatest sporting achievements ever.
7 tours! Not even the drug-cheats managed that.
So much jealousy.
-
Put up or shut up I say. Provide the evidence of guilt or sit in silence.
He's never been caught but he's not above suspicion:
Lance Armstrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong)
In October 2008, the AFLD gave Armstrong the opportunity to have samples taken during the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France retested. Armstrong immediately refused, saying, "the samples have not been maintained properly." Head of AFLD Pierre Bordry stated: "Scientifically there is no problem to analyse these samples - everything is correct" and "If the analysis is clean it would have been very good for him. But he doesn't want to do it and that's his problem."
-
You have to remember that there was no test for epo until recently, and a retrospective test of Armstrong's urine contained it. Prior to this any organised athlete could beat the tests. Landis's comments bring together the various rumours that have been circulating for years.
What this proves is that the double blind safety systems to ensure testing is anonymous and that the testers have no clue who's samples they are handling. The codes for the samples should be hold only by the national or international sports bodies.
Any idea of having your old samples tested is really risky for an athlete as well. If there is any doubt over the sample storage conditions, the chemistry of the storage bottles, anything really that might throw up a false positive. Why would you take the risk?
-
There's so much jealousy of Armstrong that it really stinks.
He's spent a decade fending off constant accusations from the French cycling press (without them providing anything sunstantive). Every shamed rider says "Lance does it you know?" (Except they got caught and Armstrong, the most tested athlete in history, didn't).
Landis tested positive for being a total arse. Why would I believe Landis? (He even lied to supporters to get financial support for his appeal despite knowing he was guilty)
Armstrong is accused of being "canny" with his PR or having "coordinated counter-offensives" when he is accused. What else is he supposed to do? I have never heard Armstrong saying anything I would describe as offensive, he just comes across as extremely focussed and forthright.
Put up or shut up I say. Provide the evidence of guilt or sit in silence.
Supposing he's innocent and you witnessed one of the greatest sporting achievements ever.
7 tours! Not even the drug-cheats managed that.
So much jealousy.
Jealousy doesn't come into it. There is a tonne of evidence.
But you are right, why pick on him rather than any of the other contenders who are just as fishy.
-
....why pick on him....
Because he's worth it. :-* :demon:
-
Anyone else noticed how the previously vociferous Wiggins has become a little more tempered in his opinions?
-
Of course, given how many knives are out for Armstrong, it'd hardly be surprising if he expected his stored samples to be tampered with.
Swansong tour, then he's out of your hair and off to Kona. What will Floyd moan about next year?
-
Anyone else noticed how the previously vociferous Wiggins has become a little more tempered in his opinions?
Is that perhaps because the Sky management have him on a shorter leash? I'm guessing that's why he's tweeting less these days.
-
Remember that Landis isn't just moaning. He is doing this in the full knowledge that it is sparking a federal investigation that will likely lead to him having to testify in court.
Clearly he has lied about his own innocence before but accusing somebody else is a different proposition
-
Lying in court is lying in court. The boy's an unreliable witness, unless fresh evidence presents itself.
This "using federal funds to buy droogs" angle is deliciously cynical. It makes the whole thing sound so much more villainous than "using sponsor funds", doesn't it?
-
Smell the coffee Lance-o-philes.
-
*chortle*
-
Lying in court is lying in court. The boy's an unreliable witness, unless fresh evidence presents itself.
Except that he was lying before about his proven doping and now he is telling the truth.
Or are you suggesting that he was always innocent, mistakenly found guilty and now his admission of guilt is a lie?
:)
-
I think we are saying that he's proven to have lied before, so anything he says now must be taken with a very very large pinch of salt.
-
Right, so are you taking his admission of doping with a pinch of salt?
-
Frankly I'd have trouble believing him on a current weather report. Especially if Lance was nearby. Landis is an Unreliable Narrator, and no silly logic games will change that.
-
So he was lying when he said he was innocent, and he was also lying when he said he was guilty
;D
Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day
-
We aren't saying that. Stop trying to twist words.
We are saying that he lied, then was caught out. So he admitted he'd lied, and then came out with very outlandish stories, and claimed "Oh, I was lying through my face before, but now I'm a little cherub of the lord and everything I say is the word of truth, as spoken by me, the ordained truthsayer, Landis."
Give it a rest, please, Flatus.
-
I know exactly what you are saying. You are parroting the line spun by Armstrong, Bruyneel and the UCI in their attempts to undermine Landis's credibility. Standard PR tactics, but I grant you exceptionally easy in this case as Landis's credibility is seriously undermined by his repeated denials.
I believe him though. I didn't four years ago but this is a different issue.
As LWaB says, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. There is a mountain of evidence against Armstrong, ranging from failed dope test to the testimony of the Andreus, to aAshenden pointing out that Armstrong's blood profile is dodgy as hell
That is the context in which you need to consider whatLandis is saying
-
You are parroting the line spun by Armstrong, Bruyneel and the UCI in their attempts to undermine Landis's credibility.
No I'm not, because I've never read it.
I've read the news articles about and interviews with Landis.
-
Most of the articles I've read about Landis's allegations quite naturally include the response from Armstrong and Bruyneel
-
So he lied. That much has been pretty obvious for years.
Now he has admitted he was lying. I believe that.
And he made some allegations which would tend to tally with a lot of other circumstantial evidence.
Do I believe him because I believe he is a 'little cherub of the Lord'? No. And I don't believe all he's saying. I do treat it with a degree of skepticism. But I am reasonably sure there is some truth in what he's said.
It just doesn't follow that just because he's told lies in the past, he tells lies every time he speaks, as Lance et al would have you believe. That's nonsense, and it would mean that probably everyone on this forum could never be trusted at all. But nor is it right to assume that, now Landis has told the truth on one issue, he will be truthful across the board.
Newsflash: Landis is human; so is Armstrong.
-
There's a huge benefit, for all the drug-cheats, for Lance Armstrong to be found guilty of cheating as well.
It would almost wipe their slates clean, they'd be out of the cycling press and their "crimes" would be forgotten in the media frenzy surrounding Armstrong's guilt.
The "Floyd Fairness Fund" raised around $1,000,000 from fans' donations to his legal fund. A fund used to defend his innocence in court (despite him later confessing to his own guilt).
Landis is a copper-bottomed wanker of the highest order. He's a cheat (taking performance-enhancing drugs is one thing but taking people's money on false pretences is another), he's a liar and now, just to add insult to injury, he's now acting like a 5 year-old "Tell Tale" to make himself seem less of a wanker...FAIL.
I do feel sorry for the UCI though, they are trapped between a rock and a hard place. If Lance was found to be a drugs cheat then, what little remains of, pro-cycling's credibility would be completly lost. a 7 year chunk of it's history would be wiped from history as an irrelevance. They'd have trouble selling the TdF brand after that.
I think they'd rather not find out if Lance was doping now. He'll be gone in a year. Destroy all his past samples, consign him to the hall of fame and move on.
Would we really want to investigate what Eddie Merckx used to "perk him up" whilst slogging up the Tourmalet?
-
+20 to clarion and Lee
-
Omertà is a wonderful thing...
-
…it's tyres are made out of rubber…
-
…it's tyres are made out of rubber…
:-)
The wonderful thing about Riggers.
-
;D
-
The UCI doesn't sell the TdF brand, ASO does... but you are kind of missing the point, the credibility of the sport has already been stretched to breaking point by the actions of the dopers getting caught... which is why the UCI doesn't want them caught (see the current battles between UCI vs WADA and ADFL)
German tv pulled out after Ullrich and Zabel, the French are losing interest too.
Armstrong has become a liability for the sport.
-
I wonder where we stand in regard to the general attitude to drugs. These things are cyclical, the Chemical Generation of the 90s were evangelical about medication. Is the zeitgeist now more about authenticity and integrity? I don't see a lot of either commodity in sport, certainly professional cycling would be an unlikely place to search for purity and truth.
-
I think the whole scene changed with the advent of epo, not only in terms of the huge margin of advantage it bestowed but in the cost implied on running a successful test-defying
programme. The doping practices of the pre-90s were a little more egalitarian in terms of access and benefits
-
Laurent Fignon is of the opinion that pre 1990 doping could not make a non champion grade rider into a champion but EPO can.
-
The "Floyd Fairness Fund" raised around $1,000,000 from fans' donations to his legal fund. A fund used to defend his innocence in court (despite him later confessing to his own guilt).
He has not confessed to using testosterone in the 2006 tour he is still denying it.
-
One problem with the 2006 test was that the anomaly was not raised testosterone levels, instead there was a high ratio between two testosterone types, and that by virtue of one component being very low rather than the other being raised.
It sort of ties in with his not using testosterone but doing some other work that screwed up the ratio. Probably pissed him off in the same way that Capone might have felt after being jailed for tax evasion.
-
Query: if blood doping is as common as Landis says, wouldn't all the dopers have nice obvious track-marks all over their bodies? Or am I missing something?
-
Query: if blood doping is as common as Landis says, wouldn't all the dopers have nice obvious track-marks all over their bodies? Or am I missing something?
Tour riders use intravenous apsirin as an anti-inflammatory, any legal drugs are better administered in that way to avoid stomach problems. Audax riders do a similar thing by using Ibuprofen gel. Of course the team can put other stuff into the riders without them knowing, or tell the riders they have received something special for a placebo effect. These lads are not neccesarily very bright.
-
The UCI doesn't sell the TdF brand, ASO does... but you are kind of missing the point, the credibility of the sport has already been stretched to breaking point by the actions of the dopers getting caught... which is why the UCI doesn't want them caught (see the current battles between UCI vs WADA and ADFL)
German tv pulled out after Ullrich and Zabel, the French are losing interest too.
Armstrong has become a liability for the sport.
Why is Armstrong a liability? This always assumes that he has/does cheat.
Under these circumstances, anyone in the peloton who has tested negative, but performed well (Cancellara?) is also a liability.
You have to accept that the testing regime has constraints, but that it does detect people cheating. Therefore it does work.
Just because it doesn't give you a positive result for the person you want it to find positive is not a bad thing it just means that as a sporting rule it's working.
That person has either found a way around the testing regime, or they're not actually cheating.
Given the range of testing techniques applied and the period that they've been running you'd have to argue that someone who can keep ahead for years and years and years is either employing some pretty smart chemists to test himself constantly to make sure what he does is undetectable, or more worryingly, getting someone else to take stuff and then see if it can be detected, or they're simply not cheating.
Apply Occam's razor to that and the easier conclusion is that on the balance of probabilities either there's a huge hole in the way testing is carried out, or...
-
Dope tests are developed reactively, therefore the dopers are one step ahead of the testers. Landis, whether you believe him or not, Frei and Kohl have explained how it is possible to elude the blood passport and the test for epo. There are some pretty big names in dope testing now questioning the efficacy of the blood passport. Of course those running it have a vested interest in denying this.
-
Pantani was detected because he acted like an idiot against the advice of his team. Armstrong is a very focussed and disciplined individual, and a great rider. A great brand. And a great liability.
-
A question.
Do you want the dopers caught, or do you want to stop them doping?
Personally, I think there's not a lot we can do with regards to what has already happened.
However, if we can drive them to the point where the technological challenges of doping become so great that staying ahead of the testing is really, really difficult then I think that is already a good achievement.
I'd also like to see evidence that other sorts are trying as hard as cycling. Football. Tennis. Rugby etc.
-
The problem has arisen because they've had to integrate the circus that is the Tour into the same moral framework as the Olympic Games, I don't think that the ethos of the Tour can be made to fit the Corinthian ideal. I don't have much of a problem with Armstrong doping within the context of the Tour, the riders who lose out are the ones who have to ride all year round to make a crust, but ultimately the Tour is about stories and Armstrong v Cancer has been too strong to jettison.
-
For what tennis is doing, you could look to what has happened in operation Puerto. Tennis & Football stars were implicated, but only cycling seems ot have done anything at all.
Nadal.
-
What interests me about Armstrong is how much interaction there has been between his cancer doctors, the drug company Bristol Myers Squibb and his racing doctors. If we accept that he is medicated to help him win, could the resultant data be of interest to the drug companies. Would medical confidentiality cover this overlap?
Bristol-Myers Squibb - Lance Armstrong - 7 Years Ago (2004) 0:30 (USA) commercials | Adland.tv (http://adland.tv/commercials/bristol-myers-squibb-lance-armstrong-7-years-ago-2004-030-usa)
-
What interest me is how many people want him to be guilty.
-
That is a bit weaselly. I don't want him to be guilty but I think he is. There is a huge difference.
-
What interest me is how many people want him to be guilty.
He won his first Tour when George Bush was Governor of Texas, Armstrong was living in Austin, he was then identified with Bush until he distanced himself over Iraq. That made him a target for bloggers and he has remained that ever since.
-
The problem has arisen because they've had to integrate the circus that is the Tour into the same moral framework as the Olympic Games, I don't think that the ethos of the Tour can be made to fit the Corinthian ideal.
I think I'd agree with that. I rather enjoy the spectacle of pro cycling, warts and all.
-
That is a bit weaselly. I don't want him to be guilty but I think he is. There is a huge difference.
Didn't mean you specifically Flatus.
-
Well no, but that's like an Armstrong line of defence. I used to feel quite laissez-faire about the whole thing, feeling that in some curious ways there was an egalitarianism about cheating, but the stuff that has come out about him and his tactics, even extending to getting Trek to disadvantage Lemond's bike business (which GL fought and won) makes me think that the guy has too much money and power and using Kimmage's words, is a cancer in cycling.
It is funny how money talks. Remember when Armstrong retired, and the scandal over his retrospectively tested piss blew up? The former boss of the tour said that Armstrong had hoodwinked everyone.
Now that he is back, and with all the US media money he brings to ASO, this seems to have been forgotten.
What pissed me off is that there is a good chance that his donation to the UCI was a bribe, and that what the AFDL says about LAs team getting preferential treatment at tour dope tests is true. If is is then he and Bruyneel are a terrible corrupting influence... and this is supposed to be sport.
-
Never had him pegged as a nice guy. Certainly seems to hold a grudge.
-
Well well well.
As I thought, this is going to run.
The first grand jury subpoenas have been issued to witnesses.
It will be interesting to see which way this case does go....
-
I rather enjoy the spectacle of pro cycling, warts and all.
Same here. Though yesterday's stage left a sour taste in the mouth.
d.
-
Same here. Though yesterday's stage left a sour taste in the mouth.
They both ride Specialized, it must be that pro fit seup makes all the difference they looked so fresh :) especially compared to Sanchez and Voigt who looked close to complete exhaustion.
-
Same here. Though yesterday's stage left a sour taste in the mouth.
Why? I find all this cynical dismissal of any reasonably successful performance very depressing.
-
Reasonably successful? That was waaaaay beyond "reasonably successful".
And to do that after similar performances on Saturday and Sunday's stages?
d.
-
Same here. Though yesterday's stage left a sour taste in the mouth.
Why? I find all this cynical dismissal of any reasonably successful performance very depressing.
Exactly, I don't know why people bother watching any sport if any exceptional performance is seen as suspicious.
Innocent until proven guilty or we may as well immediately consign Mark Cavendish, Bradley Wiggins and Chris Hoy to the "cheats bin".
-
That is quite a dumb comment in the light of Pantani, Ullrich, Basso, Vino, Landis, Hamilton,Ricco, Valverde, Heras, Di Luca, Zabel, Riis, Petacchi etc etc etc etc
-
That is quite a dumb comment in the light of Pantani, Ullrich, Basso, Vino, Landis, Hamilton,Ricco, Valverde, Heras, Di Luca, Zabel, Riis, Petacchi etc etc etc etc
Dumb? Why is it dumb?
I'm not saying I think all cyclists have been or will be clean, I'm asking why people watch things they can't enjoy.
A previous poster implies he would have preferred Schleck and Contador to go slower, to make it more believeble for him. Going that quickly left a nasty taste in his mouth, they were too quick. All the joy has gone. (Drug taking cyclists are to blame for this of course)
Dumb is when you sit watchng something for no obvious reason.
If I thought Schleck and Contador were doping then I'd turn off, the TdF would be pointless viewing.
I actually watched them in admiration.
If you think every exceptional performance is clearly drug fuelled then it's totally pointless, and dumb, watching sport any more. All the joy has gone . Watching sport is surely about the joy of seeing exceptional performace.
Usain Bolt? How could you enjoy that? He was too quick, obviously on drugs.
Chris Hoy? Drug cheat, he must be, it's too suspicious.
The logical conclusion is simply banning anyone who breaks a world record.
Innocent until proven guilty. Just enjoy it until then (or change channel)
-
Dumb is when you sit watchng something for no obvious reason.
I was enjoying it until yesterday. My interest has diminished considerably. It's still a great spectacle, but all pretence that it's a race has gone out of the window.
Usain Bolt? How could you enjoy that? He was too quick, obviously on drugs.
Chris Hoy? Drug cheat, he must be, it's too suspicious.
You're begging the question. I never said that all exceptional performances must be down to drugs, and the suspicion of cheating isn't in itself the reason why yesterday's stage bothered me.
d.
-
I see that Lance is doing some preparatory backtracking in advance of the investigation into US Postal..
Armstrong Willing To Co-operate With Doping Investigation | Cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-willing-to-co-operate-with-doping-investigation)
-
You'd better be careful saying things like that! The fanboys will turn up mob handed and accuse you of loving cancer
-
He's completely lost the plot in a David Icke fashion.
agree completely.
shame they found the key to his padded cell just before the tour started ::-)
-
You might agree, but the U.S. government doesn't seem to, but hey.... what would they know?
-
You might agree, but the U.S. government doesn't seem to, but hey.... what would they know?
Is this the same US government who thought Saddam had WMDs? ;)
d.
-
Food and Drug Administration.
As far as I know, Lance Armstrong isn't sitting on top of a huge supply of oil, but if you can think of an ulterior motive let us know ;D
-
You might agree, but the U.S. government doesn't seem to, but hey.... what would they know?
Is this the same US government who thought Saddam had WMDs? ;)
d.
you mean they don't have WMD ??? OMG someone tell tony blair b4 its too late!
-
If I thought Schleck and Contador were doping then I'd turn off, the TdF would be pointless viewing.
I actually watched them in admiration.
If you think every exceptional performance is clearly drug fuelled then it's totally pointless, and dumb, watching sport any more. All the joy has gone . Watching sport is surely about the joy of seeing exceptional performace.
Usain Bolt? How could you enjoy that? He was too quick, obviously on drugs.
Chris Hoy? Drug cheat, he must be, it's too suspicious.
The logical conclusion is simply banning anyone who breaks a world record.
Innocent until proven guilty. Just enjoy it until then (or change channel)
+1
-
If I thought Schleck and Contador were doping then I'd turn off, the TdF would be pointless viewing.
I actually watched them in admiration.
If you think every exceptional performance is clearly drug fuelled then it's totally pointless, and dumb, watching sport any more. All the joy has gone . Watching sport is surely about the joy of seeing exceptional performace.
Usain Bolt? How could you enjoy that? He was too quick, obviously on drugs.
Chris Hoy? Drug cheat, he must be, it's too suspicious.
The logical conclusion is simply banning anyone who breaks a world record.
Innocent until proven guilty. Just enjoy it until then (or change channel)
+1
Be best if you turned off now! I enjoy it anyway.
-
There is a very interesting interview with Lemond in a german paper. He concludes that Armstrong retired in 05 because of the news of his positive tests were coming out and because of hostility towards him from Patrice clerc high up in aso. He alleges clerc was removed to facilitate armstrong's return in 09.
He alledges that Armstrong had/has the uci and aso eating out of his hand.
That last point seems likely since dope test rules were waived in order for Armstrong to return last year, and all sorts of stuff that would have led to a non-invite by aso to the tour have been ignored eg. The transfusion gear found in Astana bins last year.
What is undeniable is that Armstrong has brought with him unprecedented wealth into cycling.
-
There is a very interesting interview with Lemond in a german paper. He concludes that Armstrong retired in 05 because of the news of his positive tests were coming out and because of hostility towards him from Patrice clerc high up in aso. He alleges clerc was removed to facilitate armstrong's return in 09.
He alledges that Armstrong had/has the uci and aso eating out of his hand.
That last point seems likely since dope test rules were waived in order for Armstrong to return last year, and all sorts of stuff that would have led to a non-invite by aso to the tour have been ignored eg. The transfusion gear found in Astana bins last year.
What is undeniable is that Armstrong has brought with him unprecedented wealth into cycling.
Unfortunately for Lance, the guy investigating Postal following Landis's claims was the guy responsible for Marion Jones' downfall:
Marion Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Jones)
It's going to be an interesting few months.
-
And we're off....
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-postal-investigation-gathers-pace (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-postal-investigation-gathers-pace)
-
And we're off....
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-postal-investigation-gathers-pace (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-postal-investigation-gathers-pace)
It's going to be interesting, I always thought Lance would somehow remain untouchable.
-
Hmmm... Marion Jones was a golden girl and she was sent to prison. Still, somehow, I think Lance will emerge unscathed, Blair-like. Most of them do.
Either way, it's going to be interesting.
-
An update from today
Bordry Prepared To Hand Over Armstrong's 1999 Tour De France Samples | Cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bordry-prepared-to-hand-over-armstrongs-1999-tour-de-france-samples)
-
Uh oh.
-
Just wait for the smokescreen! I don't know what do you think, samples that old aren't reliable? Or that old favourite the lab is incompetent. Nothing will stick.....
-
I don't know what you mean!
Lance Is INNOCENT! Don't you guys get it? Why are you so jealous of HIM? Those cheese-eating surrender monkeys will just NEVERR LET IT GO.
C'mon! That was then. Let's move on now. You still living IN THE PAST?
;)
-
I don't know what you mean!
Lance Is INNOCENT! Don't you guys get it? Why are you so jealous of HIM? Those cheese-eating surrender monkeys will just NEVERR LET IT GO.
C'mon! That was then. Let's move on now. You still living IN THE PAST?
;)
;)
And you have a point, does anyone really care any more? I don't.
-
The more that is known/prosecuted, the more chance for future doping to be detected/discouraged. I'd prefer there to be less doping in cycling than is currently the case.
-
^That^
-
The more that is known/prosecuted, the more chance for future doping to be detected/discouraged. I'd prefer there to be less doping in cycling than is currently the case.
Definitely to the second sentence, but only probably to the first, because it also tells the dopers more precisely what they can and can't do. Still, if they can catch more of the small fry who can't afford the ways and means to outdope the antidopers, hopefully - just hopefully - those caught will go on to be clean in racing.
-
The current investigation is after the biggest dopers of the last decade. Floyd's statement has already pointed out major weaknesses in the current testing regime. Couple that with the potential to clean out corruption in the UCI and real improvements may occur.
-
Even if they did catch Lance ( and I doubt it ), everyone will just say it was the past, the old guard, and its not like that now. That's why I don't really care.
-
Check for mysterious slumps in people's performances recently compared to previously. Doping is rife.
-
So once they've got Lance, when will they come for Eddie and Bernard? :demon:
-
Fine, they don't have blood and urine stored but they didn't have EPO anyway.
-
Different era, different drugs. EPO is the biggie. A bit of speed never gave anyone a 15% advantage day after day
-
An update from today
Bordry Prepared To Hand Over Armstrong's 1999 Tour De France Samples | Cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bordry-prepared-to-hand-over-armstrongs-1999-tour-de-france-samples)
Slight change of emphasis for the worse (for Armstrong)
French anti-doping chief wants to give Armstrong's 'B' samples to U.S. investigators | The Fabulous Forum | Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2010/09/french-anti-doping-chief-wants-to-give-armstrongs-b-samples-to-us-investigators.html)
-
"...looking into charges that there was systematic doping among professional cyclists,..."
Really? Hardly need to have 20/20 vision to look into the blindingly (sic) obvious. Have they nowt better to do?