*The above is a statement. An opinion. Not an invitation to debate. I don't care what you think.*
The ultimate 'Marmite' . . . I like him.I very much doubt I'd like him much in person (but that applies to most top-level athletes - jealous, moi?). But I admire him a lot, and it's a great story, isn't it? :D
BTW my father is being treated for cancer with the same platinum based chemotherapy that was given to Lance. He's quite correct, there is no way anyone could confuse that shit with something 'performance enhancing'.
Two doses of that in a fortnight and he needs a week before he can stand.
Love or hate but above all respect.
*The above is a statement. An opinion. Not an invitation to debate. I don't care what you think.*
Is he retiring again?
That was then, this is now, let's move on.
;D
It's same old same old isn't it. It isn't very encouraging to realise that the people on the next step down on the podium from LA were nearly all proven dopers.
Question for Giropaul:
Did you come into contact with PEDs during your work with pro teams?
The ultimate 'Marmite' . . . I like him.
BTW my father is being treated for cancer with the same platinum based chemotherapy that was given to Lance. He's quite correct, there is no way anyone could confuse that shit with something 'performance enhancing'.
Two doses of that in a fortnight and he needs a week before he can stand.
Love or hate but above all respect.
And take those bloody long black socks with you >:(
And take those bloody long black socks with you >:(
I often wear black socks whilst cycling. But the only socks I ever wear are the ones that don't go above the ankle, so you can never see them anyway. Visible socks just don't look cool. In point of fact, they look about as cool as socks and sandals....
I often wear black socks whilst cycling. But the only socks I ever wear are the ones that don't go above the ankle, so you can never see them anyway. Visible socks just don't look cool. In point of fact, they look about as cool as socks and sandals....You're wearing girls socks. I hope you asked permission.
So cycling god or feet of clay and here we are discussing the fucking socks which covered those feet of clay
Armstrong's Urine Samples Requested By US Authorities | Cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-us-authorities)
Armstrong's Urine Samples Requested By US Authorities | Cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-us-authorities)
"I saw [EPO] in his refrigerator... I saw him inject it more than one time," Hamilton told the CBS programme 60 Minutes, "like we all did. Like I did, many, many times."
Book or no, I would trust Hamilton a lot more than Landis, who just has an ability to talk endless bollocks on a variety of subjects. Hamilton is a different kettle of fish, and is pretty definite about what he's seen (and done).
Short clip of Tyler's interview. (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6567923)
I can't honestly draw any conclusions from this, but he doesn't sound too sure of himself to me.
Is Hincapie discredited?
Report: Hincapie Tells Feds Armstrong Used Peds | WSLS 10 (http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/may/20/report-hincapie-tells-feds-armstrong-used-peds-ar-1053873/)
Is Hincapie discredited?
Report: Hincapie Tells Feds Armstrong Used Peds | WSLS 10 (http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/may/20/report-hincapie-tells-feds-armstrong-used-peds-ar-1053873/)
No he's not, it's getting more interesting.
My take is that he probably did, but he's now retired for good. Bust dopers who are still racing, stop hunting those who've finished. What good will it do?The sport needs to send a strong message to those racing now and in the future that if you dope you will be found out and you will be punished, even if the evidence of your doing so only emerges long after you've retired.
My take is that he probably did, but he's now retired for good. Bust dopers who are still racing, stop hunting those who've finished. What good will it do?
My take is that he probably did, but he's now retired for good. Bust dopers who are still racing, stop hunting those who've finished. What good will it do?
You could say that about any crime, I suppose. Assuming LA was a mega-doper, would he still have done so if he thought that a year after retiring he would be facing prison?
What benefit do you see coming from this?
My take is that he probably did, but he's now retired for good. Bust dopers who are still racing, stop hunting those who've finished. What good will it do?
What goes on inside your head if you won by cheating...
What goes on inside your head if you won by cheating...
True, but what if they are all cheating? If that was the case then they would justify it to themselves that they still beat others who were using the same stuff therefore still won.
The only reason Alexeev has beaten me in the past is because I couldn't afford his drugs bill. Now I can and we'll see who is better - his steroids or mine.
What goes on inside your head if you won by cheating...
True, but what if they are all cheating? If that was the case then they would justify it to themselves that they still beat others who were using the same stuff therefore still won.
A single dose of EPO increases your VO2max by 7%, I’ve been told. That’s huge.
<snip> What's amazing is that we haven't yet had (AFAIK) any betting scandals; race-rigging, mysterious withdrawals, etc.
I have no clue what my VO2Max is, butI bet it's pathetic;D
What goes on inside your head if you won by cheating...
True, but what if they are all cheating?
Pro cycling is a job; it's largely about making as much as you can in the time you've got. My view is that within the closed circle of the sport taking stuff is seen just like insider trading is seen in banking - not allowed , but we all know it goes on and probably most of us benefit from it.
Short clip of Tyler's interview. (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6567923)
I can't honestly draw any conclusions from this, but he doesn't sound too sure of himself to me.
He does come across very strangely there! Scared? Lying?
Pro cycling is a job; it's largely about making as much as you can in the time you've got. My view is that within the closed circle of the sport taking stuff is seen just like insider trading is seen in banking - not allowed , but we all know it goes on and probably most of us benefit from it.
An illuminating comment Paul..
True, but what if they are all cheating?
They are, still.
True, but what if they are all cheating?
They are, still.
I don't think that there are many who agree with you on that one.
True, but what if they are all cheating?
They are, still.
I don't think that there are many who agree with you on that one.
So is Contador clean now? Garzelli? Nibali? Cancellara?
I just don't buy it.
The days of cycle racing being an honest route to success for talented, working class Europeans are long gone.
The original point of a bike race was that it should extend beyond the travel distances of ordinary people, from one city to another so far away that it was only known by name.* But Géo Lefèvre's conception of the Tour de France was slightly different - a race so much longer than anything else that nobody else could top it. His boss Henri Desgrange saw the point clearly. He said a perfect Tour would be so hard that only one rider could finish.
It's hardly surprising that drugs became a feature from the start, given the gruelling conditions, the extravagant prizes (riders could win many times a workman's annual salary) and the rider's scant education. As long ago as 1896, "Choppy" Warburton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choppy_Warburton) was so strongly implicated in a supposed doping sensation at the Catford track in south London that he was banned for life.
Confused and erratic riding by Jimmy Michael (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Michael), Britain's first world champion was attributed to the effects of a bottle Warburton had been seen to give him. Warburton had also treated another Welshman, Arthur Linton, in Bordeaux-Paris in May 1896. Linton died two months later and his obituary in Cyclers' News, by 'one who knew him' says "I saw him at Tours, halfway through the race, at midnight, where he came in with glassy eyes and tottering limbs, and in a high state of nervous excitement... At Orléans at five o'clock in the morning, Choppy and I looked after a wreck - a corpse as Choppy called him, yet he had sufficient energy, heart, pluck, call it what you will, to enable him to gain 18 minutes on the last 45 miles of hilly road."
Paul Duboc of France was doped/poisoned during the 1911 Tour de France. He was favourite but collapsed in a ditch in the Pyrenees after drinking from a spiked/poisoned bottle, allegedly given by a rival team manager. He finished in second place.
...
In 1924, following their abandon of the Tour de France, the first real drug scandal arose when the Pélissier brothers gave an extraordinary interview to journalist Albert Londres. They said that they used Strychnine, cocaine, chloroform, aspirin, "horse ointment" and others drugs to keep going. The story was published in 'Le Petit Parisien' under the title 'Les Forçats de la Route' ('The Convicts of the Road') (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France#The_Convicts_of_the_Road). Francis is reported as saying "In short, we run on dynamite." Henri is reported as saying "Do you know how we keep going? Look, this is cocaine, chloroform, too. And pills? You want to see pills? Here are three boxes - We run on dynamite." Francis Pélissier said much later: "Londres was a famous reporter but he didn't know about cycling. We kidded him a bit with our cocaine and our pills."
...
The acceptance of drug-taking in the Tour de France was so complete by 1930 that the rule book, distributed by Henri Desgrange, reminded riders that drugs would not be provided by the organisers.
Apropos of nothing, the ultra-long audax rides are perhaps the nearest thing we have to what the early editions of the Tour were like, although any instances of "glassy eyes and tottering limbs, and ... a high state of nervous excitement." are more likely to be due to overdoing the expressos in an effort to beat the time limit to the next control. :demon: ;)
Hamilton Alleges Armstrong EPO Positive Cover-up On 60 Minutes | Cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilton-alleges-armstrong-epo-positive-cover-up-on-60-minutes)
Dynamite. Not the doping, but the testimony from the Swiss lab boss.
I'm not that bothered about Armstrong being a doper. It's the corruption within the UCI that really gets my goat.
True, but what if they are all cheating?
They are, still.
I don't think that there are many who agree with you on that one.
You think so?
'Most' is accurate enough but probably a little conservative.
A few weeks ago my boss was telling me how Lance was one of her heros, and I expressed the opinion I though he probably wasn't whiter than white on the drugs front. She was truly shocked. Seems I might end up proved right ... and I wish I wasn't :-\In a perfect world, none of them would cheat. But if (nearly) all of them were cheating, and had access to pretty much the same stuff, the Armstrong story is still something special. One thing we know for fact is that he has beaten drugs cheats ;)
My reading of the Lance story is that the UCI accepted that the cancer and treatment had compromised a range of functions, including testosterone and EPO production. He was then given permission to bring these levels up to the optimum. He had the full resources of a major drug company behind him, so that was done very well. There would be resentment of this in the peloton, but it couldn't be articulated because it would look like an attack on innovation in cancer treatment.
I think ESL just made all that up. There was no TUE for epo use.
When Chris returned to England in late 1997 he was referred to the head of metabolic bone disease at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital where a scan revealed a density level below normal. Chris was recommended HRT.
'Testosterone supplements were banned in cycling and classed as a performance-enhancing drug,' he says. 'So I applied to the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) in early 1998 to be allowed the therapy on medical grounds, supplying scans to support my case. They said they thought it would be fine, but then Festina happened.'
'Festina' was the drugs busts during the 1998 Tour de France. French police raided team hotels and confiscated a haul of banned substances, arresting a member of the Festina team. Cyclists pulled out of the race in droves, which that year was dubbed the 'Tour of Shame' .
'The UCI had to tighten up after the scandal and so they denied me permission,' he says. 'I would have to stop my career for the treatment or carry on.
Read more: CHRIS BOARDMAN: I had to give up cycling at 32 because I had the bones of an old woman | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/diets/article-1227777/CHRIS-BOARDMAN-I-cycling-32-I-bones-old-woman.html#ixzz1NGKLwdw8)
For the past seven years the peloton's patron (the Italians say capo) has been Lance Armstrong, whose swagger and bluster was backed up by nearly superhuman performance. But it was his searing, even bizarre act of vengeance in the 2004 Tour that best reflects a true patron's power.
With three days to go before his sixth Tour victory, Armstrong had a commanding four-minute overall cumulative lead over the rest of the peloton. Nobody had a hope of making up the gap and beating him.
But at the 32-kilometer mark of the 18th of 21 stages, a little-known rider named Filippo Simeoni left the peloton on an attack. Simeoni was in 114th place and posed zero threat to the man in yellow. Four racers of similarly anonymous stature were out in front, and Simeoni thought he might be able to catch them and even steal a scrap of glory by putting himself in a position to win the stage.
But the moment Simeoni accelerated out from the main peloton, one rider followed on his rear wheel - Armstrong. Within minutes Armstrong and Simeoni were riding with the small breakaway group, which openly asked Armstrong what he was doing there. Why was the man in the yellow jersey, only three days from his record-tying sixth victory, leaving the relative safety of his team and the peloton and risking all just to hang out with...them?
In a word, etiquette.
Armstrong explained (in French and English) as they rode: Simeoni had sinned earlier that year, insinuating to the press that drug use was widespread among professional riders. Forget about whether it was true; Simeoni violated the first rule of the peloton, which is don't bad-mouth your fellow inmates.
So Armstrong had decided to deny Simeoni the glory of a win. If Simeoni refused to abandon his effort to win the Tour's 18th stage, Armstrong would ride with them all the way to the finish. And he would win. If there was silent contemplation of the offer, it didn't last long.
"Get the hell out of here," Spanish rider Juan Antonio Flecha reportedly told Simeoni. And so Simeoni did, coasting back with Armstrong until the peloton caught up.
"I was protecting the interests of the peloton," Armstrong explained later. "All Simeoni wants to do is to destroy cycling...to destroy the sport that pays him. The other riders were very grateful."
Of course, if they weren't, nobody was going to tell Armstrong.
It was a bit more personal than that. Simeoni had lodged a charge of defamation against Armstrong. LA had called him a 'liar' when Simeoni's defence against a doping charge included testimony against Dr Ferrari.
Here's my take on it:
<snipped for brevity>
Here's my take on it:
<snipped for brevity>
I think you speak a lot of sense there, Ram.
Wonder what is next?
I'm not sure what to make of Hamilton's motives. It is purely related to the interest in USPS as he doesn't go into any detail about his positives, which were of course, with different teams. He's not going for a total clean slate is he? He's not naming names that aren't already named. He's not talking about anything other than USPS.
Could this be a pre-emptive admission in the knowledge that the truth will out anyway, or is there something else?
Armstrongs PR are saying he has got a book coming, but their attempts to smear just make them look more suspicious
In 2006 Landis got busted. Who was Landis anyway?
In 2006 Landis got busted. Who was Landis anyway?
The chap who made the greatest one day break in Le tour of any rider in modern times.
If every day was that awesome, I'd be staunchly pro-drugs in sport! :demon:In 2006 Landis got busted. Who was Landis anyway?
The chap who made the greatest one day break in Le tour of any rider in modern times.
And failed a dope test on that very day! ::-)
In 2006 Landis got busted. Who was Landis anyway?
The chap who made the greatest one day break in Le tour of any rider in modern times.
In 2006 Landis got busted. Who was Landis anyway?
The chap who made the greatest one day break in Le tour of any rider in modern times.
In 2006 Landis got busted. Who was Landis anyway?
The chap who made the greatest one day break in Le tour of any rider in modern times.
Whither Claudio Chiapucci?
In 2006 Landis got busted. Who was Landis anyway?
The chap who made the greatest one day break in Le tour of any rider in modern times.
Whither Claudio Chiapucci?
All this is nearly as fascinating as the racing.
All this is nearly as fascinating as the racing.
With all the accusations about UCI accepting money to conceal failed tests into the bargain, I'd say it's seismic for the sport.
Will we see a breakaway movement?
It's a great sport, but the politics are fascinating too.UCI, FIFA, and all those banks. There's a reason they're all in the same place.
Its all about money, though. The Swiss gov are embarrassed by the various sports bodies registered in Switzerland that are being exposed. Be interesting to see if this issue and the flexing of muscles between teams and the UCI gets things going
It's a great sport, but the politics are fascinating too.UCI, FIFA, and all those banks. There's a reason they're all in the same place.
Its all about money, though. The Swiss gov are embarrassed by the various sports bodies registered in Switzerland that are being exposed. Be interesting to see if this issue and the flexing of muscles between teams and the UCI gets things going
Hamilton Not Welcome at Aspen Restaurant After Armstrong Argument | Daily Lance | Bicycling.com (http://bicycling.com/blogs/dailylance/2011/06/13/lance-armstrong-confronts-tyler-hamilton-in-aspen/)
Hamilton Not Welcome at Aspen Restaurant After Armstrong Argument | Daily Lance | Bicycling.com (http://bicycling.com/blogs/dailylance/2011/06/13/lance-armstrong-confronts-tyler-hamilton-in-aspen/)
Bit bizarre. You can finish your meal but don't come back!? Pity no-one caught it on their mobile phone.
Restaurant owner is a friend of Armstrongs...
...wonder how he got to hear that Hamilton was eating there ;)
Hamilton Not Welcome at Aspen Restaurant After Armstrong Argument | Daily Lance | Bicycling.com (http://bicycling.com/blogs/dailylance/2011/06/13/lance-armstrong-confronts-tyler-hamilton-in-aspen/)
Bit bizarre. You can finish your meal but don't come back!? Pity no-one caught it on their mobile phone.
Hmm? Would the other way have been better (Get out now, but please come back)?
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency brought formal doping charges against former cyclist Lance Armstrong in an action that could cost him his seven Tour de France titles, according to a letter sent to Armstrong and several others Tuesday.
As a result of the charges, Armstrong has been immediately banned from competition in triathlons, a sport he took up after his retirement from cycling in 2011.
In the 15-page charging letter obtained by The Post, USADA made previously unpublicized allegations against Armstrong, alleging it collected blood samples from Armstrong in 2009 and 2010 that were “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.” Armstrong has never tested positive.
Doping tests alone should be used to catch doping cheats, not testimony of people with an axe to grind.
Using testimony still leaves a door open for a "I never tested positive" retort.
Maybe, as mentioned above, it's in the interest of these bodies to keep this case open forever, it keeps them in funding presumably and gives them a high profile.
How many tests did Millar fail?
I think Millar's book explains in full how they got (and currently get) away with it.
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency brought formal doping charges against former cyclist Lance Armstrong - Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/lance-armstrong-faces-fresh-doping-charges-from-usada/2012/06/13/gJQAefnPaV_story.html)QuoteThe U.S. Anti-Doping Agency brought formal doping charges against former cyclist Lance Armstrong in an action that could cost him his seven Tour de France titles, according to a letter sent to Armstrong and several others Tuesday.
As a result of the charges, Armstrong has been immediately banned from competition in triathlons, a sport he took up after his retirement from cycling in 2011.
In the 15-page charging letter obtained by The Post, USADA made previously unpublicized allegations against Armstrong, alleging it collected blood samples from Armstrong in 2009 and 2010 that were “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.” Armstrong has never tested positive.
The evidence seems a bit flimsy to me, I don't know how they think it'll stick this time.
Four former teammates of Lance Armstrong will receive six month bans after they confessed to doping and testified against the seven-time Tour de France winner, according to De Telegraaf.+Vaughters.
George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie are said to have given evidence in the USADA investigation which has charged Armstrong with doping. All four riders are currently taking part in the Tour de France, but in recent weeks, USA Cycling revealed they opted not to be considered for the Olympic Games.
The only thing they have to gain is a reduced ban starting at a time of year which will minimize the impact of that ban. What they have to lose is reputation, I guess, in the eyes of the American public.
The only thing they have to gain is a reduced ban starting at a time of year which will minimize the impact of that ban. What they have to lose is reputation, I guess, in the eyes of the American public.Surely no one believes Vaughters or Zabriskie have ever doped? The others maybe, but not those two. Ergo, they have absolutely nothing to gain from fingering Lance.
Edit: Well, I've just read that they've both confessed, so if that's true... fuck knows. I'm speechless.
Zabriskie? FFS.
d.
The only thing they have to gain is a reduced ban starting at a time of year which will minimize the impact of that ban. What they have to lose is reputation, I guess, in the eyes of the American public.Surely no one believes Vaughters or Zabriskie have ever doped? The others maybe, but not those two. Ergo, they have absolutely nothing to gain from fingering Lance.
Edit: Well, I've just read that they've both confessed, so if that's true... fuck knows. I'm speechless.
Zabriskie? FFS.
d.
And he's a vegan FFS. I'd've though his Body Was A Temple, if you know what I mean.
The only thing they have to gain is a reduced ban starting at a time of year which will minimize the impact of that ban. What they have to lose is reputation, I guess, in the eyes of the American public.Surely no one believes Vaughters or Zabriskie have ever doped? The others maybe, but not those two. Ergo, they have absolutely nothing to gain from fingering Lance.
Edit: Well, I've just read that they've both confessed, so if that's true... fuck knows. I'm speechless.
Zabriskie? FFS.
d.
And he's a vegan FFS. I'd've though his Body Was A Temple, if you know what I mean.
Don't know many vegans, then?
They're all at it, aren't they.
The only thing they have to gain is a reduced ban starting at a time of year which will minimize the impact of that ban. What they have to lose is reputation, I guess, in the eyes of the American public.Surely no one believes Vaughters or Zabriskie have ever doped? The others maybe, but not those two. Ergo, they have absolutely nothing to gain from fingering Lance.
Edit: Well, I've just read that they've both confessed, so if that's true... fuck knows. I'm speechless.
Zabriskie? FFS.
d.
I think it's more that they have nothing to gain than anything to lose that makes them credible witnesses. The culture has changed - there's probably still doping but there's no omertà. It's hardly the principled stand of a Bassons or a Simeoni.
And who knows, maybe the USADA has information about these riders that it's using to blackmail them...
(Not that you'd imagine they could have anything on Zabriskie.)
d.
Lance charged with doping, immediate ban from all sports and he's likely to be stripped of 7 Tour wins (and probably more).Regarding the Tour wins; there are such things as statutes of limitations, so it's a bit early to presume how many wins he'll lose, and in any case, that'll be down to ASO and/or the UCI to decide.
Lance's ex-teammates confess to doping with the same substances, get 6-month off-season ban.
Anybody else struck by the imbalance here?
If he cheated then it is right that people stand up with evidence against him. To not do so is as bad as cheating itself.If they were all 'doping', were any of them 'cheating'?
as UCI_Overlord just reminded me, Johan Bruyneel writes a column for Telesport, which printed today's leaked news. Interesting
Lance charged with doping, immediate ban from all sports and he's likely to be stripped of 7 Tour wins (and probably more).
Lance's ex-teammates confess to doping with the same substances, get 6-month off-season ban.
Anybody else struck by the imbalance here?
Lance charged with doping, immediate ban from all sports and he's likely to be stripped of 7 Tour wins (and probably more).
Lance's ex-teammates confess to doping with the same substances, get 6-month off-season ban.
Anybody else struck by the imbalance here?
Plea bargaining. Letting a few smaller fish off lightly in order to catch the big one. I hope they succeed.
A large proportion of our criminal justice system depends on it. Why don't you argue with them about it?
False imprisonment for murder is a slightly bigger deal than a sportsmen getting away with cheating.
The majority of the pro peleton are 'unpunished, drugs cheats'. Self-confessed is a small step forward.
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.
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!
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.
Again I disagree.
The penalty should be the same for everyone, Amateur, Pro, successful, unsuccessful, famous, infamous or anonymous.
I don't understand why Lance is immediately charged and banned yet Hincapie is riding in the tour.
Why Vino is there is also a mystery.
Of course! How do you think that drug testing methods can come close to keeping up with ever-evolving avoidance techniques and drugs?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.
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.
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.
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!
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.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?
In that respect a 6 month off-season ban seems rather lenient to me.
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.
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 ?)
Of course it's relevant! Noone gets banned on suspicion of doping.Quotebut then what about innocent-until-proven-guilty ?)
Irrelevant. They aren't being tried in a court of law.
d.
Noone gets banned on suspicion of doping.
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.
Noone gets banned on suspicion of doping.
Rasmussen.
d.
And you know this how? Just interested in your sources.
The point being that such a rule wouldn't stand up in a court of law for the reason you mentioned.The point is, he was guilty of breaking a rule. that's how sport works.
Ergo the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is irrelevant here. QED.
d.
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!
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!).
Innocent of what?Of any offences that would prevent him racing.
d.
[Am I missing something here?]
Hincapie hasn't been accused of any offence, therefore he is neither guilty nor innocent of any offence.IMO this is bizarre semantics. You are not currently in prison, because you're not guilty of anything requiring it (if you'll forgive the simplification).
He is Schrödinger's Doper, if you like.
Is this really how you view every man on the street, or all your loved ones?
Hincapie hasn't been accused of any offence, therefore he is neither guilty nor innocent of any offence.IMO this is bizarre semantics. You are not currently in prison, because you're not guilty of anything requiring it (if you'll forgive the simplification).
He is Schrödinger's Doper, if you like.
I choose to describe you as an "innocent man". It seems that by your logic you are under suspicion of many unsolved crimes, unable to prove your innocence until you are thoroughly investigated!
Is this really how you view every man on the street, or all your loved ones? It seems a very negative worldview! I shall stick to my "irrelevant platitudes".
Anyway...
now I understand your viewpoint, I see it is immune to debate; we will just have to agree to disagree. The RELEVANT fact is that Hincapie can race until the authorities punish him for some offence. I call this "innocent", you call it "not yet accused"! Either way, he can race.
I've just read on twitter that Lance has filed for an injunction to halt the USADA's case because it's unconstitutional.
That should win him a few more friends, I reckon.
"This Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims."
And Rogers and...
Does anybody seriously believe that LA wasn't doped to the eyeballs, really?
Do we know?
Reading that, I'm a little unclear what is being relied on to form a case against Armstrong. What is a normal hematocrit level for an elite athlete, and how much can it be expected to vary? What effect does altitude have on it, and would the fact that Armstrong was in Aspen (for presumably an extended period while he awaited the birth of his child) in between the Giro and the Tour in 2009 have been significant? The article states that USADA are to claim that these blood tests show evidence of EPO use, but I can't see from that article what that evidence is. Do we know?
To the extent that the long-range analysis of Armstrong's blood values represents a "smoking gun," USADA will presumably point to both the suspicious hematocrit fluctuations but also other measurements such as reticulocyte percentages and hemoglobin.
Me too. (Somewhere in-between).In the context of pro-cycling I really don't care whether Armstrong doped or not. But perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.You're not alone, and I'm nowhere near as old as you. :demon: ;D
I am interested to know for sure just how much the UCI have assisted LA.
Regardless of how this pans out, Lance's story is still remarkable. Surviving cancer to reach the pinnacle of a sport, by fair means or foul, remains an achievement that ultimately surpasses the titles he won.
Imo.
Wasnt LA the most tested rider ever at one point?
I've noted a seeming complete absence of mention of LA throughout this years tour commentary, newspaper coverage, and the Olympic road racing. Interesting.
The US Anti Doping Agency has rejected a call by the UCI to allow it to assume responsibility for the doping investigation into Lance Armstrong and others in relation to the US Postal Service team, and had also turned down a request for it to hand over the entire case file.
The UCI’s president Pat McQuaid had previously indicated that USADA had jurisdiction but, in two letters dated July 13th, had said that it wanted to take over the case.
USADA’s CEO Travis T. Tygart has said the agency would not deviate from its investigation. “The USPS Doping Conspiracy was going on under the watch of UCI, so of course UCI and the participants in the conspiracy who cheated sport with dangerous performance enhancing drugs to win have a strong incentive to cover up what transpired,” he said.
WADA Director General David Howman first wrote to UCI President Pat McQuaid on August 7 and then released a statement today explaining that cycling's governing body should be providing assistance to USADA.
"As clarified in the WADA letter, Article 15.3 states that the Anti-Doping Organization (ADO) 'which discovered the violation' must have results management authority, and not the ADO which discovered the first shred of evidence which then led to the discovery of violations," the Agency said in a statement.
WADA also explained that there is "no provision" within its rules "that allows the UCI to interfere with the USADA case" or demand to see the USADA-compiled evidence.
WADA also explained that there is "no provision" within its rules "that allows the UCI to interfere with the USADA case" or demand to see the USADA-compiled evidence.
What next?
The UCI has a choice. It must decide whether to bow to WADA or continue to dispute things, either in open conflict via press releases or perhaps even going to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to plead its case. To continue the spat would risk being labelled “non-compliant” with the WADA Code. All signatories have a duty to uphold the Code in full.
If WADA is not satisfied it can impose strict sanctions. Here’s the WADA website (http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-Organizations/The-Code/QA-on-the-Code/):QuoteWhat happens if a sports organization or a government does not comply with the Code?
WADA reports cases of non-compliance to its stakeholders who have jurisdiction to impose sanctions, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Olympic charter was amended in 2003 to state that adoption of the Code by the Olympic movement is mandatory. Only sports that adopt and implement the Code can be included and remain in the program of the Olympic Games.
Note the last sentence: if a governing body doesn’t follow the Code, it can be ejected from the Olympics.
The judge chose to dismiss the case because "Armstrong's due process claims lack merit" and "the Court lacks jurisdiction over Armstrong's remaining claims, or alternatively declines to grant equitable relief on those claims".
There must be a lot ofrunners-upfifth and sixth placed riders hoping to get their names in the TdF record books (and that their own doping doesn't come to light).
I'd agree with Sparks' conclusion on pages 28 and 29.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103348811/Sparks-Decision
There must be a lot ofrunners-upfifth and sixth placed riders hoping to get their names in the TdF record books (and that their own doping doesn't come to light).
FTFY! ;D
Can anyone be arsed to work out who will get the retrospective Yellow Jerseys?
I'd agree with Sparks' conclusion on pages 28 and 29.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103348811/Sparks-Decision
Indeed. It would appear Judge Sparks is mystified by the behaviour of USADA and their intent on continuing with the case against the wishes of those controlling the sport. I don't see this as 'sinking Armstrong'.
I think Sparks is taking the view that the whole affair should have gone to arbitration in the first place, "a plague on both your houses, and I wash my hands of this," as it were.
I think Sparks is taking the view that the whole affair should have gone to arbitration in the first place, "a plague on both your houses, and I wash my hands of this," as it were.
I think Sparks is wondering why the USADA wants to destroy a US and Texan hero, when he's done so much to inspire a generation to take up cycling, and who US Cycling have named a youth series after.
It's a function of the scab-picking nature of the internet, which hasn't yet acheived the maturity to let bygones be bygones.
Doping
Anquetil took a forthright and controversial stand on the use of performance-enhancing drugs. He never hid that he took drugs and in a debate with a government minister on French television said only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride Bordeaux–Paris on just water.
He and other cyclists had to ride through "the cold, through heatwaves, in the rain and in the mountains", and they had the right to treat themselves as they wished, he said in a television interview, before adding:
“
"Leave me in peace; everybody takes dope."[29]
”
There was implied acceptance of doping right to the top of the state: the president, Charles de Gaulle, said of Anquetil:
“
"Doping? What doping? Did he or did he not make them play the Marseillaise [the national anthem] abroad?"[30]
”
He won Liège–Bastogne–Liège in 1966. An official named Collard told him once he had got changed that there would be a drugs test. "Too late", Anquetil said. "If you can collect it from the soapy water there, go ahead. I'm a human being, not a fountain." Collard said he would return half an hour later; Anquetil said he would already have left for a dinner appointment 140 km away. Two days later the Belgian cycling federation disqualified Anquetil and fined him. Anquetil responded by calling urine tests "a threat to individual liberty" and engaged a lawyer. The case was never heard, the Belgians backed down and Anquetil became the winner.
Pierre Chany said:
"Jacques had the strength - for which he was always criticised - to say out loud what others would only whisper. So, when I asked him 'What have you taken?' he didn't drop his eyes before replying. He had the strength of conviction."[31]
Anquetil argued that professional riders were workers and had the same right to treat their pains as, say, a geography teacher. But the argument found less support as more riders were reported to have died or suffered health problems through drug-related incidents, including the death of the English rider, Tom Simpson, in the Tour de France of 1967.[8]
However, there was great support in the cyclist community for Anquetil's argument that, if there were to be rules and tests, the tests should be carried out consistently and with dignity. He said it was professional dignity, the right of a champion not to be ridiculed in front of his public, that led to his refusal to take a test in the centre of the Vigorelli track after breaking the world hour record.
The unrecognised time that Anquetil set that day was in any case quickly broken by the Belgian rider, Ferdi Bracke. Anquetil was hurt that the French government had never sent him a telegram of congratulations but sent one to Bracke, who wasn't French. It was a measure of the unacceptability of Anquetil's arguments, as was the way he was quietly dropped from future French teams.
[edit] Anecdote
Anquetil recounted an incident in a hotel at La Rochelle where he and others were relaxing after a criterium:
I think it was [Roger] Hassenforder's idea.. We started looking at the fish in a lovely little tank at the entrance to the restaurant. Hassen suddenly said: 'Let's give them something to liven them up a bit!' He got out of his pocket a few Maxitons and gave them to me... I threw them to the fish. And oh yes, amphetamines work just as well on fish, I can tell you. After 10 minutes they were thrashing from one end of the tank to the other."[32]
[edit] Anquetil and Britain
Anquetil holds a particular place in the estimation of British fans, who voted him the BBC's international personality of the year in 1964. He appeared with Tom Simpson from a studio in Paris. The Franco-American journalist René de Latour wrote:
In the studio we watched the proceedings in London, and while I cannot say Anquetil was keenly interested in the cricketing part, he was impressed with the general presentation which, however (like the stages of the 1964 Tour) he found a bit long. He was interested, though, to see Beryl Burton, and his old acquaintance Reg Harris pulling at his pipe in the invited audience.[33]
A few days later, Anquetil was named French sportsman of the year.
Anquetil was fascinated by Britain because of the country's enthusiasm for time-trialling and because in 1961 he presented prizes at the Road Time Trials Council evening at the Royal Albert Hall to honour Beryl Burton and Brian Kirby.[8] The pair had won the women's and men's British Best All-Rounder competitions (BBAR) for, respectively, the highest average speed in a season over 25, 50 and 100 miles (women) and 50 and 100 miles (160 km) and 12 hours (men).
Alan Gayfer, the editor of Cycling at the time of Anquetil's death, wrote in appreciation:
It is strange to look back and see how this frail-looking young man burst on the scene in 1953. We had sent Ken Joy, the former BBAR, to challenge for the Grand Prix des Nations, then 140 kilometres long, and dragging through the hills of the Chevreuse valley. All over Paris they talked about this burly Englishman who had ridden 160km in 4 hours and 6 minutes: and when it came to it, he was hammered by a 19-year-old, but a teenager with a will of iron that was to prove inflexible for the next 19 years.[8]
Anquetil was fascinated by the British love of time-trialling and in 1964 discussed riding a British 25 mile (40 km) race. Gayfer and the British professional Tom Simpson explained that the course would be on flat roads and asked Anquetil how long the distance would take him. Anquetil, who had the talent to predict his time-trial times accurately, said 46 minutes. That was eight minutes faster than the distance had ever been ridden, the record standing to Bas Breedon at 54:23. It took until 1993 for the record to fall below Anquetil's estimation.
Anquetil asked £1,000 to compete and a London timber merchant called Vic Jenner said he would put up the money. Jenner was an enthusiast who had often put money into the sport. He died shortly afterwards, however, and the ride never happened.[
This isn't the end until the rest of the systemised doping, the covered-up positives, the intimidation and the corruption comes out.
It's very sad. My heart wants to believe he was clean but my head keeps coming back to the absence of an unequivocal statement that he did not dope rather than did not ever test positive.He did state unequivocally that he didn't dope. There was another thread on this general theme some little while back and I made the same point and someone (Citoyen? Mattc?) pointed to a link that had a quote to that effect. If I could find the thread I'd link to it.
This isn't the end until the rest of the systemised doping, the covered-up positives, the intimidation and the corruption comes out.
Who's next on your list? Not being sarcastic, genuinely interested.
[ETA. Sadly it smells (to me) very much of damage limitation. I can't imagine someone as famously tenacious and pugnacious as Armstrong ever walking away from a fight if he believed he was right.
The most important lesson of the Lance Armstrong story, though, is the hardest to prepare for and guard against: our own gullibility and willing complicity. What is astounding and disturbing is that one man – a dominant personality as well as a dominant athlete – was able to enforce his will, isolate, bully and silence his doubters and critics, and win the world's top cycling event year after year and make people believe in him, despite there being, apparently, dozens of witnesses to its utter phoniness. Too many people had too much invested in the Lance Armstrong story, and the power of persuasion followed the money.
I'd say there was a lot of keeping things just within the limit, but I suspect they were also one step ahead with masking agents.
VN: There was reportedly a lot of evidence in the case, there was witness testimony and presumably more…do you expect any of those details to emerge?
TT: Yes, absolutely…at the right time. Obviously there are other cases that are alleged to be involved in the conspiracy. Their cases are still proceeding, so it will be in due course.
VN: So there is no impediment to USADA releasing the evidence?
TT: No, no.
Does all this mean that Our Bradley now comes 3rd in the 2009 Tour?
I tend to agree. Training your body to that degree means staying *just* within the limits of what's legal and what's not. Every so often, someone who means to stay legal, slips over the line.
Does all this mean that Our Bradley now comes 3rd in the 2009 Tour?
Flouncetastic!
I tend to agree. Training your body to that degree means staying *just* within the limits of what's legal and what's not. Every so often, someone who means to stay legal, slips over the line.
Does all this mean that Our Bradley now comes 3rd in the 2009 Tour?
I’m not blanket condoning doping or seeking to ignore Lance’s wrongdoing either but consider too how small a mental jump it must have been to undertake performance enhancing doping techniques after several years of the medical procedures he received to save his life.
That isn't the case with LA though. He was charging hard before his cancer (refer Betsy Andreu) and came out of it charging even more when the rest of the peloton had backed off due to Festina.
Good luck to the USADA in promoting sporting endeavour on the back of intimidation, threats and bullying.
My thoughts have been that Armstrong knew these limits and was meticulous in measuring his own chemical levels and topping up to remain within the legal limit so that he could pass over 500 blood tests. He was calculating to the last degree; that's his character as I understand it from a distance.
And the Usada thing stinks of someone trying to make a name for themselves by bringing him down.It may have been said before upthread, but irrespective of any reasons the USADA have it's not just about one man doping, but the elements of intimidation, and collusion/corruption elsewhere - hopefully it'll all come out. Cycling's been sullied enough for years, I can't imagine anyone in the world of triathlon would welcome that taint being carried into their sport.
Lay your prejudices and what you already "know" about Lance to one side for a moment and imagine he is innocent. I know, it's a tough ask, but just imagine it was true.
He's faced, not with physical proof that he took drugs, but with a bunch of people each of whom either bears him a grudge, or stands to have their own doping overlooked if they say they saw Lance take something. How can he disprove it? (Bear in mind we're imagining him to be innocent at this point) The best he can hope for is to show that the "witnesses" have ulterior motives and so might be lying. He can't prove that they are lying. He can't prove the absence of drugs. You can't prove the absence of anything.
So he's facing a fight he can't win. Whether he doped or not, he can't win the USADA hearing. His actions this morning are not necessarily those of a guilty man. Even an innocent man would walk away at this point. Lance is a fighter, but he's not an idiot, he's not going to fight a fight where winning isn't a possiblity.
Grudgingly I am deep down a believer in Lance's story. I can't square that a man who nearly died from the worst possible plague (his own body tried to kill him) would react by doing irreparable damage to his body.
Good luck to the USADA in promoting sporting endeavour on the back of intimidation, threats and bullying.
I can't imagine someone as famously tenacious and pugnacious as Armstrong ever walking away from a fight if he believed he was right.If he believed he could win, I would have said.
What is this irreparable damage? You're making things up now. In his book he tells of taking EPO as part of his recovery from cancer, why would he have any qualms about taking it again?
Believe what you like but there is plenty of evidence that LA and his team charged more than anybody else, protected by the UCI.
What is this irreparable damage? You're making things up now. In his book he tells of taking EPO as part of his recovery from cancer, why would he have any qualms about taking it again?
I'm thinking of professional cyclists who had to be woken hourly during the night to make sure their hearts continued to beat.
That's after several whose haematocrit level had gone so high that their blood was 'like soup' and failed to wake up in the morning.
Then there are legions of ex-pros - some very big names indeed - who never made it past their 50s, some even younger . . .
That's documented fact. I don't need to make this shit up! It's bad enough as is.
What is this irreparable damage? You're making things up now. In his book he tells of taking EPO as part of his recovery from cancer, why would he have any qualms about taking it again?
I'm thinking of professional cyclists who had to be woken hourly during the night to make sure their hearts continued to beat.
That's after several whose haematocrit level had gone so high that their blood was 'like soup' and failed to wake up in the morning.
Then there are legions of ex-pros - some very big names indeed - who never made it past their 50s, some even younger . . .
That's documented fact. I don't need to make this shit up! It's bad enough as is.
Yes, there were a handful of European pros who died in their sleep and EPO, though suspected, was never proven. Similarly the ex-pros who died relatively young - nothing proven.
The difference between Lance and a relatively unknown Belgian on a 2nd-division team was that Lance was able to buy the finest medical care when he had cancer, any doping he might have done later would be similarly scrutinised by medical professionals, partly to avoid detection but also to minimise any health risks. Would you refuse to let a doctor administer morphine when you've broken your leg because you've heard of heroin addicts dying from an overdose?
Flouncetastic!
Yes. Tacitly raising the jurisdictional question of whose ball is it anyway (which was given a reasonable airing on the Today programme this morning).
As well as making himself look more of a martyr to vindictive jealousy than I fear in fact he is.
What's Jan Ullrich got to say on this (assuming he's not still completely absorbed in the Vuelta)?
Jan Ullrich tight-lipped about being handed Tour wins.
BERLIN: German cyclist Jan Ullrich on Friday refused to speculate about whether he would be handed three of the seven Tour de France titles won by US rider Lance Armstrong that may now be withdrawn over doping claims.
"I'm not thinking about these titles. I don't know the details of the process. I'm proud of my second-place finishes," the 1997 Tour winner said of his runner-up spots behind the American in 2000, 2001 and 2003.
Ullrich was speaking after the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) said Armstrong would be banned for life and stripped of all of his titles following his decision to abandon a case against drug charges that have tainted his legacy.
Last February, Ullrich was suspended for two years for a doping violation related to a Spanish police investigation into an illegal performance-enhancing drug network and all his results after May 2005 were annulled.
Another German cyclist, Andreas Kloeden could also replace Armstrong as Tour winner for the 2004 edition, after he finished runner-up.
But Kloeden has also been accused of doping in 2009 by experts tasked by the University of Freiburg to probe the work of two doctors in charge of medical support for the T-Mobile team in 2006.
Flouncetastic!
Yes. Tacitly raising the jurisdictional question of whose ball is it anyway (which was given a reasonable airing on the Today programme this morning).
As well as making himself look more of a martyr to vindictive jealousy than I fear in fact he is.
What's Jan Ullrich got to say on this (assuming he's not still completely absorbed in the Vuelta)?
This, according to the Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/cycling/Jan-Ullrich-tight-lipped-about-being-handed-Tour-wins/articleshow/15632531.cms)QuoteJan Ullrich tight-lipped about being handed Tour wins.
BERLIN: German cyclist Jan Ullrich on Friday refused to speculate about whether he would be handed three of the seven Tour de France titles won by US rider Lance Armstrong that may now be withdrawn over doping claims.
"I'm not thinking about these titles. I don't know the details of the process. I'm proud of my second-place finishes," the 1997 Tour winner said of his runner-up spots behind the American in 2000, 2001 and 2003.
Ullrich was speaking after the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) said Armstrong would be banned for life and stripped of all of his titles following his decision to abandon a case against drug charges that have tainted his legacy.
Last February, Ullrich was suspended for two years for a doping violation related to a Spanish police investigation into an illegal performance-enhancing drug network and all his results after May 2005 were annulled.
Another German cyclist, Andreas Kloeden could also replace Armstrong as Tour winner for the 2004 edition, after he finished runner-up.
But Kloeden has also been accused of doping in 2009 by experts tasked by the University of Freiburg to probe the work of two doctors in charge of medical support for the T-Mobile team in 2006.
EDIT: and (in German) Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/jan-ullrich-zu-armstrong-ich-bin-auch-auf-meine-zweiten-plaetze-stolz-a-851896.html)
[snipped for brevity]
Yes, there were a handful of European pros who died in their sleep and EPO, though suspected, was never proven. Similarly the ex-pros who died relatively young - nothing proven.
The difference between Lance and a relatively unknown Belgian on a 2nd-division team was that Lance was able to buy the finest medical care when he had cancer, any doping he might have done later would be similarly scrutinised by medical professionals, partly to avoid detection but also to minimise any health risks. Would you refuse to let a doctor administer morphine when you've broken your leg because you've heard of heroin addicts dying from an overdose?
L'Equipe allegations
French anti-doping authorities had retroactively applied the new EPO test to samples from the 1999 Tour de France in order to test the robustness of their new test. The samples, which had been taken before the EPO test had been developed, allegedly showed evidence of EPO use but the lab personnel had no knowledge of the identities of riders behind positive samples.
A journalist from L'Equipe managed to acquire documentation from the UCI with sample numbers and match positives to those of Armstrong. However, the UCI's independent analyst ruled the data was unreliable and could not be used for doping punishment because the samples were tested strictly for research purposes. The World Anti-Doping Agency objected, sparking a long, heated battle between WADA president Dick Pound and then-UCI president Hein Verbruggen.
Yes. Virtually none of the top 10 in lance's 7 tour wins are untainted.
so the riders who might benefit from LA's loss are themselves proven or suspected drug cheats ::-)
For people who follow VO2 max numbers, when I was getting mine tested during this period at the same lab Miguel Indurain went to, I was testing mid/high 80s. So why was I one of the very first people getting dropped? So anyway, as 1996 progressed, and we got closer to the Vuelta, all of a sudden there was a shift. And all of us riders knew at this point that we were getting our asses kicked because everyone is taking EPO in the peloton. And the management had held the line: ‘No doping.’ We weren’t getting paid enough to buy it on our own and if we had bought it, we didn’t know enough how to use it on our own.
But finally some months before the Vuelta, Nunez comes to me and he said, ‘You know Jonathan, I’ve been thinking about this, and we aren’t going to dope you. But we think that since you’re training so hard, that we want to make sure we keep your red cell count the same it was at the beginning of the year when you came from Colorado fresh.’ And I said ‘OK, sounds good.’ So he said, ‘There’s going to be some medication we’ll use to make sure that happens.’ And I said, ‘OK.’ And I quickly figured out that what he was talking about was EPO. But again, the way he phrased it to me allowed me to justify it. As much as I shouldn’t have, and been intelligent and said, ‘Wait this is bullshit,’ in my mind he had just spelled out to me that I wasn’t going to dope, we’d just make my hematocrit what it would have been had I not been riding my bike so damn much. And we’re never going to use doses high enough to push you where you shouldn’t be, so I shouldn’t worry about health consequences like stroking out. And of course there’s no chance of you testing positive. So it was like ‘Oh, well my blood’s going to be the same thickness as it is normally, so we’re just avoiding anemia right? So this is actually healthy!’ And so there won’t be health consequences and so it won’t be cheating.
Did you consciously realize those rationalizations at the time?
Of course I can look back 16 years later and say, ‘Clearly these were rationalizations.’ If I had sat down and been honest with myself, I was logical enough to realize that. But at that point in time, I was ripe soil. When you’re team-time trialing off the back to make the back end of the grupetto in every race and you hear that message, your mind is fertile for hearing that. When I look back on that I think, ‘Holy Toledo, here’s a guy who founded a team on the principles of clean racing and to make up the difference through marginal gains and hiring the most talented young athletes, unspoiled athletes, and focusing them and that little by little that the sport could be moved and changed.’ Jose Luis Nunez had the same damn dream and the same damn conviction I did. But his timing was incredibly bad. He held out for 30 months of his dream and then he cracked. And the athletes, once he cracked, the dam broke.
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?" ;)
Yes. Virtually none of the top 10 in lance's 7 tour wins are untainted.
Handy guide here: http://www.cyclingtipsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/armstrong1150px.jpg
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?" ;)
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?^ agree very much with this.
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?" ;)
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 (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=56373.msg1251970#msg1251970)...
He's faced, not with physical proof that he took drugs...
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. ;D :demon:
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.
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.
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.
Yep! Just have a look at the top 10 in 2000. Pick a clean rider out of that lot :o
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"
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.[
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...
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.”
It's interesting to look up what happened to Greg LeMond when he suggested Armstrong might not be clean (shortly after Armstrong's comeback).
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.
This, according to the Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/cycling/Jan-Ullrich-tight-lipped-about-being-handed-Tour-wins/articleshow/15632531.cms)I like the source - the interactive ads are entertaining!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
suerly to complete something like the tour de france you must have to bee on something to recover enough to do those stages at those speeds ?
One thing Lance fans can console themselves with is the thought that if the peloton had been clean, he could very probably have won clean. There's no doubt he's a phenomenal athlete even without the drugs.
It's very telling that Johann Bruyneel held the record for the fastest TdF massed-start stage for so long.
Armstrong was a good 1 day racer and ok at week-long stage races but crap at major tours.
EPO changed that.
All pro cyclists are phenomenal athletes, it is part of the job description.
Even crap-climbing pros climb better than any of us at our very best.
Quite bring back the good old days of merckx and anquietil A bit of speed a hip flask full of whisky MTFU and get on with it !!!! surely to complete something like the tour de france you must have to be on something to recover enough to do those stages at those speeds ?Perhaps; Coppi answered this question quite clearly:
Watching Eurosport on Friday, is Sean Kelly very uneasy talking about doping :-\
Watching Eurosport on Friday, is Sean Kelly very uneasy talking about doping :-\
Nearly all pro cyclists are also crap descenders - they're notorious for holding back. It may be because received wisdom is that races are only won on the climbs.Not sure about that, having seen the breakaways reach 90-100km/h in the Pyrenees this year. Phil n Paul mentioned someone recording a speed of over 110km/h a couple of years ago.
When even the mechanics have to dope to do their job, perhaps something is wrong with the whole format of the sport - or with what the fans expect?Watching Eurosport on Friday, is Sean Kelly very uneasy talking about doping :-\
Quelle surprise, he got popped twice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Kelly_(cyclist)#Doping) - as recounted in Willy Voet's book* he tried to circumvent the dope control at the Paris-Bruxelles race in 1984 by substituting a mechanic's urine for his own. Unfortunately, the mechanic had doped in order to be able to carry on working on the bikes during the night... ;D
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/may99/may20.shtml
* His name was redacted from the English-language editions of Breaking The Chain.
I've been over 90km/h myself, and we don't have mountains in Wiltshire :smug:Nearly all pro cyclists are also crap descenders - they're notorious for holding back. It may be because received wisdom is that races are only won on the climbs.Not sure about that, having seen the breakaways reach 90-100km/h in the Pyrenees this year. Phil n Paul mentioned someone recording a speed of over 110km/h a couple of years ago.
When even the mechanics have to dope to do their job, perhaps something is wrong with the whole format of the sport - or with what the fans expect?
Nearly all pro cyclists are also crap descenders - they're notorious for holding back. It may be because received wisdom is that races are only won on the climbs.Not sure about that, having seen the breakaways reach 90-100km/h in the Pyrenees this year. Phil n Paul mentioned someone recording a speed of over 110km/h a couple of years ago.
Nearly all pro cyclists are also crap descenders - they're notorious for holding back. It may be because received wisdom is that races are only won on the climbs.Not sure about that, having seen the breakaways reach 90-100km/h in the Pyrenees this year. Phil n Paul mentioned someone recording a speed of over 110km/h a couple of years ago.
It was the cosmic attraction radiating from Avebury, wasn't it?I've been over 90km/h myself, and we don't have mountains in Wiltshire :smug:Nearly all pro cyclists are also crap descenders - they're notorious for holding back. It may be because received wisdom is that races are only won on the climbs.Not sure about that, having seen the breakaways reach 90-100km/h in the Pyrenees this year. Phil n Paul mentioned someone recording a speed of over 110km/h a couple of years ago.
Is it really possible that training methods have suddenly got so much better that riders are doing the race at pretty much the same speeds without assistance?
One of the big differences is that the TdF hopefuls only really race once a year.
Is it really possible that training methods have suddenly got so much better that riders are doing the race at pretty much the same speeds without assistance?
They are not riding as fast now as they did in the EPO/blood-doping era. .
True, but not in the same league as the 1960s and 1970s riders.One of the big differences is that the TdF hopefuls only really race once a year.
Eh? That may apply to Armstrong, but not to the rest of the peloton.
Wiggins' victories this year? Romandie, Dauphiné, Paris-Nice. Hardly "just turning up".
In t'olden days when the guys raced every week and were more all-rounders, it was far more remarkable to win the Tour. If Armstrong only raced the Tour and still needed drugs to fo it, it starts to look unimpressive.
Watching Eurosport on Friday, is Sean Kelly very uneasy talking about doping :-\
Yeah, but I'd rather hear someone who's done and won the race commentating than most commentators.
There is an interesting twist to this. The WADA cod (which everyone has signed up to) has a statute of limitations of 8 years. This means that Lance cannot be stripped of all 7 titles. By the time UCI get the details from USADA (who are also WADA signatories) and have gone through due process there may be only one outstanding tour victory. If there is no compelling evidence that incriminated LA pertaining to doping within the 8 years , UCI may well turn round and say, sure, you find him guilty of doping in 1999 but we can't do anything about it now. Where is the evidence for 2009?'
It is entirely possible that by the time this has all played out, nothing can be done.
The WADA code (which everyone has signed up to) has a statute of limitations of 8 years. This means that Lance cannot be stripped of all 7 titles. By the time UCI get the details from USADA (who are also WADA signatories) and have gone through due process there may be only one outstanding tour victory.
ARTICLE 17. No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred.
worked actively to conceal rule violations ... throughout the period from 1999 through the present
UCI may well turn round and say, sure, you find him guilty of doping in 1999 but we can't do anything about it now. Where is the evidence for 2009?'
Lance Armstrong said he's grown weary of fighting the doping allegations.
Surely he could just take more of his drugs to overcome the tiredness?
The WADA code (which everyone has signed up to) has a statute of limitations of 8 years. This means that Lance cannot be stripped of all 7 titles. By the time UCI get the details from USADA (who are also WADA signatories) and have gone through due process there may be only one outstanding tour victory.
The relevant article (http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf#page=94) says,Quote from: WADAARTICLE 17. No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred.
Note that the limitation is that "no action may be commenced" (my emphasis). So to answer your second point: the time taken to communicate the decision and the sanctions to UCI does not matter because the limitations clock is no longer running.
On your first point (whether Lance can be stripped of titles prior to 8 years before the commencement of action), USADA's letter to Armstrong et al. (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf) alleges that there was a conspiracy in which the participantsQuote from: USADAworked actively to conceal rule violations ... throughout the period from 1999 through the present
I believe the position taken by USADA is that, just as in U.S. criminal law, the "continuing violations doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations#Continuing_violations_doctrine)" applies. This means that each new action in furtherance of a conspiracy resets the statute of limitations on all the actions of the conspiracy (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00652.htm).UCI may well turn round and say, sure, you find him guilty of doping in 1999 but we can't do anything about it now. Where is the evidence for 2009?'
If the UCI were to try something like this, one would have to ask about their motivation. Remember that one of the allegations that persistently comes up (though not mentioned in the USADA letter) is that members of the U.S. Postal Team conspired with or bribed officials in the UCI in order to cover up an alleged positive for EPO at the 2001 Tour de Suisse (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/7746819/Floyd-Landis-puts-Lance-Armstrong-at-the-centre-of-new-drug-allegations.html). If the UCI is keen to bury the whole thing, could it be because these claims are true?
Finally, it may be noted that the conduct of the USPS Conspiracy and doping by its
participants has spanned a period in excess of eight (8) years and there currently exists an
eight year statute of limitations in the Code and UCI ADR. With respect to each of the
Respondents there exists substantial evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony of
doping that occurred within eight years of the date of this letter.
It is also the law that evidence of doping throughout the entire time period described is
relevant and will be admissible in any eventual hearing for at least two reasons: (I)
evidence of doping and evidence of conspiratorial acts outside any applicable limitations
period can be used to corroborate evidence within the limitations period, and (2) as
explained in USADA v. Hellebuyck (copy provided as Attachment D) results outside the
limitations period can be disqualified where reliance on the statute of limitations has been
waived through false statements, fraudulent concealment or other wrongful conduct.
Here's where things get interesting. USADA argued that the statute of limitations was tolled (to delay, suspend or hold off the effect of a statute) by Hellebuyck's fraudulent concealment of his prior use of EPO. The arbitration panel acknowledged that "there have been no AAA or CAS panels that have addressed fraudulent concealment or equitable tolling as a result of a prior perjury allegation with respect to the statute of limitations under the WADA Code or the admissions limitation period under the IAAF Rules." However, the panel determined that Hellebuyck's false testimony in 2004 fraudulently concealed his prior violations and that "any limitations period in this case was tolled until actual discovery of the wrongdoing. in other words until Hellebuyck notified USADA in October of 2010, and USADA brought its claims herein well within any limitations period ofter that publication."
Sworn testimony as well as exhibits and other documents constitute the record of confidential arbitration proceedings, a series of closed hearings conducted early this year in Dallas in connection with a contract dispute.
The Times reviewed the files -- including thousands of pages of transcripts, exhibits and other records. They are filled with conflicting testimony, hearsay and circumstantial evidence admissible in arbitration hearings but questionable in more formal legal proceedings.
The record shows no eyewitnesses to Armstrong's alleged drug use. And in his own sworn testimony, Armstrong unequivocally denies that he ever doped.
I wonder if the Sunday Times can try to get their money back? Armstrong sued the newspaper for libel after they published extracts from David Walsh's book L. A. Confidential which implied that he doped, and it paid him an undisclosed sum of money to drop the case.
I thought Lance was considered one of the very best, regarded as a likely future GT contender, even as a young pro, pre-cancer. Is that not so?
Big Sean Yates was assigned as LA's minder at Motorola, teaching him how to be a good pro.:jurek: :jurek:
Which Tour Winners would we say didn't use some degree of doping?I'd really be pissed if wiggo gets tainted, but there is a comment in one of the many excellent articles upthread about wiggo and fromes speeds being comparable to the 95-05 speeds...
I'll say Wiggins as a starter. After that i wouldn't like to say (and I'm just praying Wiggins hasn't).
He had been groomed at Subaru-Montgomery (that sponsor showing up often, later on) and Motorola (ex-7-Eleven team) prior to the World Championships and it was as a 1-day and week-long stage racer (without much climbing) that he was tipped to perform.
It will be interesting to hear the full details about how he affected the Motorola transformation. Andy Hampsten quit because drugs became institutionalised on the team. Sean Yates was assigned as LA's minder at Motorola, teaching him how to be a good pro.
Cancer treatment wasted his muscle away which is why he developed a high cadence. His muscle loss made him lighter for the climbs.
Lemond was the most recent. After that, there are just varying degrees of doubtfulness or knowledge.What says to me "LeMond didn't dope" was his amazing catalogue of DNFs. He was certainly fallible. Also not popular with the French, who didn't think he showed enough respect to the sport (although he actually seemed to love cycling, unlike Boardman or Pendleton who just did it as a job) and probably never forgave him for beating both Hinault and Fignon into TdF second place.
Did he know you were waiting for him?!I think he knew Basingstoke was only 5 miles away.
Which Tour Winners would we say didn't use some degree of doping?I'd really be pissed if wiggo gets tainted, but there is a comment in one of the many excellent articles upthread about wiggo and fromes speeds being comparable to the 95-05 speeds...
I'll say Wiggins as a starter. After that i wouldn't like to say (and I'm just praying Wiggins hasn't).
Doesn't chime with me, and maybe I picked it up wrong, but it made me suck my teeth and think about having another spliff.
6.2 W/kg for a top 10, 6.5 W/kg for the lead group
So, unfortunately, we have a scarcity of top rider data, as is often the case, but we do have Jani Brajkovic's SRM file to play with. I've taken it from the TrainingPeaks Tour analysis site, and zoomed in on the relevant section, the Les Planche des Belles Filles.
...
The climb took Brajkovic 17 minutes to complete, and he lost 46 seconds on the stage winners (16:15 for the fastest time of the day). His power output was reported as 351W, which gives him 5.8 W/kg (remember that relative power, expressed to body weight, is crucial for climbing, and it also allows comparison to other riders).
Note that there is about a minute's worth of missing data in the file, in the first quarter. Jani actually tweeted me himself to point this out, and obviously some technical gremlins affected the SRM. If one attempts to "normalize" these sections, and push them up towards the range of 400W that the power was at the time, then the average power output jumps from 351W to about 375W, and the relative power output is around 6.2 W/kg.
So, in terms of what that means for Wiggins and co at the front of the stage, it predicts about 6.4 to 6.5 W/kg. Over 16 minutes, that's not at all unreasonable. To give you some context, calculations of climbing power output in the Tour de France in the 1990s and 2000s often estimated that top riders maintained power outputs of 6.4 to 6.5W/kg on the Tour's HC climbs, most of which take over 40 minutes to climb. So in other words, there was an era where the best riders were maintaining similar power outputs to what we saw on Saturday, for three times the duration. Put differently, all those riders would probably have been a minute clear of this current generation on this climb...
Did he know you were waiting for him?!I think he knew Basingstoke was only 5 miles away.
Anquetil on drugs:Did he know you were waiting for him?!I think he knew Basingstoke was only 5 miles away.
Yes, I think we demand too much from our heroes!
The peloton gave themselves a second rest day on the Vuelta yesterday, generally taking it very easy and not starting to race until the final 20km. The twitterati were up in arms. "You're paid to race, so race!"Yup, and it's why I would be quite happy to see shorter Grand Tours or shorter stages on the Grand Tours. This year's Vuelta strikes me as being particularly brutal.
David Harmon on Eurosport responded by pointing out that they've already done a week of bloody hard racing and it's the mentality of pushing riders to breaking point that is responsible for creating a lot of the problems we've seen in cycling over the years. It's a good point. If we want riders to race clean, we need to make a few compromises.
d.
The peloton gave themselves a second rest day on the Vuelta yesterday, generally taking it very easy and not starting to race until the final 20km. The twitterati were up in arms. "You're paid to race, so race!"
David Harmon on Eurosport responded by pointing out that they've already done a week of bloody hard racing and it's the mentality of pushing riders to breaking point that is responsible for creating a lot of the problems we've seen in cycling over the years. It's a good point. If we want riders to race clean, we need to make a few compromises.
d.
It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can't ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives.
'It's easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of s***, rather than get off their a**** in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something.
How many of the twitterati are doing the paying? I guess exactly none.
Lets face it, most of the twitterati couldn't even ride a single stage of a grand tour, let alone do so inside the time limit.I'm not a twitteratus (or whatever the singular is) but a single stage of a tour would present me with serious problems. So I've qualified your statement for you.
They are racing. It is about who crosses the line first, not how hard you ride before that. The last 20k were definitely a race - 70km/h strung out. Ouch!Juan Manuel Fangio said the aim of racing should be to win at the slowest speed possible. Apparently he's the only F1 driver to have won 5 world championships and he won nearly every other race he entered, so he should have known.
Lets face it, most of the twitterati couldn't even ride a grand tour, let alone do so inside the time limit.
They are racing. It is about who crosses the line first, not how hard you ride before that. The last 20k were definitely a race - 70km/h strung out. Ouch!Juan Manuel Fangio said the aim of racing should be to win at the slowest speed possible. Apparently he's the only F1 driver to have won 5 world championships and he won nearly every other race he entered, so he should have known.
Lets face it, most of the twitterati couldn't even ride a grand tour, let alone do so inside the time limit.
'Racing' deliberately below your capacity is also quite normal in middle-distance running. And open-water swimming ... and <sports I'm so far ignorant of> ...
100m track and field sprinters dope. It isn't the distance causing it.
100m track and field sprinters dope. It isn't the distance causing it.
Different types of event have different motivations for cheating - endurance vs speed, innit? They use different drugs as well - can't imagine a 100m sprinter having much use for EPO.
d.
You'd be wrong citoyen. EPO (along with the normal HGH and testosterone) is used by sprinters to aid recovery from increased training loads. The proportions are different but there are many overlaps in doping between short- and long-distance athletes.
I'm pretty sure Le Tour is far easier now than in the early days of 350km+ stages, fixed wheels, jumpers for goalposts etc ...
The thing that is always hard to do clean, is to beat the guy you think is NOT clean!
I'm beginning to lose my sympathy for the "this is very hard, leave us alone" excuse.
I'm pretty sure Le Tour is far easier now than in the early days of 350km+ stages, fixed wheels, jumpers for goalposts etc ...
It's the riders that make a race hard, not the route or the distance (given a reasonable level of preparation).
The thing that is always hard to do clean, is to beat the guy you think is NOT clean!
I'm pretty sure Le Tour is far easier now than in the early days of 350km+ stages, fixed wheels, jumpers for goalposts etc ...
The thing that is always hard to do clean, is to beat the guy you think is NOT clean!
I'm beginning to lose my sympathy for the "this is very hard, leave us alone" excuse.
It's the riders that make a race hard, not the route or the distance (given a reasonable level of preparation).
Doping isn't just about "performance" sports. Sports like shooting can also benefit from applied pharmaceuticals.
Sports like shooting can also benefit from applied pharmaceuticals.
I've always thought the "you can't ride/win xxx on mineral water" excuse was nonsense. Yes it's the riders that makes a race hard and if nobody doped then you can actually ride it on mineral water.
it was more that they numbed the pain and fooled the body and mind into pushing on beyond fatigue limits.
There’s been a death in the family.
By Joe Lindsey
—Found in the obituary section of your local paper—
The Sports Column (October 24, 1924–August 28, 2012)
The modern print sports column passed away on Tuesday, August 28, after suffering a long illness. The cause of death was a Rick Reilly column on ESPN.com on Lance Armstrong’s decision to stop fighting formal charges that he doped to win the Tour de France.
And whilst on the subject of (allegedly) paid shills, check out Phil Liggett's recent comments.
Just listened to that. Terrible.
Lionel Birnie has pointed out the financial connection Phil has:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2002/07/news/cycling-biggies-invest-in-ugandan-gold-mine_2563 (http://velonews.competitor.com/2002/07/news/cycling-biggies-invest-in-ugandan-gold-mine_2563)
And whilst on the subject of (allegedly) paid shills, check out Phil Liggett's recent comments.
Just listened to that. Terrible.
Lionel Birnie has pointed out the financial connection Phil has:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2002/07/news/cycling-biggies-invest-in-ugandan-gold-mine_2563 (http://velonews.competitor.com/2002/07/news/cycling-biggies-invest-in-ugandan-gold-mine_2563)
Apologies for being so dense, but where does it mention Phil Liggett in this article?
Best friends away from work, Liggett and Sherwen and their respective wives vacation together. The broadcasting duo and several current and former cyclists are partners in a gold mine in Uganda.
And whilst on the subject of (allegedly) paid shills, check out Phil Liggett's recent comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJz4kwm9mXc
Oh dear, oh deary, deary me... :facepalm:
What a load of bollocks
It wouldn't surprise me at all if Armstrong was found guilty of doping by a properly constituted court of law. But until that happens - if it happens at all - he remains innocent and the legitimate winner of 7 Tours. Whatever USADA have to say on the matter is irrelevant unless tested in court. There's a lot in Liggett's comments that ring true.
Australia having been the last new East Germany.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if Armstrong was found guilty of doping by a properly constituted court of law. But until that happens - if it happens at all - he remains innocent and the legitimate winner of 7 Tours. Whatever USADA have to say on the matter is irrelevant unless tested in court. There's a lot in Liggett's comments that ring true.
Whatever USADA have to say on the matter is irrelevant unless tested in court.
Armstrong's due process claims fail as a matter of law, and must be dismissed.
Time will tell. But the USADA 'ruling' has certainly been ignored by all concerned to date.
The French Cycling Federation has said it accepts his refusal to fight as an admission of guilt (and aren't interested in trying to reassign results)
http://road.cc/content/news/64891-french-cycling-federation-says-it-views-lance-armstrongs-refusal-fight-charges
I was in class today and our tutor (a doctor) told us how one of the team sports who won a gold medal at Sydney used blood doping to increase performance. The details were quite specific and credible. I like to think that "my" team are the honourable ones who don't stoop to such blatant cheating - but apparently we did (/do?).
I think - for some - it comes down to, "if it ain't prohibited in the rules, it is ok". My personal view is that there should be an amnesty for the people who break the rule of silence first. That way it will destroy the trust amongst the bad guys. If you don't come forward and own up, then you should be punished.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that onlyAble bodied athletes dope.
Australia having been the last new East Germany.
I was in class today and our tutor (a doctor) told us how one of the team sports who won a gold medal at Sydney used blood doping to increase performance. The details were quite specific and credible. I like to think that "my" team are the honourable ones who don't stoop to such blatant cheating - but apparently we did (/do?).
I think - for some - it comes down to, "if it ain't prohibited in the rules, it is ok". My personal view is that there should be an amnesty for the people who break the rule of silence first. That way it will destroy the trust amongst the bad guys. If you don't come forward and own up, then you should be punished.
"I attended a conference in Canberra in 1998 when I was with the AIS where, amongst others, an Australian army scientist spoke about how long soldiers could go without sleeping. They tested separate groups on water, caffeine, pseudoephedrine and a combination of caffeine and pseudoephedrine. The water-only group lasted five days, the caffeine-only group seven days and the pseudoephedrine-only group lasted six days.http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2003/interviews/?id=heiko_salzwedel03
"But the combination group with caffeine and pseudoephedrine lasted 12 days! I was shocked about the outcome; the efficiency of the combination of caffeine and pseudoephedrine. This is real stuff - and WADA allows it now! I can already see the parents mixing pots of it."
What ultimately makes the book so damning, however, is that it doesn’t require readers to put their full faith in Hamilton’s word. In the book’s preface, which details its genesis, Coyle not so subtly addresses Armstrong’s supporters by pointing out that, while the story is told through Hamilton, nine former Postal teammates agreed to cooperate with him on The Secret Race, verifying and corroborating Hamilton’s account. Nine teammates. That fact is the first punch thrown at Armstrong’s supporters—and it might be the most damaging one. Next Wednesday, when The Secret Race comes out, backers will probably make the familiar claim that Hamilton is a disgruntled, bitter ex-rival who got popped for doping and is now looking to cash in. But that doesn’t explain why nine former teammates agreed to cooperate.
A little more on the evidence coming out at some point:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990Time will tell. But the USADA 'ruling' has certainly been ignored by all concerned to date.
err....what did I post above ?QuoteThe French Cycling Federation has said it accepts his refusal to fight as an admission of guilt (and aren't interested in trying to reassign results)
http://road.cc/content/news/64891-french-cycling-federation-says-it-views-lance-armstrongs-refusal-fight-charges
I understand your point HJ but this is a forum not a TV screen!
Again, I understand the point, HJ, but doping is a COLOSSAL subject - in all sports. It just happens that it's being discussed on this board, so that's where people comment.
Again, I understand the point, HJ, but doping is a COLOSSAL subject - in all sports. It just happens that it's being discussed on this board, so that's where people comment.
But 35 pages'-worth of it? About a nasty foreign has-been? Isn't that a tad obsessive when there's only 6 pages on the Vuelta, where a British rider might win (if he's very lucky) and a British rider returning from injury won yesterdays' stage?
I guess people just seem to find innuendo, conspiracies, deceipt and the darker side of human nature far more interesting than the 'good' and wholesome.
I guess people just seem to find innuendo, conspiracies, deceipt and the darker side of human nature far more interesting than the 'good' and wholesome.
Sad, isn't it?
I guess people just seem to find innuendo, conspiracies, deceipt and the darker side of human nature far more interesting than the 'good' and wholesome.
Sad, isn't it?
Cycling doesn't feature a lot in the mainstream media when the Tour isn't on. That was largely down to lack of interesting English speaking riders. There waas a rise in interest in the 80s with Millar, Lemond, and various Australians, then in the 90s with Boardman, but Lance took it to another level, partly down to the human interest angle. He was a meal ticket for the cycling media, now that Wiggins has won we can discard Lance.
But most posters here are actually fans of the sport! (You do start to wonder about a few sometimes
And as long as the doping talk stays (mainly) out of the other racing threads, I'm happy :thumbsup:
You could probably achieve the same effect by putting LWAB on Ignore.QuoteAnd as long as the doping talk stays (mainly) out of the other racing threads, I'm happy :thumbsup:
Perhaps we should have a separate category for doping, as we do for those funny plastic hat things?
I understand your point HJ but this is a forum not a TV screen!
...and currently the "Racing" bit of it is dominated by unsubstantiated gossip on a subject that will be pretty meaningless in the wider scheme of things when there's fun happening elsewhere that can be talked about.
Again, I understand the point, HJ, but doping is a COLOSSAL subject - in all sports. It just happens that it's being discussed on this board, so that's where people comment.
But 35 pages'-worth of it? About a nasty foreign has-been? Isn't that a tad obsessive when there's only 6 pages on the Vuelta, where a British rider might win (if he's very lucky) and a British rider returning from injury won yesterdays' stage?
Oh, and here's an interesting, albeit complex map of influence: http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBusinessConnectionsV2.pdf
Again, I understand the point, HJ, but doping is a COLOSSAL subject - in all sports. It just happens that it's being discussed on this board, so that's where people comment.
But 35 pages'-worth of it? About a nasty foreign has-been? Isn't that a tad obsessive when there's only 6 pages on the Vuelta, where a British rider might win (if he's very lucky) and a British rider returning from injury won yesterdays' stage?
Actually "Bye Lance" has 35 pages in a topic that has been running for 6 months. "Vuelta" has 6 pages on a topic that has been running for 3 weeks, so Vuelta is doing pretty well!
Oh, and here's an interesting, albeit complex map of influence: http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBusinessConnectionsV2.pdf
What a tangled web we weave ...
A little more on the evidence coming out at some point:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990Time will tell. But the USADA 'ruling' has certainly been ignored by all concerned to date.
err....what did I post above ?QuoteThe French Cycling Federation has said it accepts his refusal to fight as an admission of guilt (and aren't interested in trying to reassign results)
http://road.cc/content/news/64891-french-cycling-federation-says-it-views-lance-armstrongs-refusal-fight-charges
All concerned - Armstrong himself, the UCI, the ASO. They've all ignored the ruling to date. In effect more of a press release than a ruling.
Certainly the element of national pride and state prestige is there - but then sport has been used for that since long before East Germany existed, or Germany was even united. Another comparison they fail to make is there too. When the article saysIt wouldn't surprise me at all if Armstrong was found guilty of doping by a properly constituted court of law. But until that happens - if it happens at all - he remains innocent and the legitimate winner of 7 Tours. Whatever USADA have to say on the matter is irrelevant unless tested in court. There's a lot in Liggett's comments that ring true.
The precedent of East Germany is interesting. Admissions of doping haven't erased medal records. I'm quite interested at the moment as to how we became the next new East Germany, Australia having been the last new East Germany. Charlie Walsh and Heiko Salzwedel seem to have been the key figures in carrying the Torch of organised state sport into the new Millennium, in cycling at least.
I read an interesting polemic about the subject in general.
http://www.sabotagetimes.com/football-sport/team-gb-are-the-new-east-germany/
Every time they pulled away from their West Germany on the track, it was seen as another boost for socialism on the way to the inevitable victory over their decadent capitalist neighbours.it is only partly right. National sporting rivalries in the Soviet Bloc were mainly aimed at the USSR, not the West. In the same way, Team GB's success is to beat the Australians and rival the USA, not China or Russia.
A little more on the evidence coming out at some point:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990Time will tell. But the USADA 'ruling' has certainly been ignored by all concerned to date.
err....what did I post above ?QuoteThe French Cycling Federation has said it accepts his refusal to fight as an admission of guilt (and aren't interested in trying to reassign results)
http://road.cc/content/news/64891-french-cycling-federation-says-it-views-lance-armstrongs-refusal-fight-charges
All concerned - Armstrong himself, the UCI, the ASO. They've all ignored the ruling to date. In effect more of a press release than a ruling.
(only just got back to this after a few days..)
Since the FFC are the body that issues racing licences in France, I would say your 'all concerned' is a rather narrow interpretation. Still, please yerself..
http://users.rcn.com/barbara.dnai/cycl-org.html
Certainly the element of national pride and state prestige is there - but then sport has been used for that since long before East Germany existed, or Germany was even united. Another comparison they fail to make is there too. When the article saysIt wouldn't surprise me at all if Armstrong was found guilty of doping by a properly constituted court of law. But until that happens - if it happens at all - he remains innocent and the legitimate winner of 7 Tours. Whatever USADA have to say on the matter is irrelevant unless tested in court. There's a lot in Liggett's comments that ring true.
The precedent of East Germany is interesting. Admissions of doping haven't erased medal records. I'm quite interested at the moment as to how we became the next new East Germany, Australia having been the last new East Germany. Charlie Walsh and Heiko Salzwedel seem to have been the key figures in carrying the Torch of organised state sport into the new Millennium, in cycling at least.
I read an interesting polemic about the subject in general.
http://www.sabotagetimes.com/football-sport/team-gb-are-the-new-east-germany/QuoteEvery time they pulled away from their West Germany on the track, it was seen as another boost for socialism on the way to the inevitable victory over their decadent capitalist neighbours.it is only partly right. National sporting rivalries in the Soviet Bloc were mainly aimed at the USSR, not the West. In the same way, Team GB's success is to beat the Australians and rival the USA, not China or Russia.
An obvious difference is that here we are allowed to cast aspersions at our own national teams and even question their existence.
A bit more care with spoilers please. If I'd wanted to know the Stage results I'd have looked at the Vuelta thread.
Dave
Again, I understand the point, HJ, but doping is a COLOSSAL subject - in all sports. It just happens that it's being discussed on this board, so that's where people comment.
But 35 pages'-worth of it? About a nasty foreign has-been? Isn't that a tad obsessive when there's only 6 pages on the Vuelta, where a British rider might win (if he's very lucky) and a British rider returning from injury won yesterdays' stage?
David Walsh on Liggett in today's ST
http://freetexthost.com/g35tjktvau
“I spoke out too much. That was the main problem,” Jaksche tells Cyclingnews six years after Puerto rocked the Tour.
“There were riders in the same situation as me and officially they never spoke out but to avoid legal problems in the future they spoke to the police and confessed everything to them but they didn’t talk to the UCI. The pressure from the police was a lot higher. Then these riders went out and said they’d never talked. I didn’t want to have that on my conscience and of course I knew that if I went out and said here’s my story and that this is the system, I knew that there was a big chance of never getting back into cycling again.”
Jaksche spent hours talking to the UCI in the wake of his suspension. He spoke to their lawyers, Anne Gripper, their former head in anti-doping, and president, Pat McQuaid. But despite the cooperation they discounted his testimony, saying that he hadn’t provided enough information. Yet in the public sphere he had talked about Fuentes, an introduction made by Manolo Saiz, doping at CSC, his first encounters with EPO at Polti and the culture within Telekom. The UCI weren’t impressed, and initially said they would appeal and press for a two-year ban.
“If you confess and tell them how things are you normally get a reduction of your punishment. I knew that if I talked it would be difficult to come back anyway, so I had a discussion with the UCI about my confession and if I would get one year or two. Someone from the German criminal board had to call them and say that I did qualify as a testimony for them and therefore my words should be good enough for them.”
The UCI dropped their hopes of a two-year ban but Jaksche had no contact from them as a result. There were no further questions and to Jaksche’s knowledge, no further investigations were made by the UCI into any of the individuals or teams that he’d implicated.
“This is how you have to deal with the UCI. They try and protect their sport but they don’t know how to do that. They think that a sport without scandal is a clean sport and they have so many misleading people in their federation. There are so many cadavers. It’s like having a dead body in your basement festering away and going bad. That’s how the UCI treat doping. They gave me no hope and I felt worse treated by the UCI than if I hadn’t confessed and told them my story. It wasn’t the reaction I was hoping to get."
“McQuaid said this and that but they would have liked me to have handled things differently. I don’t really know what they meant by that.”
Fat Pat seems to be preparing the ground for the inevitable...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-says-uci-not-afraid-to-sanction-lance-armstrong
[What] McQuaid may, however, be looking into further is allegations that riders gave their testimony against Armstrong in a deal with USADA for a reduced sanction over past doping admissions.
Although the names of the riders who testified are yet to be made public, McQuaid said he would look into statements made by Garmin-Sharp manager Jonathan Vaughters, who wrote in the Cyclingnews forums that several of his riders had doped in the past, including Tom Danielson, David Zabriskie and Christian Vande Velde.
"We need to see if Jonathan Vaughter's accusations have any substance so we can see if we take action against these riders," said McQuaid.
I saw Tyler Hamilton interviewed on the BBC News Channel's 'Hardtalk' last night. It was a tough grilling, and shows what problems might be faced in a formal court of law. I can see Sparks' point in his judgement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mml99/HARDtalk_Tyler_Hamilton_Former_professional_cyclist/
That Hardtalk interview is v.poor, tbh - the interviewer seems determined to discredit Hamilton without questioning the credibility of the counter-claims such as Lance's "never tested positive" line. That may well be the kind of technique you'd expect from a hostile defence lawyer cross-examining him in a court of law, but it's pretty shoddy journalism.
d.
That's what Hardtalk interviews are like.
I'd like to see Vaughters do one, and Lance obviously.
It's still shoddy journalism.
I wonder - did these people start off doing law degrees, then switched to meeja studies when it go too hard?
Two years out from the London Olympics, and signs that muck and bullets could be about to fly are there in the BBC appointment of a former war correspondent to its sports news team.
Tim Franks, who has been BBC News’s Middle East correspondent since 2007, having previously reported from Iraq during the 2003 invasion, has transferred to the team under sports editor David Bond.
Franks replaces Olly Foster, who is off to become the sports presenter on the BBC News Channel.
Franks’s journalistic career began in 1990, when he joined World Service from Oxford University, where he graduated in Chinese.
He has not previously worked in sport, though he has wide-ranging foreign and political news experience, having been based in Brussels as Europe Correspondent for five years and six years based at Westminster.
He has also presented Radio 4′s The World At One and The World This Weekend.
I saw Tyler Hamilton interviewed on the BBC News Channel's 'Hardtalk' last night. It was a tough grilling, and shows what problems might be faced in a formal court of law. I can see Sparks' point in his judgement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mml99/HARDtalk_Tyler_Hamilton_Former_professional_cyclist/
Hamilton's testimony is weakest from 4 minutes onward in the interview.
Someone else can flag up the strongest parts of his testimony, because he struck me as a burnt-out stoner, promoting his book, while trying to use his floppy hair to shield himself from the glare of tough questioning.
Clearly I was wrong in his case - he likes warzones, and seeks to recreate them wherever he goes.
[Wasn't there a DropThe Dead Donkey character like that? ]
His hair. That is good hair for a sportsman.
To date, hair is not accepted in doping control, although France passed in 2001 a law allowing biologists to use this matrix to document doping (décret n˚ 2001-35 from 11 January 2001).
Unless they had been overdoing the Pot Belge in between races, the Festina squad would have been wasting their time:Quote from: Trimega LabsTo date, hair is not accepted in doping control, although France passed in 2001 a law allowing biologists to use this matrix to document doping (décret n˚ 2001-35 from 11 January 2001).
http://www.trimegalabs.co.uk/tests/hair-steroid-testing.php
And looking at that picture of Pantani, if the intention of bleaching was to beat the testers, he's screwed up by not bleaching his eyebrows, nor I suspect, the hair on his arms, feet, pubes, back, sack and crack... ;D
Colour me sceptical on the hair theory.
I've made my mind up on the likely outcome of the Lance problem, which is a peace and reconciliation model. Lance may be formally stripped of his titles, but they will live on in public memory. I'm looking for signs pointing in that direction, so I'm blind to those signs pointing elsewhere. What do people feel was the strongest part of Hamilton's testimony?
For anyone who's interested, here's a helpful article on the differences between the US and UK editions of The Secret Race...
http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2012/09/18/the-differences-between-the-us-and-uk-versions-of-the-secret-race/
Is USADA paranoid? It looks like FortKnox here.
We have been doing this since two years. Before, our doors were open but since the BALCO case everything changed. We received death threats for the first time. Two for Terry Madden, my predecessor and a bit later one for me and my family when the Landis confessions came out. The FBI dealth with them. We reacted quickly. My office is now inaccessible to visitors. The blinds are down and the cameras are on 24/7.
And the Armstrong case?
That resulted in three death threats, all made by individuals I think. Once again, the FBI is involved.
Take us through an aspect of the case the general public has difficulties to understand. You sanctionned Armstrong from 1998. What happened to the eight year statute of limitations?
The statute of limitations is a right granted to the defense. But this right doesn’t exist if the other party can prove that the athlete who committed foul play influenced the witnesses that appeared to be able to prove his guilt over the years. Or if he hid the proof or lied under oath. We are certain this is the case in the Armstrong file and will explain this to UCI when we hand over the file.
When?
It’s imminent. At the end of the month.
Johan Bruyneel, Armstrong’s mentor refused your judgment and opts for a hearing in front of an independent USADA panel. He plays it big?
Oh for sure. I don’t know what he hopes for. Winning time? Take advantage of the inertia of the system? He will be heard before the end of this year. The hearing will be public. Lance Armstrong may be called upon to tesify, under oath. Like all the others. In that game there is no safety net. If he lies under oath, it’s serious.
Last detail. Have you and Armstrong ever met? At least one time? Face to face?
No. We talked on the phone twice. It was all very formal. I offered him to find a solution, to cooperate. If he would have accepted the offer, he wouldn’t have lost his seven Tour de France titles because we wouldn have taken his cooperation into consideration. But the next day he attacked us and the constitutionality of our investigation.
He has lost?
Indeed.
Sarcastic Tom @sarcastitom
UCI: "Are we there yet?" USADA: "Five more minutes." UCI "Are we there yet?" USADA: "Don't make me stop this car."
One rider tells a story from the 1998 world championship at Valkenburg in Holland when cortisone pills, wrapped in tin foil, were given to the Postal riders on the US national team for the road race. According to the rider’s affidavit, the pills were wrapped in the foil and handed out by Kristin Armstrong, the champion’s former wife. “Kristin is rolling the joints,” one rider joked at the time.
In an interview with L’Equipe in France, the head of USADA, Travis Tygart, said he believed all the witnesses his agency interviewed had told the truth and that there had been “confirmation” of this. Tygart might have been referring to the presence of US Justice Department official Mike Pugliese at USADA’s interviews with witnesses.
During the interviews, Pugliese sat silently but with transcripts of interviews these witnesses had given before a Grand Jury or to federal officers in the case against the team that was dropped in February. “As you gave an answer to a question,” one witness said, “you were very conscious of this guy checking it against the answer you had given to the Feds, so you really wanted to make sure you got it right.”
USADA did not receive any material from the aborted federal case and Pugliese sat in on the interviews solely to check if witnesses confirmed accounts given to federal officers and to see if the Justice Department should open a civil case against Armstrong and the owners of the team.
* With the honourable exception of Betsy Andreu.How I admire that woman. Balls of steel.
Not surprising, reading Tyler Hamilton's book it seems the WAGs were in on it anyway. Not the kind of thing you can hide from a partner, keeping mysterious medical products in the fridge.
... have accepted bribes, are corrupt, areterrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuinedesire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of shit, are clowns, their words areworthless, are liars, are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi...
The bit I don't quite get is section III of the ruling. If I've understood correctly, Landis has been ordered to take ads out in the press stating that he's not allowed to call Verbruggen and McQuaid terrorists, clowns, corrupt etc.That's what the UCI have requested in the Kimmage case too. Do you think Landis will use the wording from the court judgment, stating he was incorrect in his assertion about what the UCI was full of, which recently deposed political figures they resemble ... and so on. Could backfire a bit.
Streisand-tastic! ;D
d.
As far as the list of things Landis isn't allowed to say goes, I'm confident there are gaps. 'Paramecium' isn't banned, for a start.
The bit I don't quite get is section III of the ruling. If I've understood correctly, Landis has been ordered to take ads out in the press stating that he's not allowed to call Verbruggen and McQuaid terrorists, clowns, corrupt etc.
Streisand-tastic! ;D
d.
if it’s forbidden to say McQuaid and Verbruggen are full of shit, should we deduce they regularly use colonic irrigation?
“In your July 26 letter, you accuse Mr. LeMond of committing criminal infringement and then demand that he either (1) corroborate his alleged accusations; or (2) withdraw his alleged accusations publicly. You also “suggest to discuss the way to proceed.” Obviously, Greg LeMond’s public retraction of his statements regarding UCI is something of value to UCI. Indeed, you would not have written your letter to Mr. LeMond and demanded the same unless it had value to your organization. Under United States’ law, threatening criminal prosecution in order to obtain “any money or other valuable thing” is a federal crime. See 18 U.S.C. 0 873. Violations of section 873 require a fine and imprisonment for not more than one year.”
2. (Not that it matters but) USADA have announced that they have stripped LA of his titles going back to 1998. UCI disputed they had the right to do that, so is the expectation that the UCI will also be doing it, if they accept USADA's findings relating to Armstrong?
The UCI have tried various ways to undermine this case, because, when all is said and done, it is really about them.
I don't think the USADA have actually claimed to have stripped his titles though. I think they've said "He will be stripped of his titles" rather than that they specifically are doing the stripping.
d.
In addition to the lifetime ban, Mr. Armstrong will be disqualified from any and all competitive results obtained on and subsequent to August 1, 1998, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, winnings, finishes, points and prizes.
If the UCI decide to contest their part in the affair and the facts are proven against them and for the USADA does the WADA have any rights to throw them out of WADA approved international sport? If so could we see the WHPVA taking over responsibility for cycling in the next Olympics ::-)
On a less funny note the reaction of the big league money could be very interesting if the international controlling body is publicly shown to be corrupt and involved in race fixing (and perhaps worse).
We can expect the worst when Cav is seen getting measured for a Raptobike.
What happens if a sports organization or a government does not comply with the Code?
WADA reports cases of non-compliance to its stakeholders who have jurisdiction to impose sanctions, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Olympic charter was amended in 2003 to state that adoption of the Code by the Olympic movement is mandatory. Only sports that adopt and implement the Code can be included and remain in the program of the Olympic Games.
Given that the IOC are even more corrupt than the UCI, I doubt they'll want to risk rocking the boat too much.
d.
USADA are to present the evidence to the UCI within the next week or so. I was sort of expecting that its content would be made public at that point, but UCI won't be doing that. Will USADA? Or will we have to wait?
David Walsh @DavidWalshST
USADA has written a summary, circa 200 pages, that will be available to public. Perhaps some time today. Thousands of pages in full report.
... in a press release issued this morning, USADA states that its 1000 page dossier not only includes testimony from 26 individuals, including 15 riders "with knowledge of the US Postal Service Team (USPS Team) and its participants' doping activities", but also "direct documentary evidence including financial payments, emails, scientific data and laboratory test results that further prove the use, possession and distribution of performance enhancing drugs by Lance Armstrong".
What is strange is that it looks as if Armstrongs team have totally underestimated the depth of this investigation, judging by the nature of their press releases.
What is strange is that it looks as if Armstrongs team have totally underestimated the depth of this investigation, judging by the nature of their press releases.
All the bullshit about jurisdiction and whether or not the USADA were following the correct procedure was always wishful thinking.
d.
McQuaid and Verbruggen must be shitting themselves now - if the money trail leads directly to their door...
For you to say that you're innocent is a stretch, Armstrong.
The shit is about to hit the fan... Armstrong/USADA report live report (Guardian link) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/10/lance-armstrong-doping-case-live).
And will there be pressure to get an explanation of why the federal fraud case was dropped?Yeah, why was it dropped? What's the lowdown on that? AIUI there are boxes and boxes of sworn testimony there that USADA couldn't use.
And will there be pressure to get an explanation of why the federal fraud case was dropped?Yeah, why was it dropped? What's the lowdown on that? AIUI there are boxes and boxes of sworn testimony there that USADA couldn't use.
It just goes to show the courage of USADA in making this stick
And will there be pressure to get an explanation of why the federal fraud case was dropped?Yeah, why was it dropped? What's the lowdown on that? AIUI there are boxes and boxes of sworn testimony there that USADA couldn't use.
Armstrong has very powerful lobbyists.
It's not beyond possibility that the Birotte (sp?) genuinely considered that they may not get a conviction (despite the strength of the evidence) and had no desire to tie up court time with legal shenanigans.
Is this all a cunning publicity setup for Armstrong's new book? "You got me guvnor, bang to rights"
It's not beyond possibility that the Birotte (sp?) genuinely considered that they may not get a conviction (despite the strength of the evidence) and had no desire to tie up court time with legal shenanigans.
That is a very charitable view. *cough*
So UCI respond by suspending those who came forward. ANd Bruyneel is still involved with team management. There is something wrong here. What I didn't realise until reading the blurb is that one of the reasons Ferrari was so good with EPO was that he worked in the lab of the person in whose lab the EPO test was developed. That wee bit of inside knowledge makes a huge difference (especially when you are on an italian postdoc salary.)
The shit is about to hit the fan... Armstrong/USADA report live report (Guardian link) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/10/lance-armstrong-doping-case-live).
Fertiliser is now firmly scattered all over the place.
Bloody Hell! The UCI must accept responsibility for this. I have registered my disapproval by donating to the Kimmage fund.
LAnce is a real thug - just finished reading Levi's affidavit (http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Leipheimer%2c+Levi%2c+Affidavit.pdf).
I hope that one thing to emerge from all this is the widespread realisation that the UCI is much more an Entertainments Business than an Administrative Body.
What they want: Stages ending in a 1-in-3 goat track
What they don't want: Positive dope tests.
The shit is about to hit the fan... Armstrong/USADA report live report (Guardian link) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/10/lance-armstrong-doping-case-live).
Fertiliser is now firmly scattered all over the place.
Bloody Hell! The UCI must accept responsibility for this. I have registered my disapproval by donating to the Kimmage fund.
LAnce is a real thug - just finished reading Levi's affidavit (http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Leipheimer%2c+Levi%2c+Affidavit.pdf).
I'm no lawyer (and I don't now doubt that Lance was doping) but this Affidavit surely isn't worth the paper it's written on as something to convict Armstrong.
"someone told me Lance was doing this" and "someone told me Lance was doing that".
It's a damning indictment of Leipheimer, Landis and some others but it's still nothing but rumour about Lance.
I think we need to see all the other Affidavits and hope that some of them say more than "someone told me...."
It also contain reference to statements made directly by Armstrong.
And hearsay is not automatically irrelevant or inadmissable (a common misconception).
I'm no lawyer (and I don't now doubt that Lance was doping) but this Affidavit surely isn't worth the paper it's written on as something to convict Armstrong.
"someone told me Lance was doing this" and "someone told me Lance was doing that".
It's a damning indictment of Leipheimer, Landis and some others but it's still nothing but rumour about Lance.
I think we need to see all the other Affidavits and hope that some of them say more than "someone told me...."
And will there be pressure to get an explanation of why the federal fraud case was dropped?Yeah, why was it dropped? What's the lowdown on that? AIUI there are boxes and boxes of sworn testimony there that USADA couldn't use.
AIUI, the Federal case wasn't about whether LA doped; it was about whether public money (US Postal is a Govt. institution) was used to pay for illegal doping. I recall they decided that they couldn't get enough positive evidence to prove that contention.
I'm no lawyer (and I don't now doubt that Lance was doping) but this Affidavit surely isn't worth the paper it's written on as something to convict Armstrong.
"someone told me Lance was doing this" and "someone told me Lance was doing that".
It's a damning indictment of Leipheimer, Landis and some others but it's still nothing but rumour about Lance.
I think we need to see all the other Affidavits and hope that some of them say more than "someone told me...."
Only if we were talking about a court of law where 'beyond reasonable doubt' might be required, but this isn't. The standard of proof required for a sporting penalty is somewhat lower.
AIUI, the Federal case wasn't about whether LA doped; it was about whether public money (US Postal is a Govt. institution) was used to pay for illegal doping. I recall they decided that they couldn't get enough positive evidence to prove that contention.
Reportedly, that wasn't the reason. More along the lines of 'we were told to drop the prosecution at very short notice'. This was at the behest of a politician who benefited from a donation at almost the same time, the details show up pretty quickly if you search.
I'm just a bit disappointed that Leipheimer's testimony is still 100% conjecture and rumour.
I was expecting him to say "Lance was on the next bed to me with tubes pumping him full of a steaming red broth"
I don't need any more "Floyd Landis said Lance is cheating"
"It's mostly about the drugs, but some of it's about the transfusions".Is this all a cunning publicity setup for Armstrong's new book? "You got me guvnor, bang to rights""It's all about the Drugs"?
I'm just a bit disappointed that Leipheimer's testimony is still 100% conjecture and rumour.
I was expecting him to say "Lance was on the next bed to me with tubes pumping him full of a steaming red broth"
I don't need any more "Floyd Landis said Lance is cheating"
Read the judgment - it is all there. There is testimony from the likes of Hincapie saying pretty much that Lance had red steaming blood pumped into him.
I was a Lance supporter (I've camped overnight on the side of a road to see him pass), then a doubter, and now I am utterly convinced that he cheated.
It really is in black and white.
Beer & chilli peanuts for me. The peanuts are much better for throwing than popcorn.McQuaid and Verbruggen must be shitting themselves now - if the money trail leads directly to their door...
Then there are the many and varied business connections. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be off out for marshmallows and pop-corn.
I bet Phil Ligget isn't answering his phone today.
"It's mostly about the drugs, but some of it's about the transfusions".Is this all a cunning publicity setup for Armstrong's new book? "You got me guvnor, bang to rights""It's all about the Drugs"?
Snappy title, eh?
I'm still a bit confused about what USADA are trying to do. If they're using Armstrong as a glamorous hook to show that UCI are not enforcing doping rules and are not fit to be in charge of cycling worldwide - what's their aim in that? Are they concerned mostly with the doping or is this a court coup? Or what?
Stronger living through chemistry.
British cyclist Alex Dowsett believes Lance Armstrong remains "a legend of the sport" despite the doping accusations against the American.
The United States Anti-Doping Agency banned Armstrong for life and stripped him of his seven Tour de France titles.
Team Sky rider Dowsett, 24, said: "He is still a legend of the sport. A guy who had cancer came back and won the Tour de France.
"I think it's not really important and I really don't think it matters."
Dowsett joined Team Sky for the 2011 season from the US-based Trek-LiveStrong squad - an under-23 development team created by Armstrong to nurture emerging talent.
I'm still a bit confused about what USADA are trying to do. If they're using Armstrong as a glamorous hook to show that UCI are not enforcing doping rules and are not fit to be in charge of cycling worldwide - what's their aim in that? Are they concerned mostly with the doping or is this a court coup? Or what?
Maybe WADA should be thinking about sanctioning the UCI in some way. I don't know what options are open to them. I suppose the worst case scenario is that cycling is struck off the list of Olympic sports. Can't see that happening though.I can't see that being struck off the Olympics would matter as much to cycling as to, say, athletics.
d.
British cyclist Alex Dowsett believes Lance Armstrong remains "a legend of the sport" but could not shake his hand in light of recent doping allegations.
The United States Anti-Doping Agency banned Armstrong for life and stripped him of his seven Tour de France titles.
Team Sky rider Dowsett, 24, said on Thursday morning: "He is still a legend of the sport. A guy who had cancer came back and won the Tour de France."
However, he later told BBC Sport: "I don't think I could shake his hand."
I was questioning the usefulness of Leipheimer's testimony, it really says nothing about Lance worth a damn.
I was questioning the usefulness of Leipheimer's testimony, it really says nothing about Lance worth a damn.
It is, however, direct testimony that Bruyneel was putting pressure on to riders to dope. And that is entirely relevant as the case is more than just Lance, and Bruyneel is DS for a US registered team.
@friebos (https://twitter.com/friebos/statuses/256681817141288961) Cancellara: 'Bruyneel's name appears in 129 of the 200 pages. I don't know if I can still work with him.' via @sport_nieuws (https://twitter.com/sport_nieuws)
Respect to Spartacus (though you have to wonder if he was only fooling himself if he didn't have a clue sooner)...Quote@friebos (https://twitter.com/friebos/statuses/256681817141288961) Cancellara: 'Bruyneel's name appears in 129 of the 200 pages. I don't know if I can still work with him.' via @sport_nieuws (https://twitter.com/sport_nieuws)
Full story (in Dutch): http://www.nu.nl/sport/2932149/cancellara-twijfelt-samenwerking-met-bruyneel.html
I bet Phil Ligget isn't answering his phone today.
Small piece by Ned Boulting in the Metro this morning. Fairly lightweight and doesn't say much - a bit like the Metro reallyI bet Phil Ligget isn't answering his phone today.
Ned Boulting showed up on the TV news yesterday, and raised the UCI issue when the UKADA person didn't.
Respect to Spartacus (though you have to wonder if he was only fooling himself if he didn't have a clue sooner)...Quote@friebos (https://twitter.com/friebos/statuses/256681817141288961) Cancellara: 'Bruyneel's name appears in 129 of the 200 pages. I don't know if I can still work with him.' via @sport_nieuws (https://twitter.com/sport_nieuws)
Full story (in Dutch): http://www.nu.nl/sport/2932149/cancellara-twijfelt-samenwerking-met-bruyneel.html
Methinks that Fabian will not have to trouble himself too much with that question. Others will have answered it for him by the time he starts his season.
“Acting in mutual agreement, on October 12 Leopard SA and Johan Bruyneel decided to end their collaboration. From this day on, Johan Bruyneel will no longer act in the position of General Manager of cycling team RADIOSHACK NISSAN TREK,” a statement from the Luxembourg-based team reads.
“The Reasoned Decision published by the USADA included a number of testimonies as a result of their investigation. In light of these testimonies, both parties feel it is necessary to make this decision since Johan Bruyneel can no longer direct the Team in an efficient and comfortable way. His departure is desirable to ensure the serenity and cohesiveness within the Team.”
“RADIOSHACK NISSAN TREK wishes to thank Johan Bruyneel for his dedication and devotion since his arrival in the Team.”
I wonder if the UCI will drop their legal action against Paul Kimmage ?
The boil has been burst.Eugh.
It's going to be very messy for some time to come. Pus everywhere. I hope we've all got lids on our popcorn.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bruyneel part owns RSNT, and might be disappearing into the shadows so that the team doesn't fold completely.
Never mind boils bursting, it's the rampant hypocrisy I can't bear. Watch out for very guarded words of rebuke for LA from other riders, shitting themselves that their own misdemeanors might be revealed.
Is this just the time USPS/Discovery stopped or is it something else like the point a reliable EPO test came in and everybody reigned in their doping.
Did Fignon fail a test? I can't remember. Pedro Delgado pretty much failed a test, although he managed to wriggle out of that one.
I don't think I knew about Rob Hayles failing a test either. Anyone wanna summarise?
And it looks like Team Sky may be having a clear out too.. A certain DS (who failed a drugs test as a rider) is reported to have been an active doper during his career by eye witnesses.
It looks like the Augean stables may be up for a bit of a clear out.
Do you mean did I see a certain someone inject just about an hour before a criterium when he knew there was no medical control , then pass the needle to another rider who injected the remainder into his backside direct through his shorts ( I'm not making this up!)...or later in the same year the same guy use a managers urine in a drinks can to pour in to the sample jar to avoid giving his own sample ...and that guy now works as DS for a well known TV broadcasting sponsored team ?.....or that bit of dodgyness was then sussed by the race organisation who,s response was to settle for said rider to pull out of the race and say no more about it.
I really couldn't possibly say ..
Ahh the amazingly bitter Mr Webster
I think Brailsford must be shitting it a bit. His decision to declare that Sky would only use squeaky clean people was setting himself up for failure. I'm not sure such a thing exists. Besides I really struggle to believe that Brailsford is that naive.
Ahh the amazingly bitter Mr Webster
I think Brailsford must be shitting it a bit. His decision to declare that Sky would only use squeaky clean people was setting himself up for failure. I'm not sure such a thing exists. Besides I really struggle to believe that Brailsford is that naive.
The only thing to be said of that is that at least he set standards to fail by.
Armstrong repeatedly said, "I have never failed a drugs test," and Merkx said, "You can't win the tour on bread and water." Both implied they used drugs without admitting it.
Ahh the amazingly bitter Mr Webster
I think Brailsford must be shitting it a bit. His decision to declare that Sky would only use squeaky clean people was setting himself up for failure. I'm not sure such a thing exists. Besides I really struggle to believe that Brailsford is that naive.
The only thing to be said of that is that at least he set standards to fail by.
Yes, that would be how I'd prefer to view it.
However I struggle to believe he could be that naive, and if what is going on gathers momentum he could face more embarrassing moments to add to Barry, Rogers, Yates and Leinders. I don't believe for one second that any revelations will come as a surprise to him.
Is this just an Armstrong hate campaign or will Merkcx and Anquetil be stripped of their wins?
That would leave us with only two five time TdF winners: Hinault and Induráin.
In May 1994, Indurain tested positive for salbutamol following the Tour de L'Oise in France. Though the β2-adrenergic agonist, found in nasal inhalers, was on the banned substance list of both the IOC and UCI, both organization's permitted sportsmen with asthma to use it. However in France there was an outright ban on its use.[21] The IOC agreed with the UCI that Indurain would not be punished for using a drug banned outright in France because they accepted the salbutamol was contained in a nasal inhaler he had been using legitimately to aid his respiration. In Spain, the incident was interpreted as another case of the French attempting to hinder Indurain's domination of the sport.[22]
[His] humility seems to have spared him from some embarrassing questions that others of his generation haven't been so lucky to avoid. While the likes of Bjarne Riis have been forced to confess to using EPO and other banned drugs, Indurain remains protected by Spain's jealous media. His five straight Tour crowns paralleled Spain's coming of age following decades of repression under the dictatorship of General Franco and his face became a symbol of a new, more assertive Spain stepping confidently on to the European stage.
Somebody was just saying to me last week that the inhaler abuse was rife in the local youngsters racing club down the track, they certainly seem a lot more common than when I was a kid.
Ah, salbutamol, salbutamol. You'd be amazed at the number of blue puffers you see at a triathlon transition. :demon:
The secret to avoiding your kids developing it is apparently to have two cats in the household. One will not suffice. Cats are amazing sources of allergens. Worked for our daughters, and we have a family history of asthma. FWIW my asthma disappeared at the age of 37, when we got a third cat.That's assuming your asthmatic reactions to the allergens you are exposed to while living with these horrible beasts are not so severe as to endanger your life as you gradually desensitize your system. Believe me, this is not a solution for everyone. (I speak from personal experience).
People might start bring out their old USPS kit and wearing it on club runs in an ironic way.
Steve Redgrave's a celebrity asthmatic of course. British rowing was reinvigorated by the former East German coach Jürgen Gröbler.
People might start bring out their old USPS kit and wearing it on club runs in an ironic way.
People might start bring out their old USPS kit and wearing it on club runs in an ironic way.
Is it possible to wear trade kit other than ironically?
Steve Redgrave's a celebrity asthmatic of course. British rowing was reinvigorated by the former East German coach Jürgen Gröbler.
Are you sure, ESL? I know he is dyslexic and diabetic, as well as incredible.
People might start bring out their old USPS kit and wearing it on club runs in an ironic way.
Is it possible to wear trade kit other than ironically?
Yes(click to show/hide)
. IF YOU NEED TO USE BETA-2 AGONISTS FOR ASTHMA
Submitting a TUE for the use of the use of Beta-2 Agonists for Asthma depends on the “drug” which is used to treat your asthma. Please pay attention to the substance which is included in your inhaler!
2a. Beta-2 agonists for asthma (Salmeterol/Salbutamol/Formoterol): you do not need to submit any TUE if you take inhaled Salbutamol and/or Salmeterol (up to a daily dose of 1600 μg) and/or Formoterol (up to a daily dose of 36 μg).
2b. Terbutaline:
If you take Terbutaline for the treatment of asthma, you must submit a TUE for Asthma and a full medical file to confirm the diagnosis of asthma and/or it’s clinical variants. The medical file should include:
A detailed medical history and clinical review
Lung function test with spirometry
Bronchodilator response
Bronchial provocation tests
To assist your doctor in completing the correct tests, and providing the correct medical information, we suggest that he or she consults the WADA Guidelines on Asthma clicking here.
If the TUE for Asthma is completed correctly with valid test results, the UCI TUE Committee may grant an approval for up to 4 years.
Tonight (Monday) 7 p.m. on BBC radio 5, a programme about LA and the doping regime.
Asthma inhalers are now avaialable over-the-counter at ASDA, at £7 for 2, a considerable saving on the NHS prescription price. http://your.asda.com/news-and-blogs/asthma-sufferers-can-now-buy-their-inhalers-from-asda
They'll also do you a flu-jab for £7, removing the hassle of the GP interface.
http://your.asda.com/news-and-blogs/it-s-quick-and-easy-to-get-your-flu-jab-at-asda-pharmacy
Nothing new factually, but does include interviews with Mrs Andreu and Tyler H, as well as footage of depositions (including LA's denials) from the 2005 SCA case.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/11/3608613.htm
It's the spectators fault, they don't want to see riders doing 25Kph, they want to see them doing 41. So, the riders must prepare
Here's an interesting piece from JV, written in 1999:
http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/jonathan-vaughters-crossing-the-line/
Subtle... ;)
Steve Redgrave's a celebrity asthmatic of course. British rowing was reinvigorated by the former East German coach Jürgen Gröbler.
Are you sure, ESL? I know he is dyslexic and diabetic, as well as incredible.
It's a very comon condition in endurance athletes Wiggo is another.
http://www.londonbridgehospital.com/LBH/industry-news-det/Wiggins-inspires-asthma-sufferers/
Could the real Phil Liggett please stand up? Two slightly contradictory headlines here:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite-usadas-evidence-liggett-remains-armstrongs-supporter
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13065/Liggett-admits-he-now-finds-it-very-difficult-not-to-believe-Armstrong-took-drugs.aspx
Steve Redgrave's a celebrity asthmatic of course. British rowing was reinvigorated by the former East German coach Jürgen Gröbler.
Are you sure, ESL? I know he is dyslexic and diabetic, as well as incredible.
It's a very comon condition in endurance athletes Wiggo is another.
http://www.londonbridgehospital.com/LBH/industry-news-det/Wiggins-inspires-asthma-sufferers/
Steve Redgrave is diabetic and dyslexic, and he also has ulcerative colitis, but he's not asthmatic. It's an urban myth that keeps getting repeated on the internet and a sure sign someone relies on Google without checking their facts.
<fnark>
http://www.happyplace.com/18476/bookstore-reclassifies-lance-armstrong-titles-in-light-of-doping-report
<fnark>
http://www.happyplace.com/18476/bookstore-reclassifies-lance-armstrong-titles-in-light-of-doping-report
I never realised that people dug the uni-ball thing...
...how come I'm not getting any offers? ???
;D
Steve Redgrave ... has ulcerative coitis, but he's not asthmatic.
I think a lot of stuff such as inhaler use and breath rite strips is psychosomatic. It all becomes part of a ritual surrounding performance. The funniest outcome from the whole Lance saga would be if someone who thought they doped turned out to have been given a placebo.I recall that something like that sort-of happened to (I think) Ivan Gotti. A police raid found a bottle with an incriminating label in his hotel room. He came clean and was banned. He revealed that he's got the substance from an unnamed source - he'd rendezvoused at an airport and received the goods in exchange for a suitcase full of euros. When, towards the end of or after his ban, it was analysed, it was found to be saline solution.
On January 14, 1995 Ivan Gotti recorded a level of 40.7% while on August 9, 1995 he recorded 57%.
I think a lot of stuff such as inhaler use and breath rite strips is psychosomatic. It all becomes part of a ritual surrounding performance. The funniest outcome from the whole Lance saga would be if someone who thought they doped turned out to have been given a placebo.:thumbsup: Genius ESL. Lance's defence in one: "I thought they were giving me placebos." O:-)
I think a lot of stuff such as inhaler use and breath rite strips is psychosomatic. It all becomes part of a ritual surrounding performance.
The funniest outcome from the whole Lance saga would be if someone who thought they doped turned out to have been given a placebo.
I think a lot of stuff such as inhaler use and breath rite strips is psychosomatic. It all becomes part of a ritual surrounding performance.
For athletes with fully functioning bronchial systems, maybe... but for anyone whose bronchae tighten up for whatever reason, the effect of having a toot on a Salbutamol inhaler is definitely physical - any psychological effects are merely side effects of being able to breathe properly again.
When the team discovered that the newspaper had received the tip, panic hit Armstrong and his inner-circle, according to Emma O'Reilly, a soigneur from Ireland who worked with the team and specifically with Armstrong. She was in the hotel room after the 15th Tour stage when, she says, Armstrong and team officials devised a plan.
"They agreed to backdate a medical prescription," O'Reilly tells SI. "They'd gotten a heads up that [Armstrong's] steroid count was high and decided they would actually do a backdated prescription and pretend it was something for saddle sores."
In violation of its own protocol requiring a TUE for use of such a drug, officials from the UCI announced that Armstrong had used a corticosteroid for his skin and his positive result was excused.
The NY Daily News reports that Kathy LeMond testified under oath during a 2006 deposition in the SCA arbitration case that Julian Devries, a mechanic for Armstrong’s team, had told her and others that Nike and Thom Weisel –the San Francisco banker who sponsored and part-owned Armstrong’s team - had transferred $500,000 to a Swiss bank account that belonged to Verbruggen.
The money was apparently sent to cover up a 1999 positive drug test for corticosteroids, which Armstrong had used to treat saddle sores.
“There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong,” Schenk added. “The UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong – to my knowledge 500,000 dollars – and now there is speculation that there are financial connections to Armstrong, as well as the American market. I do not know what sort of connections Verbruggen has.”
An interesting interview with Taylor Phinney over on Velonation, which can be summarised as - never mind EPO and blood bags, stop popping the painkillers and caffeine pills, guys!
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13076/Taylor-Phinney-Interview-Getting-the-pill-culture-out-of-the-sport.aspx
Tests at the final control for tea and cake...An interesting interview with Taylor Phinney over on Velonation, which can be summarised as - never mind EPO and blood bags, stop popping the painkillers and caffeine pills, guys!
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13076/Taylor-Phinney-Interview-Getting-the-pill-culture-out-of-the-sport.aspx
Good job audax isn't under WADA rules then...
An interesting interview with Taylor Phinney over on Velonation, which can be summarised as - never mind EPO and blood bags, stop popping the painkillers and caffeine pills, guys!
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13076/Taylor-Phinney-Interview-Getting-the-pill-culture-out-of-the-sport.aspx
Good job audax isn't under WADA rules then...
Article 16 : Medical Test
Amedical testmay be requested by the French Ministry of Health and Sport, which will bear the costs. Refusal to undergo this control or a positive test outcome will result in disqualification.
An interesting interview with Taylor Phinney over on Velonation, which can be summarised as - never mind EPO and blood bags, stop popping the painkillers and caffeine pills, guys!
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13076/Taylor-Phinney-Interview-Getting-the-pill-culture-out-of-the-sport.aspx
I've been reading The Clinic (doping discussion forum) on Cycling News a bit recently, lots of interesting stuff there that isn't covered in any other news source, such as Sean Yates's well-documented but little-reported friendship with the infamous Motoman. Anyway, amongst a discussion an LA's threats to rider's wives (such as Mrs Leipheimer), it was mentioned that LA once slept with Tyler Hamilton's ex-wife, the implication being that he did it at least partly to humiliate and exact some perverse revenge on his ex-teammate. I couldn't find any references to this, is it true?
...I needed the battery back-up...
...I needed the battery back-up...
Now that is really cheating.
Have I wandered into the audaxers' Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
I never take oral painkillers, or caffeine tablets. I don't even carry them with me. I have used Ibuprofen gel, as I have a knee problem which sometimes flares up. I can't recall using it on PBP 2011, though.
I take Omeprazole for a stomach problem. Sometimes, Audax causes this problem to flare up. Doctor's advice was to double the dose when audaxing. Not having heartburn does enhance my performance.
most of us used performance enhancing substances - isotonic drinks, caffeinated/taurine-ated drinks and gels, painkillers.. "we're all in it together"?
Is that so he can clear space in his diary to take over as president of the UCI?
Armstrong, who was not paid a salary as chairman of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, will remain on its 15-member board. His duties leading the board will be turned over to vice chairman Jeff Garvey, who was founding chairman in 1997.
"This organization, its mission and its supporters are incredibly dear to my heart," Armstrong said in a statement obtained by The Associated Press. "Today therefore, to spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding my cycling career, I will conclude my chairmanship."
The presidency of the IOC is up next year...Is that so he can clear space in his diary to take over as president of the UCI?
It's more to reduce contamination to Livestrong, which as Justin(e) says, implies a growing realisation on Armstrong's part that the whole sordid mess is not going to go away any time soon:QuoteArmstrong, who was not paid a salary as chairman of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, will remain on its 15-member board. His duties leading the board will be turned over to vice chairman Jeff Garvey, who was founding chairman in 1997.
"This organization, its mission and its supporters are incredibly dear to my heart," Armstrong said in a statement obtained by The Associated Press. "Today therefore, to spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding my cycling career, I will conclude my chairmanship."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CYC_ARMSTRONG_LIVESTRONG_FUTURE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-17-08-15-16
Back in the day, there was talk of Armstrong running for high office - Texas state governor, or even POTUS, but if the perjury allegations stick, that probably goes out the window. Mind you, some would say that the way LA could turn on the charm, or be a lying sonofabitch, makes him ideal politician material. :demon:
This just in...
Lance-Armstrong-dropped-by-sponsors-Nike-following-insurmountable-evidence-in-USADA-report-that-he-doped.html
This just in...
Lance-Armstrong-dropped-by-sponsors-Nike-following-insurmountable-evidence-in-USADA-report-that-he-doped.html
This is weird - all of a sudden I am feeling sorry for the guy. He remains a remarkable person, surviving cancer and then duping the world into thinking that he was one of history's greatest athletes.
This just in...
Lance-Armstrong-dropped-by-sponsors-Nike-following-insurmountable-evidence-in-USADA-report-that-he-doped.html
This is weird - all of a sudden I am feeling sorry for the guy. He remains a remarkable person, surviving cancer and then duping the world into thinking that he was one of history's greatest athletes.
He is one heck of a tall poppy.
If LA does a Dave Millar, it could even increase its influence. I can't see that happening, but I would love to!
This just in...
Lance-Armstrong-dropped-by-sponsors-Nike-following-insurmountable-evidence-in-USADA-report-that-he-doped.html
This is weird - all of a sudden I am feeling sorry for the guy. He remains a remarkable person, surviving cancer and then duping the world into thinking that he was one of history's greatest athletes.
It wasn't a dupe.
He was one of the greatest cyclists of his time.
It is very hard to prove a negative, but seriously doubt that any of his competitors were riding drug-free. People ask for a level playing field? There was one. They all had the same drug-testing regime. They all worked under the direction of the same limited number of sponsors.
If LA were riding today, drug-free, he'd still be up there as a contender. I'm not sure he'd beat Wiggo in the TDF as it is currently run as there is a huge bias towards the yellow jersey being held by a TT specialist. Wiggo is a phenomenal time trialer.
Let’s start with the most obvious point: doping is not an egalitarian activity. Whilst there are rules to ensure bikes and clothing are relatively standard, this is not the case with banned substances or methods. There is no single syringe, no identical pill nor regulated dosage. To simplify the cyclist that uses the most performance enhancing substances enhances their performance the most. Therefore the winner is the one who has doped the most as opposed to an equal field of riders each taking a comparable amounts of banned substances.
... there is an asymmetric response. Our bodies are different in so many ways and this includes the response to pharmaceuticals. It’s documented in medical journals but read cycling biographies too. Some riders find some banned substances work for them and yet others don’t. For example Tyler Hamilton says he never used much growth hormone but other riders have consumed extensive amounts of this, something testified by their oversized jawbones and foreheads. Similarly riders with a naturally high haematocrit count of red blood cells can’t consume much EPO before their blood data rings alarm bells whilst those with lower levels can take more.
The story of doping is not simply a tale of pharmacology, it is also one of resources, planning and deceit and we can see these cannot be equal. With Armstrong and US Postal and his subsequent teams the vast sums of money cited by USADA show a doping programme on a scale that few other teams could match. It was therefore an unequal contest.
It is very hard to prove a negative, but seriously doubt that any of his competitors were riding drug-free. People ask for a level playing field? There was one. They all had the same drug-testing regime. They all worked under the direction of the same limited number of sponsors.
Sorry guys, but the idea of a "level playing field" among doped cyclists is a myth.That's like saying that different teams are not a level playing field because they have different coaches.
Plus if you read some of the individual riders statements provided in the USADA bargain bundle, you'll see that some riders were reluctant and/or very variable, in the way they doped.
Sorry guys, but the idea of a "level playing field" among doped cyclists is a myth.That's like saying that different teams are not a level playing field because they have different coaches.
Level Playing Field? I've seen the Tour de France on telly, it's up and down like a bride's nightie. I'd need more than mineral water to race over that.
Level Playing Field? I've seen the Tour de France on telly, it's up and down like a bride's nightie. I'd need more than mineral water to race over that.
You don't need more than mineral water, you and everyone in the race just go slower.
Notwithstanding the PED assistance Armstrong got on the Tours he rode after cancer, lets not forget the massive effect the disease had on his physical make up. he lost a shitload of bulk.Dunno how true that is, never seen it quantified, suspect it's another strand in Lance's self-mytholigising; up there with 500 tests/most tested athlete in the world guff and never failed a drug test lies.
The problem is, the sheer scale of Armstrong's doping and the associated lies means that it is hard to come to any properly quantifiable conclusion about what his real performance level should have been. The worst part is that a clean rider today can't say that he's improved through losing weight or training harder/better without many people going "yeah, right... Armstrong said that, and he's a confirmed doper, so why should we believe you?"
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
WhoI'd like to know is was the marketing genius who worked the whole thing out!
TBH, if he *did* come clean about the whole lot, he'd probably sell 'em by the bucketload !
He's stolen ten years of pro cycling from history and I can't feel sorry for him.
LA was way too arrogant and calculating to recover from this. He was just plain nasty. Threatening the wives of fellow cyclists is pretty low.
If LA raced on a level playing field, it was because he made it so - everyone had to take drugs.
All very sad. I remember the days I used to come on this very forum and be roundly criticised (along with others) for daring to speak up even against Landis and Hamilton even when they tested positive. Lance was untouchable in those days. I'm glad times have changed.
I read that ridiculous Liggett article. Lance was not good for the professional sport of cycling, and yes he was an inspiratoin to many people outside of pro cycling, I think there has been a lost generation of cyclists who have gone as far as they can until they reached the point of to dope or not to dope in their career. And took the choice to walk away.
16/10/2012
The IOC has announced a new supply agreement that will see Nike supply uniforms and products to International Olympic Committee members and staff.
Still, he sounds like an utterly nasty bastard, as opposed to just either thick and/or greedy like many of the other players.
Most riders were scared by the Festina Affair into being clean or only mildly juiced at the 1999 TdF, but the USPS inner circle went fully-loaded. As a result, the entire peloton was back on the juice in 2000, trying to keep up with USPS, only going by Tyler Hamilton's book.
It's worth remembering that Armstrong, at least initially, was as much of a victim as his alleged victims. Festina weren't the only team doping in '98, and USPS weren't likely to be the only dopers of '99.
Armstrong and Bruyneels logic was sound. If you want to succeed in a corrupt system, you have to be corrupt, and you might as well do it properly, especially because you don't know what everyone else is doing.
The depth of the darkness that ensued is, I think, attributable to the riches that Armstrong brought with him to the world of pro cycling. Once you are on that train, how can you get off?
Still, he sounds like an utterly nasty bastard, as opposed to just either thick and/or greedy like many of the other players.
I really want the UCI to go down in flames.
Again, completely agree the UCI has to be 'sorted' on the back of this otherwise it'a complete waste of time.
His sponsors can stop sponsoring but what about all the millions of photos of him riding a Trek, wearing Nike etc. Trek will be forever associated with Armstrong.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-asks-riders-and-staff-to-sign-anti-doping-declaration
.......damage limitation exercise, and making an arse-covering opportunity of the inevitable?
Honey Stinger, the Colorado-based nutrition company in which Armstrong has invested, announced that it was in the process of removing the Texan’s image from its products.
“Honey Stinger is a small Colorado company focused on providing healthy, honey-based energy foods,” the company said in a statement. “We are in the process of removing Lance Armstrong’s image and endorsement from our product packaging. While this presents short term challenges, we look forward to growing our brand and offering our customers the best products possible.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444868204578062313532317222.html
Bruyneel's got the hump ;)
http://road.cc/content/news/69178-stunned-johan-bruyneel-slams-usada-publishing-evidence-ahead-arbitration-hearing
Irrespective of whether or not Bruyneel is guilty, some might argue he has a point. It's unusual that such a wealth of detail relating to specific allegations would come out ahead of an arbitration hearing, but then the US Postal scandal is far from a typical case.
USADA was under pressure to get its Reasoned Decision to the UCI. Given how central Bruyneel is alleged to have been to events, it would have been impossible to leave his name out, but many would feel he is justified in arguing that publication of the Reasoned Decision has prejudiced his case.
I'm one of the many.QuoteIrrespective of whether or not Bruyneel is guilty, some might argue he has a point. It's unusual that such a wealth of detail relating to specific allegations would come out ahead of an arbitration hearing, but then the US Postal scandal is far from a typical case.
USADA was under pressure to get its Reasoned Decision to the UCI. Given how central Bruyneel is alleged to have been to events, it would have been impossible to leave his name out, but many would feel he is justified in arguing that publication of the Reasoned Decision has prejudiced his case.
There's been a notable silence from Bobby Julich ...
In 1965, under the pressure of the IOC (the Olympics was then an amateur event), the UCI created two subsidiary bodies, the International Amateur Cycling Federation (Fédération Internationale Amateur de Cyclisme or FIAC) and the International Professional Cycling Federation (Fédération Internationale de Cyclisme Professionnel or FICP). The UCI assumed a role coordinating both bodies.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Cycliste_Internationale
The FIAC was based in Rome, the FICP in Luxembourg, and the UCI in Geneva.
The FIAC was the bigger of the two organisations, with 127 member federations across all five continents. It was dominated by the countries of the Eastern bloc which were amateur. The FIAC arranged representation of cycling at the Olympic Games, and FIAC cyclists competed against FICP members on only rare occasions. In 1992, the UCI reunified the FIAC and FICP, and merged them back into the UCI. The combined organisation then relocated to Aigle, close to the IOC in Lausanne.
There's been a notable silence from Bobby Julich ...
Also Cadel Evans. I cannot think why he has kept his own council.
I don't get the relevance of doping either creating or destroying a "level playing field". Sport is never a level playing field. For instance, some people's bodies react better to EPO or HGH or whatever the drug of the year is. The same is true of any training technique. Some people will get a boost from a drug that no one else has, some will get it from the latest wheels or whatever.
I don't get the relevance of doping either creating or destroying a "level playing field". Sport is never a level playing field. For instance, some people's bodies react better to EPO or HGH or whatever the drug of the year is. The same is true of any training technique. Some people will get a boost from a drug that no one else has, some will get it from the latest wheels or whatever.
Well, if you're looking at it that way, it's pretty damn unfair that I'm genetically ill-equipped to follow my dreams of becoming a prima ballerina.
As for Evans, I take heart from the fact that Ferrari and Armstrong described him in their email exchange as "dumb" - which I presume to mean "too dumb to dope".
d.
:o
'kin 'ell - looks like there's another shitstorm on the horizon, revolving around Ferrari..
http://road.cc/content/news/69193-20-teams-dozens-riders-and-%E2%82%AC30m-italian-doping-inquiry-bigger-operacion-puerto
It is claimed that two image rights contracts were drawn up for each rider involved, one of them false and in a lower amount than was actually the case, which would be deposited with the UCI in accordance with its rules.
The rider would pass on the second, hidden, image rights contract to a Monaco-based company, T&F, which would sell it back to the rider’s team at an inflated price and keep 6 per cent of the sum involved.
T&F would pay the remaining 94 per cent into current accounts at the Banca Svizzera Italiana that all the riders involved in the ‘Ferrari system,’ at least those with teams based or registered outside Italy, were required to have.
Riders would then make payment from that account to Ferrari for the services he provided into one of two accounts held by the doctor in Swiss banks.
Besides actual bank transfers, money is said to have been moved clandestinely using what are described as more traditional methods, such as in a briefcase driven across the Swiss border in the boot of hired cars.
Potential charges go well beyond disciplinary measures that may be instituted by sporting authorities, and could include ones relating to tax evasion and money laundering.
I always did wonder how doping was paid for, I assumed prize money played a big role.The best thing about the Usada report was that they "followed the money". IMO, this is always the best way to uncover the truth.
Another thing that I have been wondering about is the trail of the pharmaceuticals - there must be some sort of auditory trail then leads to many more physicians.
Another thing that I have been wondering about is the trail of the pharmaceuticals - there must be some sort of auditory trail then leads to many more physicians.
What, 'an ear to the ground' sort of thing?
I always did wonder how doping was paid for, I assumed prize money played a big role.The best thing about the Usada report was that they "followed the money". IMO, this is always the best way to uncover the truth.
Another thing that I have been wondering about is the trail of the pharmaceuticals - there must be some sort of auditory trail then leads to many more physicians. Notwithstanding the administrators, I think that the doctors are the most culpable players in all of this. I would go so far as making it a sanctioning offense for riders, and a criminal one for doctors. Even the threat of jail for a 'respectable' physician would be enough to scare most of them off and this would dry up the supply.
So where does Steffen propose we go from here?
Firstly he'd like to see doctors stripped of their medical licenses if it's proven they've facilitated doping within sport. It's not a far-fetched proposal. The doping riders are often the focus of stories and the resulting fallouts but the facilitators and team bosses rarely face sanction.
"There are still others that I think should be held accountable. Away from cycling for a second, in the BALCO scandal there was a doctor involved writing prescription and writing TUES and I made a formal complaint to the Californian medical board and he lost his license. We need things like that to happen.
"There's all this talk of amnesty and truth and reconciliation. I think for my colleagues it should be one strike and you're out, a lifetime ban. I don't think there's any room for any doctor. We take an oath, not to the IOC or the UCI but to our patients in general. I think if anyone is involved beyond reasonable doubt they should be out. And they should lose their medical license."
As for Evans, I take heart from the fact that Ferrari and Armstrong described him in their email exchange as "dumb" - which I presume to mean "too dumb to dope".
d.
Heaven knows why Bruyneel thinks there's an air of pre-judgement in this case.
There's another entertainment business just ripe for a drugs scandal! How else do they stay literally on their toes for hours on end, day after day? :demon:I don't get the relevance of doping either creating or destroying a "level playing field". Sport is never a level playing field. For instance, some people's bodies react better to EPO or HGH or whatever the drug of the year is. The same is true of any training technique. Some people will get a boost from a drug that no one else has, some will get it from the latest wheels or whatever.
Well, if you're looking at it that way, it's pretty damn unfair that I'm genetically ill-equipped to follow my dreams of becoming a prima ballerina.
As for Evans, I take heart from the fact that Ferrari and Armstrong described him in their email exchange as "dumb" - which I presume to mean "too dumb to dope".
d.
Heaven knows why Bruyneel thinks there's an air of pre-judgement in this case.
It's fortunate for Bruyneel that the CAS are somewhat unlikely to select me to conduct arbitration in his case. I think he's worrying unnecessarily, the poor lamb.
d.
Poli is my cycling hero for ruining the climbers' day on Mt Ventoux. He only did it because he was annoyed at being caught the previous day when he also went for a lone break. When Cipo has packed and gone back to the beach, you can do these things as team orders no longer apply.My favourite Tour stage of all time.
As guilty as the evidence shows, which we completely acknowledge, it is our promise & contractual obligation to stand by our athletes (http://twitter.com/oakley/status/258972517425889281)
...until proven guilty by the highest governing body of sport, or a court of law. We might be last off… (http://twitter.com/oakley/status/258972562749550592)
...but we are not going to jump on the bandwagon as it breaks our promise to all of our athletes. (http://twitter.com/oakley/status/258972620916158464)
We will wait for the UCI's conclusion and act at that time. (http://twitter.com/oakley/status/258972684703105026)
The problem is, the sheer scale of Armstrong's doping and the associated lies means that it is hard to come to any properly quantifiable conclusion about what his real performance level should have been. The worst part is that a clean rider today can't say that he's improved through losing weight or training harder/better without many people going "yeah, right... Armstrong said that, and he's a confirmed doper, so why should we believe you?"
I think this is the 'study' that has been cited in the past
http://www.utexas.edu/features/2006/athletes/index.html
I ceased to expect the world to conform to my moral templates a long time ago.
Bill Nickson?
Bill Nickson?
Yes. I've never talked to him about the doping culture, it's not what you do. Whether he'd talk about it now I don't know. He only had a couple of years on the continent, and then raced in the UK and Australia. He has mentioned that he didn't like Belgium.
He has helped me out with some of the more interesting jobs I do, he's a useful contact as he knows young racers who might want the odd day's work, which can be handy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXgT7I2pv_4&feature=g-upl
IIRC the stories in 'Cycling Weekly' reported that he didn't get on with Peter Post, who made his time in the Raleigh team very difficult. Maybe he wouldn't sign up to the teams medical programme
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3478/3757467332_86d672fb69.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/3757467332/)
Milk Race 1976 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/3757467332/) by windy_ (http://www.flickr.com/people/acf_windy/), on Flickr
IIRC the stories in 'Cycling Weekly' reported that he didn't get on with Peter Post, who made his time in the Raleigh team very difficult. Maybe he wouldn't sign up to the teams medical programme
IIRC the stories in 'Cycling Weekly' reported that he didn't get on with Peter Post, who made his time in the Raleigh team very difficult. Maybe he wouldn't sign up to the teams medical programme
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3478/3757467332_86d672fb69.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/3757467332/)
Milk Race 1976 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/3757467332/) by windy_ (http://www.flickr.com/people/acf_windy/), on Flickr
Isn't that Marty Feldman in the lead there?
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3478/3757467332_86d672fb69.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/3757467332/)
Milk Race 1976 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/3757467332/) by windy_ (http://www.flickr.com/people/acf_windy/), on Flickr
Isn't that Marty Feldman in the lead there?
McQuaid to hold press conference in Geneva
Over a week after USADA published its reasoned decision on the Lance Armstrong case, UCI president Pat McQuaid will formally state the governing body’s position on matter at a press conference in Geneva on Monday at 1pm local time.
Monday could be interesting...Maybe 'a cheque' has cleared ?QuoteMcQuaid to hold press conference in Geneva
Over a week after USADA published its reasoned decision on the Lance Armstrong case, UCI president Pat McQuaid will formally state the governing body’s position on matter at a press conference in Geneva on Monday at 1pm local time.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-announce-decision-on-usadas-armstrong-findings-on-monday
IIRC the stories in 'Cycling Weekly' reported that he didn't get on with Peter Post, who made his time in the Raleigh team very difficult. Maybe he wouldn't sign up to the teams medical programme
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3478/3757467332_86d672fb69.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/3757467332/)
Milk Race 1976 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/3757467332/) by windy_ (http://www.flickr.com/people/acf_windy/), on Flickr
Isn't that Marty Feldman in the lead there?
I was most annoyed in 2007 to discover I couldn't use Red Bull on PBP, as it was illegal (not just on PBP, but generally).
Fortunately the French were told where to go by the EU, and you can now get Red Bull in France.
I was most annoyed in 2007 to discover I couldn't use Red Bull on PBP, as it was illegal (not just on PBP, but generally).
Fortunately the French were told where to go by the EU, and you can now get Red Bull in France.
Only after Red Bull changed the recipe to meet french concerns (or so we are told). Probably a bit like the difference between Guinness brewed in Dublin and Guinness brewed in London.
The French approval process started in 1996 with concerns about taurine, a normal body constituent and also naturally present in the human diet (e.g., scallops, fish, poultry). This meant the drink could not be sold as-is in France. Instead, a different recipe that did not contain the ingredient was introduced. The refusal of market approval was challenged by the European Commission and partially upheld by the European Court of Justice in 2004,[31] before the French food safety agency relented in 2008 after being unable to prove definitively the existence of any health risk, taurine-related or not.[32]
Curiouser and curiouser - and if true, rather disturbing... http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283
Curiouser and curiouser - and if true, rather disturbing... http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283
I was most annoyed in 2007 to discover I couldn't use Red Bull on PBP, as it was illegal (not just on PBP, but generally).
Fortunately the French were told where to go by the EU, and you can now get Red Bull in France.
Only after Red Bull changed the recipe to meet french concerns (or so we are told). Probably a bit like the difference between Guinness brewed in Dublin and Guinness brewed in London.
Initially, yes, but according to Wikipedia since 2008 the French government accepted they had no evidence of any health risk from Red Bull:QuoteThe French approval process started in 1996 with concerns about taurine, a normal body constituent and also naturally present in the human diet (e.g., scallops, fish, poultry). This meant the drink could not be sold as-is in France. Instead, a different recipe that did not contain the ingredient was introduced. The refusal of market approval was challenged by the European Commission and partially upheld by the European Court of Justice in 2004,[31] before the French food safety agency relented in 2008 after being unable to prove definitively the existence of any health risk, taurine-related or not.[32]
Mr Pound cites a conversation he had with the former UCI president, Hein Verbruggen.
DICK POUND: I said 'Hein, are you, you guys have a huge problem in your sport'. He said 'what do you mean?' I said 'the doping'. 'Well', he said, 'that's really the fault of the spectators'. And I said 'I beg your pardon, it's the spectators' fault?' Well' he said, 'yes, if they were happy with the Tour de France at 25K, you know we'd be fine. But', he said, 'if they want it at 41 and 42', he said, 'the riders have to prepare'. And I just shook my head and said 'well, you heard it here first, you got a big problem'.
The thing that really pisses my off: The UCI is blaming ME for the doping problems, instead of accepting the responsibility.Quote
(Justin)e it was bound to come out in the end. Don't fight it like Lance. Just go quietly.
Hopefully, more details of the ongoing Q&A session will be published soon...
Hopefully, more details of the ongoing Q&A session will be published soon...
I watched it live. It can be summed up as "No it wasn't my fault. I've done a good job. No I'm not resigning." and "That'll be decided at the UCI management committee meeting".
Tour de France organisers want Armstrong to repay $3 million prize money
Christian Prudhomme, the director of the Tour de France, has confirmed that he does not want Lance Armstrong’s seven Tour de France victories reassigned after the UCI ratified the USADA verdict to ban the Texan and disqualify him from results going back to August 1998.
Prudhomme also said that he expects Armstrong to pay back his estimated three million dollars he won in the race.
...
According to l’Equipe, Armstrong won approximately 2.95 million Euro via his seven Tour de France victories and six stage victories. Prudhomme insisted that this money will have be paid back, even if it has been shared amongst teammates.
A Texas insurance company will demand the return of $7.5m in bonuses from cyclist Lance Armstrong on Monday.
SCA Promotions covered a performance bonus paid to the American after he won his sixth Tour de France in 2004.
Now the International Cycling Union (UCI) has stripped Armstrong of his seven Tour titles, SCA will demand the money back from Armstrong.
SCA's lawyer Jeffrey M. Tillotson told BBC Sport: "We will make a formal demand for return of funds."
He added: "If this is not successful, we will initiate formal legal proceedings against Mr Armstrong in five business days (Monday 29 October)."
Not sure they can unless they have a clause in the contract. SCA specifically had one to pay out if he was the winner - he turns out to not have been so the money must be repaid. If he had admitted to cheating but the titles remained his then the payment would have stood as the contract IIRC didn't say he couldn't cheat.
LA will be declaring himself bankrupt in due course. If he's smart, the money will have been squirrelled away in trusts or into assets controlled by other people a long time ago.
On the bright side, maybe he can get a tax refund.
LA will be declaring himself bankrupt in due course. If he's smart, the money will have been squirrelled away in trusts or into assets controlled by other people a long time ago.
On the bright side, maybe he can get a tax refund.
LA will be declaring himself bankrupt in due course. If he's smart, the money will have been squirrelled away in trusts or into assets controlled by other people a long time ago.
On the bright side, maybe he can get a tax refund.
He can offset the payout against this year's income.
:thumbsup:
BBC Radio Headline:I heard it as 'for life', I'd have a chat on on Audax if he fancies a go.
" ... has been stripped of all his TdeF titles and banned from cycling from life."
that seems a little harsh.
I just feel uncomfortable about it. I agree, for instance, that he could be said to have committed perjury. But I do think it is different, somehow, from a fraudulent claim. It was one part of the package, the whole mess, for which he will already be paying an enormous price.You could reasonably argue that they were fools if they put money up for a cycling win without having considered the issue of doping, so perhaps split it 50:50
The sponsors took a risk with their money. I think in at least some of their cases, they should just absorb their loss.
I wonder whether the other dopers will be treated the same way and be sued for their winnings and stripped of their titles - and in some cases that will be the estate of the deceased doper (Coppi, Anquetil, Simpson, Fignon, Pantani and many more).
I wonder how much the film rights are worth? 'The Flying Scotsman' has nothing on this.
I wonder how much the film rights are worth? 'The Flying Scotsman' has nothing on this.
Shakespearean/Greek-tragic fall from grace/hubris. Iambic pentameters, anybody??
...Iambic pentameters, anybody??
I wonder how much the film rights are worth? 'The Flying Scotsman' has nothing on this.
Shakespearean/Greek-tragic fall from grace/hubris. Iambic pentameters, anybody??
'Lance the Musical' just got upgraded to 'Lance the Opera'. 'The Golden Fleece'. There's still a dream sequence on the surface of the moon, but it's a tenor aria. Catherine Jenkins plays Sheryl Crow. Can Alfie Boe ride a bike?
I wonder how much the film rights are worth? 'The Flying Scotsman' has nothing on this.
Shakespearean/Greek-tragic fall from grace/hubris. Iambic pentameters, anybody??
'Lance the Musical' just got upgraded to 'Lance the Opera'. 'The Golden Fleece'. There's still a dream sequence on the surface of the moon, but it's a tenor aria. Catherine Jenkins plays Sheryl Crow. Can Alfie Boe ride a bike?
Although most opera singers have fantastic lung capacity very few of them are built for the mountains :o
on a slightly tangential note, can someone point me at the blog link that was put up some time back that takes you to an Austin-based para legal(?) cycling girl who seemed to be having a bit of a spat with Mr L? May not have been on this thread, but an allied one.
I wanna know how things feel in Austin, dude.
Strong response from Pat the caid here. I think his language could yet get him in trouble!
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/lance-armstrong-whistleblowers-are-not-heroes-but-scumbags-says-cycling-boss-20121023-282nk.html
If he is as truthful as the people he has supported over the years we could be facing another decade trying to get to the truth. (By the way was his racing career clean?)
I wonder whether the other dopers will be treated the same way and be sued for their winnings and stripped of their titles - and in some cases that will be the estate of the deceased doper (Coppi, Anquetil, Simpson, Fignon, Pantani and many more).
If you read the UCI communique, then WADA will not allow stripping of titles beyond 8 the year statute of limitations. It appears that the UCI would prefer LA to keep some titles, but it is too scared to contest the Usada judgment in this political climate. Spineless wimps on multiple levels.
FP will fall on his sword, it's just a matter of when.
... where fraudulent means have been used to conceal offences.I am not laughing at you, Spesh, but surely offences are offences regardless of whether someone tried to conceal them. And concealing them using fraudulent means: is that different from concealing offences using non-fraudulent means?
“Lance has been very correct all through his career,” Merckx told La Dernière Heure. “What more can he do? All of the controls that he has done – over 500 since 2000 – have come back negative. Either the controls don’t serve any purpose or Armstrong was legit. The whole case is based on witnesses, it’s deeply unjust.”
on a slightly tangential note, can someone point me at the blog link that was put up some time back that takes you to an Austin-based para legal(?) cycling girl who seemed to be having a bit of a spat with Mr L? May not have been on this thread, but an allied one.
I wanna know how things feel in Austin, dude.
http://www.150wattsofawesome.blogspot.co.uk/
Indurain also thinks LA is innocent, what a surprise.
Indurain also thinks LA is innocent, what a surprise.
Samuel Sanchez has also opened his mouth for a spot of pedal extremity fellatio as well. :facepalm:
Robert Millar doesn't say much these days, but when he submits a blog post to CN, it's usually worth reading:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/the-bare-minimum
There's a good piece by Neil Browne over at Roadcycling.com about the triggers for the fall of Armstrong - one being Kayle LeoGrande's sloppy housekeeping, and the other being Landis getting flicked by Wonderboy when he was looking for a ride after serving his ban.
http://roadcycling.com/news-results/armstrong-set-own-fate-turning-against-floyd#.UIbLcm_A_eJ
Yes, it cuts through the general crap and hysteria.Robert Millar doesn't say much these days, but when he submits a blog post to CN, it's usually worth reading:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/the-bare-minimum
That's an excellent piece!
Yes, it cuts through the general crap and hysteria.Robert Millar doesn't say much these days, but when he submits a blog post to CN, it's usually worth reading:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/the-bare-minimum
That's an excellent piece!
Robert Millar doesn't say much these days, but when he submits a blog post to CN, it's usually worth reading:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/the-bare-minimum
That's an excellent piece!
on a slightly tangential note, can someone point me at the blog link that was put up some time back that takes you to an Austin-based para legal(?) cycling girl who seemed to be having a bit of a spat with Mr L? May not have been on this thread, but an allied one.
I wanna know how things feel in Austin, dude.
http://www.150wattsofawesome.blogspot.co.uk/
In one of her blogs she makes a point that I have often thought - if LA had retired and stayed out of the limelight after the 7th TdF win (or even after the 6th), he would probably have been forgotten about (or at least the question marks over his career would have been).
Fair like David Millar? Oh but of course, he's not from the UK, he's Scottish. ::-)Indurain also thinks LA is innocent, what a surprise.
Samuel Sanchez has also opened his mouth for a spot of pedal extremity fellatio as well. :facepalm:
By Spanish standards he is as pure as the driven snow. At some point we have to realise that the premium placed on 'fairness' in the UK is not universal.
Fair like David Millar? Oh but of course, he's not from the UK, he's Scottish. ::-)Indurain also thinks LA is innocent, what a surprise.
Samuel Sanchez has also opened his mouth for a spot of pedal extremity fellatio as well. :facepalm:
By Spanish standards he is as pure as the driven snow. At some point we have to realise that the premium placed on 'fairness' in the UK is not universal.
At 35 the UK has a low score on uncertainty avoidance which means that as a nation they are quite happy to wake up not knowing what the day brings and they are happy to ‘make it up as they go along’ changing plans as new information comes to light.http://geert-hofstede.com/united-kingdom.html
As a low UAI country the British are comfortable in ambiguous situations - the term ‘muddling through’ is a very British way of expressing this. There are generally not too many rules in British society, but those that are there are adhered to (the most famous of which of of course the British love of queuing which has also to do with the values of fair play).
A lot of the more sensible stuff has fed off the Australian report I referred to way upthread, it's possible to chart the way the phrases have entered the informed debate.. It's worth skim-reading at the very least. pdf, which is why you don't often see it quoted, as everyone is a lazy cut n' paste merchant these days.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newcyclingpathway.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F09%2F21-NOW-FINAL-.pdf&ei=3saHUOLYL8LH0QWpvYGABA&usg=AFQjCNG7FS0-X_cX8kyy_n6CBxLPmc6H-w
At the launch of next year’s Tour de France route in Paris today reigning champion Wiggins hit out at the 41-year-old Texan over the scandal that has rocked the sport.
“I think there is a lot of anger from most people within the sport, it is a sport I love and have always loved,” he said.
“It is a shame that cycling is being dragged through this again really, not a shame that he has been caught – when you get older you start to realise Father Christmas doesn’t exist and it is the same with Lance.
LA will be declaring himself bankrupt in due course. If he's smart, the money will have been squirrelled away in trusts or into assets controlled by other people a long time ago.IIRC there's provision in US bankruptcy law for recovering assets deemed to have been transferred to keep them out of the hands of creditors. And in any case, he has a lot more money than he'd have to pay back. Bankruptcy has its own costs, & if he has to fight in court to protect assets he's tried to fight, he could easily rack up more costs than he'd save.
On the bright side, maybe he can get a tax refund.
Everyone wants cycling to move on, but some view Lance as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of that transformation. At some point someone will refer to 'The crucifixion considered as an uphill bicycle race.'
http://zoom-gordo.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/crucifixion-considered-as-uphill.html#!/2010/04/crucifixion-considered-as-uphill.html
“The Tour de France is a Calvary. The road to Golgotha had only fourteen stations, while ours has fifteen… ”
On a side note, Bradley Wiggins has left Twitter, reasons are uknown except there are words like 'Jimmy Carr' being associated with him.
Tax evasion?? You've lost me there
Everyone wants cycling to move on, but some view Lance as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of that transformation. At some point someone will refer to 'The crucifixion considered as an uphill bicycle race.'I think it's a bit Chitty the way everyone keeps Banging on about this.
http://zoom-gordo.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/crucifixion-considered-as-uphill.html#!/2010/04/crucifixion-considered-as-uphill.html
Apparently Watersons are now stacking its Not About the Bike under fiction.
I got a marketing e mail from Planet X asking if I remembered when Armstrong was a spaceman.
...If you read carefully, hidden in there is a slight nuance of annoyance at McQuaidNo, I must be dim; couldn't see even the slightest hint of irritation in it. *cough*
Heh. Good old Greg.
Marcel Kittel @marcelkittel
I feel SICK when I read that Contador, Sanchez & Indurain still support Armstrong. How does someone want to be credible by saying that?!
I don't think we've had this before. It's a little calmer and slightly more forensic than Greg's facebook entry, but no less damning for that. It's Michael Ashendon's analysis of the tangled web surrounding the 2001 Tour de Suisse samples, and the donation(s) to the UCI.
http://www.siab.org.au/58dgETdx002ag/ArmstrongTriangle.pdf
... for Lance, a level playing field was always the – the best way to win the Tour
Indeed, Verbruggen’s stance calls to my mind Bill Clinton’s infamous statement that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
Traces of miffage, yes.
In contrast to mealy-mouthedness from Clentador (http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/news/contador-garcia-del-moral-speak-out-against-postal-service-vilification_262518) (a pattern developing here).
“It appears to me, that in more than a few places, they are not treating Lance with any respect at allSeems to me he's had far more respect than he's earned.
TheEmpirestrikes back against LeMond: http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3054/hnez8ogv_jpg.htm
Unsurprisingly, the Tweet has been deleted.
Bloody hell - this is the gift that keeps on giving.Wow ! That is real heart on the sleeve confession.
Another one. (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-bobby-julich-doping-confession)
TheEmpirestrikes back against LeMond: http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3054/hnez8ogv_jpg.htm
Unsurprisingly, the Tweet has been deleted.
Who is Andrew McQuaid?
Not another Kirsten moment? ;)
TheEmpirestrikes back against LeMond: http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3054/hnez8ogv_jpg.htm
Unsurprisingly, the Tweet has been deleted.
Who is Andrew McQuaid?
Not another Kirsten moment? ;)
Pat McQuaid's son, works as a rider's agent.
Bobby Julich's gone from Sky.
http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17546_8194069,00.html
Does Bobby J's confession now mean a French rider won the 1998 Tour de France? ;D
d.
How is the UCI constituted ? If all the riders and teams are now so pissed off with the leadership of the UCI is there no way they can force a change ?
TheEmpirestrikes back against LeMond: http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3054/hnez8ogv_jpg.htm
Unsurprisingly, the Tweet has been deleted.
Who is Andrew McQuaid?
Not another Kirsten moment? ;)
Pat McQuaid's son, works as a rider's agent.
Bloody hell - this is the gift that keeps on giving.
Another one. (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-bobby-julich-doping-confession)
Does Bobby J's confession now mean a French rider won the 1998 Tour de France? ;D
d.
He was rider 4 then.
Surely now Sean Yates must have the axe hovering over his head? His failed test in 1989 is common knowledge as well as his mentoring of LA at Motorola, never mind his friendship with Motoman.
I've also heard rumours of a power struggle at Team Sky between Brailsford and a certain straight-talking Aussie - this non-doping declaration was Brailsford stamping his authority on the rest of the management team.
Does Bobby J's confession now mean a French rider won the 1998 Tour de France? ;D
d.
He was rider 4 then.
I may well be mistaken so please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that Robin in 6th was the first finisher in 1998 not explicitly tainted by doping associations. Then again, he was at USPS that year...
Eurosport (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/blazin-saddles/really-won-tours-lance-153516263.html) think Daniele Nardello has the best alternative claim to the title in 1999 and 2000, and he could be the best candidate in 1998 as well.
d.
Although it is still unconfirmed, rider 4 in Hincapie's deposition could be Bobby Julich, who shared the apartment on Via Masai, or his former Motorola teammate Andrea Peron, who finished 8th in the Vuelta that year. The Italian lived in his hometown of Varese at the time, not Como.
If all the ugly truths about doping are to come out, we should also know who this mysterious "rider # 4" is. Now is the time for the full story to be told and whether be it from Julich, George, or the real "rider #4, we should have the answers sooner or later.
Surely now Sean Yates must have the axe hovering over his head? His failed test in 1989 is common knowledge as well as his mentoring of LA at Motorola, never mind his friendship with Motoman.
I've also heard rumours of a power struggle at Team Sky between Brailsford and a certain straight-talking Aussie - this non-doping declaration was Brailsford stamping his authority on the rest of the management team.
Yates technically never failed a test. He had an adverse analytical finding for testosterone on the A sample (with questions over procedure) but the B sample was negative. So not a positive. Given this was 1989 and that test is hard enough to do today, I don't think it should be held against him.
Edit; add the negation
Surely now Sean Yates must have the axe hovering over his head? His failed test in 1989 is common knowledge as well as his mentoring of LA at Motorola, never mind his friendship with Motoman.
I've also heard rumours of a power struggle at Team Sky between Brailsford and a certain straight-talking Aussie - this non-doping declaration was Brailsford stamping his authority on the rest of the management team.
Yates technically never failed a test. He had an adverse analytical finding for testosterone on the A sample (with questions over procedure) but the B sample was negative. So not a positive. Given this was 1989 and that test is hard enough to do today, I don't think it should be held against him.
Edit; add the negation
I posted a link a while ago about Julich, pointing out that he was the main US contender in 1999, and that he was under suspicion as Rider 4.
Surely now Sean Yates must have the axe hovering over his head? His failed test in 1989 is common knowledge as well as his mentoring of LA at Motorola, never mind his friendship with Motoman.
I've also heard rumours of a power struggle at Team Sky between Brailsford and a certain straight-talking Aussie - this non-doping declaration was Brailsford stamping his authority on the rest of the management team.
Yates technically never failed a test. He had an adverse analytical finding for testosterone on the A sample (with questions over procedure) but the B sample was negative. So not a positive. Given this was 1989 and that test is hard enough to do today, I don't think it should be held against him.
Edit; add the negation
Now that sounds familiar ;)
ISTR someone calculated that, if you exclude known dopers, suspected dopers and former dopers, Wiggo has won the TdF three times already.That would be a bit of a stretch I think. With Cofidis he was generally way down the field. He was 4th in 2009 behind Contador, Schleck A, and some American geezer whose name escapes me. In 2010 he was 24'th. In 2011 he DNF'd.
Dave's right failing a test is not proof of doping. Tests do go wrong that's why they have the B sample and also sometimes people have a legit reason for failing a test. The classic example being the same over the counter medicine in two different countries having different ingredients and one of them is a banned substance. Another is gall bladder removal which messes with your blood chemistry.And having a testicle cut off doesn't? Lance Armstrong is innocent, OK! (IGMC...)
sometimes people have a legit reason for failing a test. The classic example being the same over the counter medicine in two different countries having different ingredients and one of them is a banned substance.
sometimes people have a legit reason for failing a test. The classic example being the same over the counter medicine in two different countries having different ingredients and one of them is a banned substance.
That isn't a "legit" reason for testing positive - just ask Alain Baxter.
Similarly, nor is eating a steak containing traces of banned substances a legit excuse, even if it's the true reason for testing positive, which no one in their right mind believes anyway.
sometimes people have a legit reason for failing a test. The classic example being the same over the counter medicine in two different countries having different ingredients and one of them is a banned substance.
That isn't a "legit" reason for testing positive - just ask Alain Baxter.
Similarly, nor is eating a steak containing traces of banned substances a legit excuse, even if it's the true reason for testing positive, which no one in their right mind believes anyway.
d.
sometimes people have a legit reason for failing a test. The classic example being the same over the counter medicine in two different countries having different ingredients and one of them is a banned substance.That isn't a "legit" reason for testing positive - just ask Alain Baxter.
Yes it is, it's inadvertent and at the most careless but it isn't the same as deliberately taking something to increase performance.
I thought Julich was outed as a doper years ago.
Seemed pretty obvious at the time.
In the late seventies and early eighties, the team signed many Anglophone riders. Many of these came from a Parisian Amateur club Athletic Club de Boulogne Billencourt (ACBB) that acted as a feeder club for top amateurs to turn professional. Phil Anderson, Robert Millar, Stephen Roche, Sean Yates, and Allan Peiper all started their careers with the Peugeot team. The last time that the team had the yellow jersey of the Tour was the 1983 Tour de France when Pascal Simon wore the jersey, but had to abandon the Tour, due to a broken collarbone. The team had its last chance at a Grand Tour win in the 1985 edition of the Vuelta a España with Robert Millar. Millar was wearing the leader's yellow jersey on the penultimate day when Pedro Delgado attacked him, to take the stage and the leader's jersey.[7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peugeot_(cycling_team)
In its final year of existence (1986), the team was managed by Roger Legeay.
After 1986, Legeay created the Vétements Z-Peugeot team as a continuation of the Peugeot cycling team. Legeay's team was subsequently renamed Z-Peugeot (1988–89), Z-Tomasso (1990), Z (1991–92), GAN (1993–96) and Crédit Agricole (1997–2008), before being disbanded in 2008. Legeay's team is best remembered for being the team which the American cyclist Greg LeMond rode for when he won the Tour de France in 1990 (when the team was known as Z-Tomasso).
ISTR someone calculated that, if you exclude known dopers, suspected dopers and former dopers, Wiggo has won the TdF three times already.If you exclude suspected dopers, some would say there hasn't been a single winner since 1904.
Legeay tested positive for amphetamines during his riding career. Personally, I don't believe he was involved in systematic doping as a DS (I believe Lemond won the TdF clean, I believe Boardman was a clean rider) but that's purely a position of faith, based on no evidence.
d.
Why do people think Lemond, Boardman and Wiggins are "clean"? These are the three names that are always mentioned.
I start with the assumption that all pros dope.
Legeay tested positive for amphetamines during his riding career. Personally, I don't believe he was involved in systematic doping as a DS (I believe Lemond won the TdF clean, I believe Boardman was a clean rider) but that's purely a position of faith, based on no evidence.
d.
schmalz You always go there and have terrible things happen to you. I don't know if you wanna relive that whole thing, but you did crash out, and then after Postal you went to Credit Agricole.
JV Yep yep yep, 2000.
schmalz And that's when you got your infamous wasp sting.
JV That was 2001.
schmalz You were going to try to ride the stage the next day, correct?
JV Yeah. That was a very complex situation, and a lot of people don't quite understand it, so I will explain it. A lot of my anti doping angst for reform comes from that whole incident.
So, basically, I got stung by a wasp. Obviously I had an allergic reaction to it, it was sealing my eyes closed, so I couldn't see. That was the major issue as far as riding, was that I couldn't see. So initially I thought the swelling would come down, it didn't. Go to the hospital, they said you need a cortisone injection, our team doctor was like, "Oh no no no no no, can't do that can't do that."
At that point in time I said "That's ridiculous. We have these health booklets, if you need cortisone for asthma, if you need cortisone for a knee injury, you just take it. This is obviously a medical condition, this isn't just me wanting to take cortisone, so why don't we just do it and write in the booklet 'Face swelled shut needed cortisone.'"
At the time, the anti doping regulations had not taken into account the possibility of an allergic reaction, so there was only an exemption for asthma or knee injury, joint inflammation. So that night, I'm basically fighting with Roger (Legeay) and the team doctor. To me, it was just a ridiculous injustice. "Let's just write in my health booklet knee injury, and somehow it made my face swell up and we don't know why, and we'll just take the cortisone and it'll be gone". And they just wouldn't let me do it, "We're not going to do that".
It upset me to no end that I wasn't going to be able to race and finish the Tour de France, this was just a couple of days from the end. I wasn't going to be able to finish the Tour de France because of a stupid thing that was overlooked in the rules.
So I went to the stage the next day and said, "Ok, fine. I'm going to get this rule changed." And the way I was going to get this rule changed, I'm going to show up and everyone's going to look at my face, I look like the Elephant Man, and there's going to be a million photographers... Sometimes the media is a good medium to impart change in the world. It's going to be such an embarrassing story for WADA and the UCI that they're going to have to revisit this rule and change it, and that's exactly what happened.
But the thing that...two things came out of that. One, had it not been for Roger Legeay and our team doctor at the time, had it been left up to me, had it been left up to my 27 year old competitive athlete mind, I just wanted to finish, man, just gimme the shit, lemme finish. But it was the management, in a more logical, been around the block a few more times, bigger picture oriented, it was them that shut it down and said no. To this day I really thank Roger for that, because basically he save me from blatantly lying to the world.
And maybe no one would've known about it, right? What's the difference? Knee injury, you just write down knee injury and you can take cortisone and it's great and the wasp sting goes away and voila! But end of the day, from a big picture point of view, that's just how it starts. "There's this little loophole, let's just go ahead and do it." And that's really it. If you're willing to take that little loophole, what about the next one and the next one and the next one and on and on and on? And then you've taken so many loopholes that you're winning everything and the guy next to you is like, "Well, I should do this too". It seems like such a stupid little thing, but it's just like dominos. One guy decides to be untruthful on his health booklet, and all of a sudden all that spirals downward.
Lemond almost certainly was clean. He was blasting away national-class seniors as a teenager, so reaching a very high level as a pro isn't unexpected. There were no strange leaps in performance.
Boardman probably was clean. Both have had few or no rumours regarding drugs throughout their careers.
I'll wait a few years for have an opinion on Wiggo.
Out of interest did anyone consider David Millar as suspect before he was caught?
The cowardly weasels who are no better than Gaddafi have dropped their action against Kimmage.
Wonder if he's tempted to counter sue... :demon:
d.
The cowardly weasels who are no better than Gaddafi have dropped their action against Kimmage.
Wonder if he's tempted to counter sue... :demon:
d.
Out of interest did anyone consider David Millar as suspect before he was caught?
Yes. He was under suspicion for a while, iirc.
d.
There was an attempt at today's UCI Management Cttee meeting by more than 1 member to have Verbruggen removed as Hon President - it failed (http://twitter.com/danroan/status/261888360044449792)
A small number of countries tried to persuade President McQuaid to force Verbruggen to resign but the effort didn't garner enough support (http://twitter.com/danroan/status/261891098933354497)
UCI Hon President Hein Verbruggen survived attempt by some Management Cttee members to force him to step down at meeting today, BBC learns (http://twitter.com/danroan/status/261896836288217089)
Another here (http://www.matthewsyed.co.uk/2012/04/hard-to-forget-as-cheats-seek-forgiveness/).
So, with many posts appearing to support the actions of USADA and the apparent demise of Lance Armstrong, where do we stand on those associated with him? Surely LA was not alone and if he is guilty of doping over such a prolonged period, then others must have been involved. I would find it hard to accept a “I saw him do it but I never got involved” approach.I was wondering how long it would be before Sean Yates would come under the spotlight.
Interesting to note the LA – Sean Yates link via Team Discovery and the fact that SY is now involved with Sky who are providing some remarkable results.
I was wondering how long it would be before Sean Yates would come under the spotlight.
This is a great pity as all the achievements of Sky associated with Yates will be questioned and the efforts of Wiggins and Froome will also questioned. I have no questions about their performance, but fingers will no doubt be pointed.
Time for peace and reconcilliation; was it really possible for Giro, TDF and Worlds all in one season and then nothing? Also, if TDF was so tainted by drugs that no winner can be nominated over such a long period, why not just wipe all results from those years as who can honestly believe the other grand tours or stage races were won clean.
Perhaps I'm not getting the irony or satire in your post ESL, but I'm sure Yatesy did a spot of hedgetrimming (and worked as a builder's labourer) between his cycling director contracts? So there could be a place for him at the FE college if all else fails.
I was at the National Hedgelaying Competition today, ...
BUT - I think we've now drifted into a McCarthyist reaction, and it's just as vindictive and lacking in judgement as the McCarthy investigations.
Brailsford may have mixed motives for what he is doing, and the good of the sport may not be one of them, but that does not mean that his actions won't be good for the sport.
Sean Yates decides to retire from all cycling and Team Sky principlal Dave Brailsford says it is for "for purely personal reasons
From BBC SportQuoteSean Yates decides to retire from all cycling and Team Sky principlal Dave Brailsford says it is for "for purely personal reasons
We believe you Mr Brailsford!
What is it about the Tour that the middle classes get out of the Tour, and what makes them feel they have the right to impose their moral template onto it? The Tour is the private property of a newspaper company at the end of the day.
What is it about the Tour that the middle classes get out of the Tour, and what makes them feel they have the right to impose their moral template onto it?
Professional sport is entertainment. Expect it to be clean is a peculiarly British ideal.
A guy who lost out to Lance Armstrong in bid to woo Sheryl Crow insists he should now be credited as her boyfriend from 2003 to 2006.I await LA's response. And obviously all the home s3x tapes are now mine too.
From BBC SportQuoteSean Yates decides to retire from all cycling and Team Sky principlal Dave Brailsford says it is for "for purely personal reasons
We believe you Mr Brailsford!
Also "Sky said Yates's decision was not related to doping allegations"
Hmmm, really?
The UCI asked "Dutch lawyer Vrijman to investigate a L'Equipe story that showed Armstrong had used EPO to help win the 1999 TdF but the subsequent 132 page report didn't deal with whether or not Armstrong cheated but with how the newspaper managed to get the story. WADA criticised the report for being 'unprofessional and lacking impartiality'.
In an interview with the Danish newspaper Politiken, Vrijman was asked how he came to be appointed as the UCI's investigator. 'I am a very good acquaintance of Hein Verbruggen's' he said."
Sky are off to a flying start with being trustworthy, then. ::-)
In 1988, Yates won stage six of the TdF, a TT at Wasquehal where he recorded the fastest average speed in the race's history to that point.
What is it about the Tour that the middle classes get out of the Tour, and what makes them feel they have the right to impose their moral template onto it?
'Because the fans fund the Tour' seems like enough reason to me. If pro cycling doesn't need fans, than the racers can do whatever they want.
Yes and the sponsors pay because the fans watch and pay for their products.
Call me a cynic if you like but to find the real fans of pro cycling you need to be at Paris-Roubaix, San Sebastian, or Milan-San Remo (or the Ardennes etc.), not the TdF or probably the other Grand Tours.
QuoteIn 1988, Yates won stage six of the TdF, a TT at Wasquehal where he recorded the fastest average speed in the race's history to that point.
Just saying.
[I'm amazed that LEL linky still works - I thought that website was dead. I've copied a newer version across to my blog pages: here (http://oranj.wordpress.com/2005/07/28/london-edinburgh-london-2005/)]
QuoteIn 1988, Yates won stage six of the TdF, a TT at Wasquehal where he recorded the fastest average speed in the race's history to that point.
Just saying.
Nothing to do with whether Yates was complicit in doping, but that victory came about because he started very early on and enjoyed a massive tailwind all the way. With half the riders still to start the wind changed direction to side/head. He was a very strong TTist anyway, and just got lucky.
QuoteIn 1988, Yates won stage six of the TdF, a TT at Wasquehal where he recorded the fastest average speed in the race's history to that point.
Just saying.
Nothing to do with whether Yates was complicit in doping, but that victory came about because he started very early on and enjoyed a massive tailwind all the way. With half the riders still to start the wind changed direction to side/head. He was a very strong TTist anyway, and just got lucky.
Is it just me or is this joke so obscure as to be incomprehensible?
QuoteIn 1988, Yates won stage six of the TdF, a TT at Wasquehal where he recorded the fastest average speed in the race's history to that point.
Just saying.
Nothing to do with whether Yates was complicit in doping, but that victory came about because he started very early on and enjoyed a massive tailwind all the way. With half the riders still to start the wind changed direction to side/head. He was a very strong TTist anyway, and just got lucky.
Is it just me or is this joke so obscure as to be incomprehensible?
Is it just me or is this joke so obscure as to be incomprehensible?
Is it just me or is this joke so obscure as to be incomprehensible?
Eh? I just pointed out that Yates, already a very good TTist, won because he had a massive tailwind and the others didn't. ???
Andy Murray has called for more out of competition testing in Tennis, perhaps the LA affair is also a wake-up call to other sports:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/andy-murray-wants-wider-testing-regime-with-tougher-drugs-penalties--and-no-reprieves-8231546.html
Andy Murray has called for more out of competition testing in Tennis, perhaps the LA affair is also a wake-up call to other sports:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/andy-murray-wants-wider-testing-regime-with-tougher-drugs-penalties--and-no-reprieves-8231546.html
South Park are having a go at Lance too according to the Lebanese
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Entertainment/Celebrities/2012/Oct-30/193209-south-park-takes-aim-atlance-armstrong.ashx#axzz2AotlWKee
I have been wearing my wristband since mid 2005. I have come to realise however that my wearing of the wristband was more down to my regard for Armstrong and his sporting achievement. Therefore, I had to do something about it.
yesterday I considered my 'Livestrong' band.Relieve your withdrawal symptoms by wearing one of these instead (http://store.theonion.com/p-5045-cheat-to-win-bracelet.aspx)
I have been wearing my wristband since mid 2005. I have come to realise however that my wearing of the wristband was more down to my regard for Armstrong and his sporting achievement. Therefore, I had to do something about it.
South Park are having a go at Lance too according to the Lebanese
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Entertainment/Celebrities/2012/Oct-30/193209-south-park-takes-aim-atlance-armstrong.ashx#axzz2AotlWKee
How in God's name did you find an article in a Lebanese newspaper about South Park and Armstrong? Superb!
He can take a leaf out of Johnny Depp's book and cut the cost of laser tattoo removal by simply having it reduced to "LI ESTRONG"I have been wearing my wristband since mid 2005. I have come to realise however that my wearing of the wristband was more down to my regard for Armstrong and his sporting achievement. Therefore, I had to do something about it.
One of my acquaintances was a big Livestrong fan, and a survivor of a relentless form of cancer which I believe he can never be declared clear of. He's a very strong cyclist, a really nice guy and frankly it's quite humbling to just know what he's been through. A couple of years ago, to celebrate (I think) 5 years since his diagnosis he had a Livestrong band tattoo. I was a fan, now I'm not and I don't really care; but I feel really sorry for people who looked up to LA for hope and now might feel betrayed by his fraud and lies.
South Park are having a go at Lance too according to the Lebanese
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Entertainment/Celebrities/2012/Oct-30/193209-south-park-takes-aim-atlance-armstrong.ashx#axzz2AotlWKee
How in God's name did you find an article in a Lebanese newspaper about South Park and Armstrong? Superb!
South Park are having a go at Lance too according to the LebaneseAnd the people of Edenbridge, Kent, too.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Entertainment/Celebrities/2012/Oct-30/193209-south-park-takes-aim-atlance-armstrong.ashx#axzz2AotlWKee
Clues
1 Very well known
2 An international celebrity
3 Adored by many
4 Notorious for putting (his/her) foot in it rather too often
Ace. Kimmage counter suing the UCI :thumbsup:
Ace. Kimmage counter suing the UCI :thumbsup:
Bravo. Brave souls like him need to keep pressing the buttons. Where do we donate again?
Lausanne, 1.11.2012
By this release, the undersigned makes the public announcement that his client Paul Kimmage has sent today to the Public Prosecutor of Vevey a criminal complaint and denunciation against Hein Vebruggen, Pat McQuaid and unknown persons against whom Paul Kimmage requests the opening of a criminal investigation for slander/defamation, denigration and for strong suspicions of fraud.
By this 28 page document to which 55 exhibits are attached, Paul Kimmage complains, among other things, that he was dragged through the mud, that he was called a liar in public and accused in public of committing offences against the honour after he had obtained the publication of an interview by Floyd Landis in which the latter denounced the conduct of the highest officials of the International Cycling Union (UCI). In addition, Paul Kimmage informs the Swiss criminal authorities of the strong suspicions which weigh on at least Hein Vebruggen to have granted, directly or indirectly, the essential assistance which allowed Lance Armstrong to gain significant sums of money in and out of competition while he was doped.
Paul Kimmage has initiated these criminal proceedings not for himself but first of all in honour of the whistle-blowers – Stephen Swart, Frankie Andreu, Floyd Landis, Christophe Bassons, Nicolas Aubier, Giles Delion, Graham Obree and the many others – who were brave enough to speak but were dismissed as ‘liars’, ‘cowards,’ or ‘scumbags’ by Hein Verbruggen and/or Pat McQuaid.
(signed by Cédric Aguet)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9652121/World-Anti-Doping-Agency-criticises-UCIs-failure-to-investigate-Lance-Armstrong-drugs-allegations.html
This is encouraging.
Was he wearing it on his wrist ?If not, that's some girth.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/skins-launch-dollar-2-million-law-suit-against-uci-over-handling-of-anti-doping-fight
Bring it on boys and girls....
When it decided to invest in cycling not only as a sponsor but also in extending its product range through massive investments in R&D, SKINS was under the illusion that professional cycling had been fundamentally reformed to contain doping and to minimise the risks of scandals with which the brand of any sponsor could be associated,
There was something on iTele news tonight about Bjarne Riis but I didn't catch it (being half asleep) so I can't say if it was new or old developments. Nothing around elsewhere that I can see!
Amgen - cycle race promoter and manufacturer of EPO faces $780 MILLION fines
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/armstrongs-fraud-paralleled-epo-makers-feud
In late 1983, Amgen raised $40 million in an initial public offering underwritten by Smith Barney, Dean Witter and Montgomery Securities, founded by amateur cyclist Thom Weisel, who also financed the U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling Team led by Armstrong.
This is lovely...
http://sorryidoped.com/
Dear sponsors, and creditors:
In the wake of recent events in the world of cycling, I can no longer hide my past. I admit to doping with EPO, blood transfusions, cortisone, Clenbuterol, rhinoceros horn, and PCP. I did not want to use these products but I thought everyone else was doing it. I took these products between July 1966 and November 2012.
I deeply regret, and hope that others can learn from my actions and I hope that my confession can help bring positive change to the sport that we all love so much.
I also did two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... Also, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all that for the trip, but once you get into locked a serious drug collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can.
Sincerely,
Raoul Duke
I also did two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... Also, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls.
I also did two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... Also, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls.
Ah - a normal Saturday night in the Officers' Mess, eh.... ;D
I'll be sad if Jens' denials are worthless.
With Amgen right in the middle. :thumbsup:Amgen - cycle race promoter and manufacturer of EPO faces $780 MILLION fines
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/armstrongs-fraud-paralleled-epo-makers-feudQuoteIn late 1983, Amgen raised $40 million in an initial public offering underwritten by Smith Barney, Dean Witter and Montgomery Securities, founded by amateur cyclist Thom Weisel, who also financed the U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling Team led by Armstrong.
Worth bringing up the flow-chart of business links again:
http://cyclismas.com/2012/06/lance-armstrongs-business-links-a-flowchart-by-dimspace/
More food for thought with a good post by the Inner Ring on ol' Edgar today - check out the Amgen advert in the comments. ;D
http://inrng.com/2012/11/epo-the-wonder-drug/
Dialysis patient Linda Vacarro thanks Vouga, while he gets dialysis treatment in Jacksonville after his one month cycling trip, for his work in promoting awareness of kidney disease.
A nurse traveled with Vouga and monitored his weight and fluid levels daily.
Vouga's trek was sponsored by Amgen, the company that discovered epoetin alfa therapy, which boosts the red blood cell count. Vouga credits the drug, epogen, with boosting his energy level.
I think Voight must have had a very good idea about how Bruyneel operated before he went to Radioshack. I cant believe he didnt have other options open to him when he signed up for radioshack. Same goes for cancellara tbh. Every rider knew doping existed, every rider knew bruyneels history at UPS/Discover/Astana/ etc. I assume it was big money that swung it for them. I've always thought that signing of such fans-favourites as Voigt and Cancellara were smart moves for Radioshack whose popularity had shrunk greatly since Lance retired.
I don't think they signed for Radioshack exactly. They had contracts with Leopard Trek when it merged with/was taken over by Radioshack.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/11/lance-armstrong-yellow-jerseys
He has resigned to spend more time with his lawyers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/11/lance-armstrong-yellow-jerseys
Are you sure that, now his body is not being pumped with drugs and blood and whatnot, he hasn't just shrunk down to be teeny-tiny?
Is there going to be a similar outcry from outside cycling to the reports that Frankie Detorri has tested positive? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/20316457)
Steady on, Clarion! I'm not sure you can say things like that even ironically.
Anyway, what has he tested positive for? Can't think what PEDs a jockey would benefit from - beta blockers, maybe?
d.
Have you tried looking for yourself?
Steady on, Clarion! I'm not sure you can say things like that even ironically.I was alluding to the fall from grace of British icons, in hte manner of Andy Murray, who was always a Scot when he lost.
Apart from recreational stuff, jockeys often take stuff for weight loss.
But then it is worthwhile remembering that cheating is not restricted to one sport or to taking drugs. I would argue that the footballer who deliberately dives to claim a penalty in the last minute by which method his team scores and wins the game has had far more impact on the outcome than an athlete of any kind loading their body with drugs. At least the athlete has still had to cross the line first/fastestI'd agree with that (and I suspect most cyclists would!). It might explain why noone's too bothered about drugs in football.
Soccer has lots of drugs/ blood doping. Running faster and not getting tired late in the game are big advantages.
Bullshit.
Look at Puerto. Blood gives you more endurance, not just recovery.
Soccer has lots of drugs/ blood doping. Running faster and not getting tired late in the game are big advantages.
I'm sure they do drugs but not sure about blood doping. That is all about recovery, and I can't see that it would make a difference with the relatively fairly light load of a pro footballer.
The President is elected directly by the Congress. 14(Order chopped a bit to clarify(?) things a bit.)
The UCI Congress12 is the UCI’s highest authority. It is made up of delegations from
National Federations, who vote through their voting delegates.
The members of the UCI are formally known as the National Federations10, one per
country, which represent the cycling movement in their country.
National Federations from the same continent are grouped together in their Continental
Confederation11. One of the raisons d’être of Continental Confederations is that they must
guarantee the participation of National Federations, which they group together, in the
UCI’s activities. Their participation is ensured by the election by each Confederation of
members of National Federations as voting delegates at the UCI Congress.
14 See chap. IV, art. 29, 2004 Constitution.
12 See chap. IV, 2004 Constitution.
11 See chap. III, 2004 Constitution
10 See chap. II, 2004 Constitution
Article 36
1. Members shall exercise their voting rights through the agency of voting delegates appointed
among each continental confederation. Each delegate must be a member of a federation of the
continental confederation concerned.
2. The total number of voting delegates shall be 42 distributed among continental confederations
as follows:
Africa: 7 delegates
America: 9 delegates
Asia: 9 delegates
Europe: 14 delegates
Oceania: 3 delegates
3. Each voting delegate shall have one vote.
...
Article 40
1. Voting is by a show of hands, or if requested by a voting delegate, by roll call.
2. Nevertheless, voting by secret ballot shall be used:
a) for the admission, suspension and expulsion of members of the UCI;
b) for the election and dismissal of the President and the members of the Management
Committee;
c) at the request of seven voting delegates.
Just in time to save his credibility :thumbsup:
Why it will be meaningless:
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/40863250/
There is a theory that Team Armstrong are making noises off about a confession more as a threat to erstwhile allies who are backing away, rather than out of any tardy sense of contrition. Even if half the conspiracy theories about the reach of his influence are true, there a quite a few powerful people who would have a lot to lose if Armstrong did actually decide to reveal absolutely everything.
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.
Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true. (R. Wilensky)
It's the American Way - lie and cheat, then appear tearfully on Oprah full of contrition.
It's the American Way - lie and cheat, then appear tearfully on Oprah full of contrition.
We'll see about the tears and contrition but well done on the Oprah part Rhys.
Joe Lindsey at Bicycling has a good little piece on the complexities underlying a mooted LA confessional, opening with a cracking Winston Churchill quote -USADA has destroyed the reputation of the greatest American sporting hero of the late 20th and early 21st Century, implicating the UCI on the way, and that somehow shows that Americans are deficient in doing the right thing. I think it just shines a light onto a petty anti-Americanism. The European cycling establishment was only too happy to let sleeping dogs lie.
“We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they’ve exhausted all the other possibilities.”
;D
http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2013/01/05/will-armstrong-finally-confess/
Joe Lindsey at Bicycling has a good little piece on the complexities underlying a mooted LA confessional, opening with a cracking Winston Churchill quote -USADA has destroyed the reputation of the greatest American sporting hero of the late 20th and early 21st Century, implicating the UCI on the way, and that somehow shows that Americans are deficient in doing the right thing. I think it just shines a light onto a petty anti-Americanism. The European cycling establishment was only too happy to let sleeping dogs lie.
“We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they’ve exhausted all the other possibilities.”
;D
http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2013/01/05/will-armstrong-finally-confess/
Joe Lindsey at Bicycling has a good little piece on the complexities underlying a mooted LA confessional, opening with a cracking Winston Churchill quote -USADA has destroyed the reputation of the greatest American sporting hero of the late 20th and early 21st Century, implicating the UCI on the way, and that somehow shows that Americans are deficient in doing the right thing. I think it just shines a light onto a petty anti-Americanism. The European cycling establishment was only too happy to let sleeping dogs lie.
“We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they’ve exhausted all the other possibilities.”
;D
http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2013/01/05/will-armstrong-finally-confess/
Petty anti-Americanism? Eh?
That piece is written by an American, published in an American magazine and concerns an American sportsman being charged and convicted by an American sporting body.
It's the American Way - lie and cheat, then appear tearfully on Oprah full of contrition.
We'll see about the tears and contrition but well done on the Oprah part Rhys.
A prophet is in our midst.
Joe Lindsey at Bicycling has a good little piece on the complexities underlying a mooted LA confessional, opening with a cracking Winston Churchill quote -USADA has destroyed the reputation of the greatest American sporting hero of the late 20th and early 21st Century, implicating the UCI on the way, and that somehow shows that Americans are deficient in doing the right thing. I think it just shines a light onto a petty anti-Americanism. The European cycling establishment was only too happy to let sleeping dogs lie.
“We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they’ve exhausted all the other possibilities.”
;D
http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2013/01/05/will-armstrong-finally-confess/
Petty anti-Americanism? Eh?
That piece is written by an American, published in an American magazine and concerns an American sportsman being charged and convicted by an American sporting body.
And the smiley?
There is a theory that Team Armstrong are making noises off about a confession more as a threat to erstwhile allies who are backing away, rather than out of any tardy sense of contrition. Even if half the conspiracy theories about the reach of his influence are true, there a quite a few powerful people who would have a lot to lose if Armstrong did actually decide to reveal absolutely everything.
Hey Spesh, couldn't help noticing your footer-note:QuoteWe've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.
Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true. (R. Wilensky)
Here's a link to an Internet site where the works of Shakespear have been reproduced. http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/ (http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/)
Joe Lindsey at Bicycling has a good little piece on the complexities underlying a mooted LA confessional, opening with a cracking Winston Churchill quote -USADA has destroyed the reputation of the greatest American sporting hero of the late 20th and early 21st Century, implicating the UCI on the way, and that somehow shows that Americans are deficient in doing the right thing. I think it just shines a light onto a petty anti-Americanism. The European cycling establishment was only too happy to let sleeping dogs lie.
“We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they’ve exhausted all the other possibilities.”
;D
http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2013/01/05/will-armstrong-finally-confess/
Petty anti-Americanism? Eh?
That piece is written by an American, published in an American magazine and concerns an American sportsman being charged and convicted by an American sporting body.
And the smiley?
What about it?
The quote is employed as a highly appropriate metaphor for Armstrong's behaviour. The man has exhausted every possible avenue, legal and (alledgedly) illegal, to kill the USADA and its Federal predecessor stone dead.
Joe Lindsey at Bicycling has a good little piece on the complexities underlying a mooted LA confessional, opening with a cracking Winston Churchill quote -USADA has destroyed the reputation of the greatest American sporting hero of the late 20th and early 21st Century, implicating the UCI on the way, and that somehow shows that Americans are deficient in doing the right thing. I think it just shines a light onto a petty anti-Americanism. The European cycling establishment was only too happy to let sleeping dogs lie.
“We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they’ve exhausted all the other possibilities.”
;D
http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2013/01/05/will-armstrong-finally-confess/
Petty anti-Americanism? Eh?
That piece is written by an American, published in an American magazine and concerns an American sportsman being charged and convicted by an American sporting body.
And the smiley?
What about it?
The quote is employed as a highly appropriate metaphor for Armstrong's behaviour. The man has exhausted every possible avenue, legal and (alledgedly) illegal, to kill the USADA and its Federal predecessor stone dead.
It's the American Way - lie and cheat, then appear tearfully on Oprah full of contrition.
We'll see about the tears and contrition but well done on the Oprah part Rhys.
A prophet is in our midst.
Joe Lindsey at Bicycling has a good little piece on the complexities underlying a mooted LA confessional, opening with a cracking Winston Churchill quote -
“We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they’ve exhausted all the other possibilities.”
;D
http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2013/01/05/will-armstrong-finally-confess/
A while back, I thought he'd never confess.
The shame is that Lance Armstrong was a strong and talented rider, with great determination, and probably could have achieved a great deal without the drugs. Now we shall never know. And nor will he.
The shame is that Lance Armstrong was a strong and talented rider, with great determination, and probably could have achieved a great deal without the drugs. Now we shall never know. And nor will he.
This more than anything.
Imagine the news headlines....
"Someone almost certainly about to die of Cancer, is cured, returns to cycling and finishes in the top 5 of the Tour de France 7 times in a row. He made a stand against drugs and refused to use them in order to win the Tour as "cycling is too important for that"
In subsequent years it was found that he was the only rider in his peer-group not to be tarnished with doping offences"
What a hero he would have been forever, a "virtual" 7 times winner, by default (perhaps).
Now he's forever "that lying cheat on a bike".
Yes, he's rich, but I bet now he'd taken the living legend option and left a proper legacy for his kids.
Yes Lance...kids...you know those little people in your house...the ones that are supposed to look up to you.
Anyone else noticed a surprising similarity:
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65283000/jpg/_65283596_65282380.jpg)
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01658/tony-blair_1658942c.jpg)
Tony Blair won an election using PEDs????
Bloody hell.
As she said, it's not a victim-free crime. Cheats steal from those who don't cheat.
A while back, I thought he'd never confess.
Why don't we wait until we've seen the program?
Obvioulsy, no apology could possibly be genuine. You can't be that much of a cunt for so long and have any remorse. An apology from Armstrong would be about as meaningful as one from Hitler*
I don't really care what his motives or excuses are, just as long as he admits it. That will at least be a step in the right direction. I fully appreciate that it will just mean the remaining Lance fan bois will be saying "He just did what everybody else did!", but at least it will make a change from "He never tested positive!"
Admit it, then fuck off...
* Sorry, couldn't resist :P
I don't really care what his motives or excuses are, just as long as he admits it. That will at least be a step in the right direction.
“Over the course of several communications, WADA has shared a number of serious concerns as to the Commission’s terms of reference and its ability to carry out its role without undue influence.
“In particular, WADA is concerned that the scope of the inquiry is too focused on sanctioned former cyclist Lance Armstrong - especially as his case is closed and completed with there being no appeal - and will therefore not fully address such a widespread and ingrained problem.”
“There is further concern that the UCI has had too much influence over the terms of reference, which calls into question the Commission’s independence,” WADA stated. “The terms of reference were signed off by the UCI and the Commission without consultation with anti-doping authorities, while the requirement for the Commission to deliver its report to the UCI before any other party is unacceptable.”
"Because the Commission does not offer immunity there is no incentive for witnesses to come forward, or to even give witness statements,” it said. “An approach that does not allow individuals to give evidence without the fear of retaliation will merely perpetuate the ‘omerta’ that has been an obstacle to cycling investigations in the past.”
“UCI's refusal to agree to allow a limited opportunity for riders to come forward and be truthful without fear of retribution or retaliation from the UCI obviously calls into question the UCI's commitment to a full and thorough investigation and creates grave concern that the UCI has blindfolded and handcuffed this Independent Commission to ensure a pre-determined outcome,” he said in a statement. “The current terms of reference are not good for clean athletes or moving this sport forward to a better future.”
FFS, the UCI really are a massive bunch of cunts.
d.
Both WADA and USADA have expressed serious concerns about the independent commission's enquiry into the role of the UCI during the Armstrong years, and are both now unwilling to cooperate with the commission:...The commission itself isn't happy with its terms of reference, & has asked for immunity for those who testify.
If LA puts a big enough bomb under the UCI with his confession, or any possible co-operation with USADA, the commission's inquiry could be rendered moot anyway.
The commission is of the view that a truth and reconciliation process is desirable for the purposes of this inquiry, and that such a process would ensure that the most complete evidence is available to the commission at its hearing in April 2013.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21043574 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21043574)
The commission is of the view that such a process would be in the interests not only of the inquiry, but also of professional cycling as a whole. The commission, via the solicitors to the inquiry, has written to the UCI's solicitors, urging the UCI to reconsider its position.
FFS, the UCI really are a massive bunch of cunts.
d.
It looks like what has been needed for ten plus years is finally going to happen. A tipping point has been reached with today's statements. I can't see Fat Pat lasting more than a few days now.Hopefuly. But then what, or who?
It's been reported that the UCI are now willing to consider an amnesty to those giving evidence to the UCIIC "so long as it does not contravene the WADA code":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21051947
Look chaps, please can you stop comparing Armstrong to a warm welcoming part of the female anatomy?
It's on the Discovery channel at 2am, then repeated at 8pm.
"Why does prick or dick not carry convey the same amount of disgust and revulsion. Discuss."Look chaps, please can you stop comparing Armstrong to a warm welcoming part of the female anatomy?
Sorry. I shall have to come up with some new terms of insult - none of the existing ones are strong enough to encapsulate my current level of rage towards the UCI.
d.
"Why does prick or dick not carry convey the same amount of disgust and revulsion. Discuss."
Although we probably have somewhere on this forum, already. Interesting though, isn't it.
Take it to P&BI.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9806022/Lance-Armstrong-scandal-former-cycling-chief-Hein-Verbruggen-doesnt-understand-the-whole-fuss.html
If any single article sums up the problem, this is it..
And is this one of the reasons for his apparent state of denial?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-had-account-with-armstrong-backer-says-ochowicz
Verbruggen, who last year said that “Armstrong [had] never used doping", now claims that "nobody knew anything [about Armstrong's doping] for sure. We [the UCI] knew as much as the journalists."
Now he's lost his 2000 Olympic gold.
Erm. Either I misheard or radio bod mis-spoke. As I was only listening with half an ear, almost certainly the former.Now he's lost his 2000 Olympic gold.
Er, no... LA won a bronze medal in the individual time trial at Sydney. Ekimovwonrecorded the fasted time, Ullrich was second.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21062496
Now he's lost his 2000 Olympic gold.
Er, no... LA won a bronze medal in the individual time trial at Sydney. Ekimovwonrecorded the fasted time, Ullrich was second.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21062496
If only it hadn't been pre-recorded. I'd love to hear his opinion on the Cooke/Armistead spat.
Anyone else thinking of adding to the viewing figures to boost OW / LA's coffers?
Anyone else thinking of adding to the viewing figures to boost OW / LA's coffers?
No chance.
LA = hero to zero in the blink of a syringe
But I'm going to stay up and watch.Good, we need someone to tell us what happened. Thanks for volunteering!
Actually, some of us might dare to suggest it's a bit more interesting than all this endless boring discussion over some nasty piece of work who used to ride a bike quite well. But that's a bit cheeky of me, as this is a thread for those who still find it mildly entertaining, I guess, so.......I'll get my coat.Take it to P&BI.
It's not that interesting.
one thing i'm wondering - did he actually ever really even have cancer? or was that just another lie, as well, to engender sympathy towards him and divert attention?I think that's a given. Probably not caused by the drugs either, since he was in the prime age range for testicular cancer.
Actually, some of us might dare to suggest it's a bit more interesting than all this endless boring discussion over some nasty piece of work who used to ride a bike quite well. But that's a bit cheeky of me, as this is a thread for those who still find it mildly entertaining, I guess, so.......I'll get my coat.Take it to P&BI.
It's not that interesting.
(And I peeked in, so I guess I am a little guilty of rekindling interest in this unpleasant character. I wish we could just let him sink into the obscurity he deserves. )
Actually, some of us might dare to suggest it's a bit more interesting than all this endless boring discussion over some nasty piece of work who used to ride a bike quite well.
Please don't try and read my mind. I had no intention of stirring up a row or devaluing the thread. I was just expressing my opinion concerning discussions about Lance Armstrong in general. I believe I am entitled to do that, just as anyone is entitled to disagree with me. You may note I expressed my opinion without making unpleasant personal remarks about any individual here. I would consider that the kind of behaviour that really does devalue a thread.Actually, some of us might dare to suggest it's a bit more interesting than all this endless boring discussion over some nasty piece of work who used to ride a bike quite well. But that's a bit cheeky of me, as this is a thread for those who still find it mildly entertaining, I guess, so.......I'll get my coat.Take it to P&BI.
It's not that interesting.
(And I peeked in, so I guess I am a little guilty of rekindling interest in this unpleasant character. I wish we could just let him sink into the obscurity he deserves. )
Well, you popped in to try and stir up a row and it didn't work so then you leave but make sure you get your nasty little jibe in to try and devalue the thread.
Classy. Stay gone.
I'm glad I didn't sacrifice any of my much-needed beauty sleep to watch a sociopathic liar dissembling for two hours.
It should be happening in a court, under oath, with skilled professionals who can cross-examine properly.
Do you really think that?Well I didn't really think he'd taken drugs, but then it turns out he had.
It should be happening in a court, under oath, with skilled professionals who can cross-examine properly.
Is there a chance of this?
I thought he'd lied under oath (or does this fall under double-jeopardy?)
I'm surprised people are surprised that this was well-managed. He's walking a legal tightrope.
As for confessing to pre-cancer doping...didn't NIKE sponsor him throughout that period? I bet there are NIKE lawyers hanging on his every word.
The Andreus testified in 2006 that they heard Armstrong tell a cancer doctor that he had doped with EPO in 1996. Armstrong swore, under oath, that it did not happen.
Didn't dope after coming out of retirement... interesting.
I have only watched the BBC clips, but every thing looked too comfortable to me, she didn't seem to make him sweat and she looked more nervous than Armstrong
Anyway I think the LA story is fascinating.
I suspect that the Betsy Andreu stuff is too personal to be easily given up
I did it because that's what I had to do to win' is self-justification, not catharsis.
one thing i'm wondering - did he actually ever really even have cancer? or was that just another lie, as well, to engender sympathy towards him and divert attention?I think that's a given. Probably not caused by the drugs either, since he was in the prime age range for testicular cancer.
Armstrong said during the interview that he hasn't doped since 2005, and didn't do so during his cycling comeback between 2008 and 2011.
But World Anti-Doping Agency chief executive John Fahey insists chemical evidence shows Armstrong did dope during his comeback years.
"The evidence from Usada (the US Anti-Doping Agency] is that Armstrong's blood tests show variations in his blood that show with absolute certainty he was doping after 2005,"
Instead, let’s pause to consider -- if only for as long as Oprah Winfrey’s two-night interview with Armstrong -- the underlying reasons that steroids are so common in sports: Because we value winning above all else, and pay winners accordingly. Because we expect to see transcendent athletic performances with casual frequency. Because of the unrealistic physical demands of endurance sports. Because we have embraced performance-enhancing pharmaceuticals in virtually every other realm (the bedroom, the classroom, the battlefield, and so on).which seems basically right.
QuoteArmstrong said during the interview that he hasn't doped since 2005, and didn't do so during his cycling comeback between 2008 and 2011.
But World Anti-Doping Agency chief executive John Fahey insists chemical evidence shows Armstrong did dope during his comeback years.
"The evidence from Usada (the US Anti-Doping Agency] is that Armstrong's blood tests show variations in his blood that show with absolute certainty he was doping after 2005,"
I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far, that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er.
Then it all just seemed too good to be true, too much of a American Fairy Story.
Merckx tested positive for banned substances three times but there's a world of difference between his methods and Lance Armstrong's.
d.
I no longer have ony of his books, if I did I would be doing the same as BRM.
Along the way we have acheived more with his inspiration than if he hadn't deceived us.
I want this to be a turning point. I want this to be an end to it, but I suspect it won't be. There's too much money involved, so, even now, there are laboratories employed by teams to come up with new ways of cheating to stay one step ahead of the testing regimes, which, themselves, depend on honesty to be effective.Coppi was a bit of a hero for one of my uncles- I remember having a family row when I was in my late teens and he was still trying to get me to be as singleminded about riding the bike as the rest of the cyclists in the family. He was worried I was partying too much, and feared I would soon be sinking into the decadent world of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. The drugs part would have been speed, as that was the drug of choice and availability at that time. "What about Coppi?" was my reply. ( My uncle himself had told me the story about how he was supposed to have said he only doped when it was absolutely necessary- which was all the time.)
I think it's safe to say that Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Pantani etc all doped in some way or other, and we still revere them as heroes (even if a bit damaged). I wish we'd had a clean sport, but I am convinced it's cleaner than it was ten years ago, and is getting better.
Meanwhile, I have no such confidence in tennis or football or athletics or many other sports which have not been the focus of such close attention on the drugs issue.
Us older types still have an Amateur/Professional dichotomy. We assume that to be a pro is to sign a pact with the devil, and that even in the amateur ranks some countries will cheat massively to garner prestige. Our heroes tend to be domestic amateurs.
Quote from: Lady MacBethI am in blood
Stepp'd in so far, that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er.
I'm not sure those two were/are clean. How can we be sure? I hope so. Robert has been an inspiring cyclist for me, even though, as a skinny climber, his riding was nothing like mine.
In that interview, after revealing how, after his exploits on the track had resulted in “parachuting me right into the middle of the professional world,” his plain talking and anti-doping stance meant that his professional road career was over pretty much as soon as it started.http://road.cc/content/news/70004-graeme-obree-speaks-out-doping-and-bonus-video-airships
“This one Italian guy in particular asked, quite casually, ‘What did you use for the Hour record?’ and when I said ‘Nothing,’ he literally waved his hand up and down as the Italians do, said ‘amatore’ [amateur] and turned away in disgust,” he explained.
“I wasn’t taking drugs so I wasn’t taking my sport seriously, and that’s a genuine attitude I met with – you’re not taking your job seriously because you’re not willing to take substances to make you go as fast as you humanly can.
“I did suffer a terrible resentment in pro cycling, I felt I was robbed of it, because I wasn’t welcome in the pro peloton at all after the whole debacle with Le Groupement “because obviously they realised, ‘He’s not going to play the game.’
I agree. This isn't life or death, this is sport - and sport intended as entertainment. One of the best entertainers got caught out pulling a few tricks to be the top of the pile. Getting caught hasn't removed the entertainment we enjoyed while he was doing it - and the fun we had at the time discussing whether or not he (and many others) had cheated. Any competitive activity with great rewards will always encourage people to find a way to improve their chances - legal or illegal. Some of those ways may be a mite dangerous - but if the sport is dangerous anyway, what's there to get too upset about?
Then it all just seemed too good to be true, too much of a American Fairy Story.
It is an American Fairy Story. It's the Wizard of Oz. We invest our faith in Lance, who inspires us, and we transform ourselves by unleashing what was within us all the time. At the end the curtain slips, and we see an ordinary man. Along the way we have acheived more with his inspiration than if he hadn't deceived us.
It was only ever an entertainment anyway, the aim of the Tour isn't to find a true and unsullied hero, it's to sell copies of L'Equipe, and to harvest all the associated media money. It was the greed of the International Olympic Committee in allowing pro athletes to compete that caused the confusion.
I certainly don't feel betrayed.
I think it was Robert Millar who once described Le Groupement as being more like a group seance than a cycling team.
I want this to be a turning point. I want this to be an end to it, but I suspect it won't be. There's too much money involved, so, even now, there are laboratories employed by teams to come up with new ways of cheating to stay one step ahead of the testing regimes, which, themselves, depend on honesty to be effective.
I think it's safe to say that Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Pantani etc all doped in some way or other, and we still revere them as heroes (even if a bit damaged). I wish we'd had a clean sport, but I am convinced it's cleaner than it was ten years ago, and is getting better.
Meanwhile, I have no such confidence in tennis or football or athletics or many other sports which have not been the focus of such close attention on the drugs issue.
I think it was Robert Millar who once described Le Groupement as being more like a group seance than a cycling team.
;D
I think it was Robert Millar who once described Le Groupement as being more like a group seance than a cycling team.
;D
Found the exact quote, which is actually "we don't have team meetings, we have séances."
Source: In Search Of Robert Millar (Richard Moore) (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=k7uQ3_Xkh64C&pg=PT453&lpg=PT453&dq=le+groupement+cycling+team+%2B+seance&source=bl&ots=0zXE_GlNJB&sig=kqwOtx1JeQu9H5FZ3PaJtwQi5D8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xlD5UOuJIvOb1AXLkIAo&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBg)
Well, Lance is a proven liar.
I don't like his credibility ;D
I don't feel any sympathy for the man, but I do think there is some value in pointing out that the only reason it is 'the greatest sporting fraud' is because he won. There are scores of other riders who did exactly the same thing. That is not to try and mitigate that it was cheating and that there are people who weren't cheated...just probably not anyone in the top half of the GC.
This isn't life or death, this is sport - and sport intended as entertainment. One of the best entertainers got caught out pulling a few tricks to be the top of the pile. Getting caught hasn't removed the entertainment we enjoyed while he was doing it - and the fun we had at the time discussing whether or not he (and many others) had cheated.
The single TdF stage I enjoyed least in all my three decades idly following the sport was Floyd Landis' ludicrous break. It was just so crassly obvious.
The single TdF stage I enjoyed least in all my three decades idly following the sport was Floyd Landis' ludicrous break. It was just so crassly obvious. Sometimes, you might have suspected that a rider was doping from the way they recovered, or kept up a pace. But heading off the front and putting so much time into the pack recklessly was something only someone as thick as Landis would try. Watching, I could feel my enthusiasm for cycle sport sapping away. Horrible.
The single TdF stage I enjoyed least in all my three decades idly following the sport was Floyd Landis' ludicrous break. It was just so crassly obvious. Sometimes, you might have suspected that a rider was doping from the way they recovered, or kept up a pace. But heading off the front and putting so much time into the pack recklessly was something only someone as thick as Landis would try. Watching, I could feel my enthusiasm for cycle sport sapping away. Horrible.
Us older types still have an Amateur/Professional dichotomy. We assume that to be a pro is to sign a pact with the devil, and that even in the amateur ranks some countries will cheat massively to garner prestige. Our heroes tend to be domestic amateurs.Those amateur ranks being PBP and the club 10.
I can understand that anyone interested in the post 1996 world, with pros at the Olympics, will tend to view the whole arena of cycling as ideally a level playing field. But those with an interest before that sees two seperate arenas, neither of which are flat at an international level.
Us older types still have an Amateur/Professional dichotomy. We assume that to be a pro is to sign a pact with the devil, and that even in the amateur ranks some countries will cheat massively to garner prestige. Our heroes tend to be domestic amateurs.Those amateur ranks being PBP and the club 10.
I can understand that anyone interested in the post 1996 world, with pros at the Olympics, will tend to view the whole arena of cycling as ideally a level playing field. But those with an interest before that sees two seperate arenas, neither of which are flat at an international level.
I'll be really disappointed if Wiggo is caught doping. And just as disappointed if he isn't doping. Must try harder.Us older types still have an Amateur/Professional dichotomy. We assume that to be a pro is to sign a pact with the devil, and that even in the amateur ranks some countries will cheat massively to garner prestige. Our heroes tend to be domestic amateurs.Those amateur ranks being PBP and the club 10.
I can understand that anyone interested in the post 1996 world, with pros at the Olympics, will tend to view the whole arena of cycling as ideally a level playing field. But those with an interest before that sees two seperate arenas, neither of which are flat at an international level.
Bradley Wiggins holds the record over our club 10 course. 19.02 in 2007, when he was training for the Tour Prologue. He had to drop out of that Tour when Cofidis withdrew after a doping positive on Moreni.
Indeed. The logic of the psychopath.
However, let's face it, in the era in which he raced, if you were at the top that is the game you had to play. He has certainly, finally, been more honest than most of those who have been sanctioned. Take Basso for instance.
Indeed. The logic of the psychopath.
However, let's face it, in the era in which he raced, if you were at the top that is the game you had to play. He has certainly, finally, been more honest than most of those who have been sanctioned. Take Basso for instance.
True,
Add to list at will
zuller, zabel, virenque, mancebo, basso, ulrich, heras, landis, vino, levi, it's endless,
Indeed. The logic of the psychopath.
However, let's face it, in the era in which he raced, if you were at the top that is the game you had to play. He has certainly, finally, been more honest than most of those who have been sanctioned. Take Basso for instance.
True,
Add to list at will
zuller, zabel, virenque, mancebo, basso, ulrich, heras, landis, vino, levi, it's endless,
Contador?
Most of that article seems to be talking about cooperation with the UCI on doping controls.
How long before we see Lance on Oprah?
When a professional Italian cycling team comes to town for a racing event, Dave is thrilled to be competing with them. However, the Italians become irked when Dave is able to keep up with and even speak to them in Italian during the race. One of them jams a tire pump in Dave's wheel, causing him to crash, which leaves him disillusioned and depressed. This is a major turning point in the movie because earlier he was upset with his father for his unethical business practices. He now realizes everyone cheats.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Away
If you are without sin. you are allowed to throw stones.......
The Lance story inspired me to get out of my wheelchair and start riding, when I could have stayed in the chair and become a 'potato'.
I owe him for that, and even if it turned out to be false, it still gave me back my life and self respect.
Most of that article seems to be talking about cooperation with the UCI on doping controls.
How long before we see Lance on Oprah?
Just under 2 years I reckon (Just a wild guess)
What surprised me, in the interview, was Lance's statements about how easy it was to avoid detection, simply by making sure you didn't dope close to race day.
I had always assumed that, for many years, they were tested randomly, throughout the year and not just on race day.
Had I known that (and I assume many like me) I wouldn't have paid the slightest bit of attention to the "I never failed a test" line.
Failing a test in those days was clearly just being plain stupid.
Usually three or four days after you've had an injection all traces of EPO have left the circulation or at least aren't present at a high enough level for the urine test to be a definitive piece of evidence that EPO is being used.
Lance is just telling us what we already knew.
SanctimoniousIf you are without sin. you are allowed to throw stones.......
Sanctimonious nonsense.QuoteThe Lance story inspired me to get out of my wheelchair and start riding, when I could have stayed in the chair and become a 'potato'.
I owe him for that, and even if it turned out to be false, it still gave me back my life and self respect.
You've still got the story. Hold on to that. Let the rest of us worry about the truth. (You may be surprised to learn that quite a few people never believed the story in the first place. My own cycling inspiration was Greg Lemond.)
d.
Good line from Nicole Cooke last night. Complained about all the bastards making more money from cheating, confessing, & being paid to tell all to a ghost writer than she's made from years of bloody hard work & winning prizes without cheating.
As she said, it's not a victim-free crime. Cheats steal from those who don't cheat.
I'm very disappointed with Jens's equivocation and sympathy for Lance on cyclingnews.com.
I'm very disappointed with Jens's equivocation and sympathy for Lance on cyclingnews.com.
I think Jens' motives are to encourage people to move on and look at pro cycling as it is now, this year. He's a positive bloke who wants to see the best in people, I don't think this suggests approval.
Good line from Nicole Cooke last night. Complained about all the bastards making more money from cheating, confessing, & being paid to tell all to a ghost writer than she's made from years of bloody hard work & winning prizes without cheating.
As she said, it's not a victim-free crime. Cheats steal from those who don't cheat.
Personally would love to see Nicole as head of UCI. She is capable, intelligent and nobody can argue about her talent. She would also do a lot to bring about better sponsorship, coverage and wages for women's elite cycling. It is absurd that some women's sports get almost equal coverage (tennis, alpine skiing, ice skating, gymnastics, athletics) and others get a very unequal treatment (almost all women's team sports, cycling).
She would be an excellent head of UCI. And she's Welsh ;)
Suggest you read Tyler's book. Lots of detailed inside info on how they avoided being caught by out-of-competition testing. It wasn't exactly difficult.
Hasn't got a nice arse though.
Just sayin'
Suggest you read Tyler's book. Lots of detailed inside info on how they avoided being caught by out-of-competition testing. It wasn't exactly difficult.
You know those "Magic's Greatest Secrets Revealed" programmes where they show you exactly how David Blaine and David Copperfield create their illusions? That's how I felt when I read Tyler's book - so obvious when it's pointed out to you, but at the time you have no chance of seeing through it because of the art of distraction and the patter (in this case the patter being "I have never failed a test").
Hasn't got a nice arse though.
Just sayin'
Slightly odd teeth too,it has to be said. A lot brighter than she looks though..
Hasn't got a nice arse though.
Just sayin'
Just sayin'
Well, you popped in to try and stir up a row and it didn't work so then you leave but make sure you get your nasty little jibe in to try and devalue the thread.
Classy. Stay gone.
Hasn't got a nice arse though.
Just sayin'
Slightly odd teeth too,it has to be said. A lot brighter than she looks though..
Leading-edge discussion about women's suitability for high-profile job.
You have no idea how much you reveal about yourself with that last comment, do you?Hasn't got a nice arse though.
Just sayin'
Slightly odd teeth too,it has to be said. A lot brighter than she looks though..
Leading-edge discussion about women's suitability for high-profile job.
Let's not even go there with the woman thing, Paul
You know that he enjoying these responses.
You know that he enjoying these responses.
+ 1.
I nearly choked on my cornflakes when I heard that LA was getting emotional when he described how his teenage son was defending him :sick:
As for Nicole Cooke, I think that she is intelligent, a winner and a great exponent of a clean game. She will be a great leader of UCI.
Amazingly the next biggest news story in the US is a college football player who lied about having a girlfriend. Seriously.To be fair the big boys did it and ran away.
As for Nicole Cooke, I think that she is intelligent, a winner and a great exponent of a clean game. She will be a great leader of UCI.
Maybe a look at her record of managing other people and of working in a team might be helpful prior to the appointment?
i think he exists in a Jobsian reality distortion field.
Funny you should say that. I noticed just how much his eye movements were similar to Tony Blair's when Blair was telling big'uns.
What concerns me now is what happens within the UCI
Manly library have it right:
https://twitter.com/LadyWriterMelb/status/292869041826193408/photo/1
What concerns me now is what happens within the UCI
Unfortunately, Andrew, that will in part, be determined by Armstrong.
What concerns me now is what happens within the UCI
Unfortunately, Andrew, that will in part, be determined by Armstrong.
Unfortunately LA is trying to set things up so that he will play no part in the future of the UCI, internal or external. That fact alone for me is sufficient to maintain his lifetime ban (and at 41 he is plenty old enough to retire from pro sport. There is of course no mechanism to stop him riding in the next PBP, if he so wishes).
For the rest I hope he gets taken to the cleaners in the various law suits he is up against (although the chief beneficiaries will be the lawyers). There is no real way of compensating the individuals he harmed; there is no way of putting back the clock. Their best therapy might well be to see his life taken apart now and to know that he will suffer and keep on suffering. For that reason alone I would want to see the life ban stick.
I would suggest work for the benefit of the community for several years but he would probably turn that into a publicity coup - and I think any profits from any books, films etc. on him should be confiscated and put to good use (whatever that might be)
What concerns me now is what happens within the UCI
Unfortunately, Andrew, that will in part, be determined by Armstrong.
Unfortunately LA is trying to set things up so that he will play no part in the future of the UCI, internal or external. That fact alone for me is sufficient to maintain his lifetime ban (and at 41 he is plenty old enough to retire from pro sport. There is of course no mechanism to stop him riding in the next PBP, if he so wishes).
For the rest I hope he gets taken to the cleaners in the various law suits he is up against (although the chief beneficiaries will be the lawyers). There is no real way of compensating the individuals he harmed; there is no way of putting back the clock. Their best therapy might well be to see his life taken apart now and to know that he will suffer and keep on suffering. For that reason alone I would want to see the life ban stick.
I would suggest work for the benefit of the community for several years but he would probably turn that into a publicity coup - and I think any profits from any books, films etc. on him should be confiscated and put to good use (whatever that might be)
I'm not disagreeing, but those who have in the past wished suffering on Margaret Thatcher for the dreadful things she did (and they were far more wide-reaching than Lance Armstrong's crimes) have taken a lot of stick from her supporters trying to claim some kind of moral high ground from which they were conspicuously absent when she was at her rampaging worst.
The supreme irony is that, after the debacle of the 1998 TdF (aka "Tour de Dopage"), 1999 was supposed to be a fresh start. It was - a single doper managed to steal almost a decade of cycling history.
There were a lot of factors in 1999.
There were a lot of factors in 1999.
True. I suspect being more doped than the other teams was possibly the biggest factor though.
d.
... two top triathletes have said that they hope he doesn’t get to come back.
Current Hawaii Ironman world champion Pete Jacobs believes that he would be a bad influence, and also that he would still have an advantage even if he stopped taking banned substances. “We are all done with the cheating and lies,” he told News Limited.
“The advantages, because he could train so much harder, are still there. That would be an unfair advantage. If the body is fitter, stronger, it is still effective. It (Armstrong's body) would have to retain some of that.”
As for former triple world champion Craig Alexander, he wants a lifetime ban introduced. “We need to draw a line in the sand and say 'no'. This is a great time to take stock and put new rules in place for zero tolerance."
......... “The advantages, because he could train so much harder, are still there. That would be an unfair advantage. If the body is fitter, stronger, it is still effective. It (Armstrong's body) would have to retain some of that.”
Joking apart, the argument about long term advantages conferred by doping does crop up from time to time. I believe there have been studies into how effective different doping methods are in the short term, but I'm not sure whether anyone's done a proper study of any purported long-term effects.No? Veloman obviously has:
Absolute tosh!
Their hypothesis appears to be that because LA used PED/transfusions he could train harder than others that were not using them as his body had greater capacity before the onset of fatigue. One assumes this would give some muscular/aerobic threshold benefit and enable LA to gain advantage because of that. It then assumes those advantages are maintained and remain effective throughout his lifetime, or at the very least deteriorate at some rate or other that is relatively slow.Joking apart, the argument about long term advantages conferred by doping does crop up from time to time. I believe there have been studies into how effective different doping methods are in the short term, but I'm not sure whether anyone's done a proper study of any purported long-term effects.No? Veloman obviously has:Absolute tosh!
Beyond that, surely you'd have to consider the relative benefit of deterence against the value to sport of allowing the possibility of redemption. If there is no possiblity of redemption, then what incentive to come clean? Of course you could reasonably view LA as a special case, and/or his repentance as insincere.
How many riders who have been caught have not admitted it? Quite a few, and some will be competing in TDF 2013 and might even be competing for GC.
What did he use growth Hormone and Testosterone for?Testosterone for muscle recovery, I think.
So, complete and utter tosh! (IMO)
So, complete and utter tosh! (IMO)
My irony meter just went beserk. You've got a lot of unproven assumptions in your post, how about you find a study to back them up before you go about calling tosh?
So, complete and utter tosh! (IMO)
My irony meter just went beserk. You've got a lot of unproven assumptions in your post, how about you find a study to back them up before you go about calling tosh?
The opposite should also hold - where is the proof that it isn't "tosh".
I think a lifetime ban would be in his interest though. I don't think he yet realises how unpopular he would be at these events. I picture a chorus of booing as he makes his way along the triathlon course.Some good points there.
(As for whether event organisers would want him...of course they would..they'd get big money from TV companies to cover events that would normally remain anonymous).
‘They will make good tea coasters, wind chimes or bird scarers. I could make a big tower or build a big domino toppling track for my three-year-old. I’m sure someone will come up with a good idea for them,’ he added, with more than a hint of desperation in his voice.
...I have never liked the stupid American 'deal' concept. You get someone who has only murdered two people to nark on someone who has murdered 20 and call the first guy a hero and let him go with a token sentence. It's discrimination and wrong. ...It's much, much worse than that.
Small story in the Metro about a guy who bought 10,000 "Science of Lance Armstrong" DVDs last year at £1 each, hoping to make a tidy profit.Quote‘They will make good tea coasters, wind chimes or bird scarers. I could make a big tower or build a big domino toppling track for my three-year-old. I’m sure someone will come up with a good idea for them,’ he added, with more than a hint of desperation in his voice.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/01/21/man-struggling-to-sell-10000-lance-armstrong-dvds-after-cyclists-doping-admission-3360686/ (http://metro.co.uk/2013/01/21/man-struggling-to-sell-10000-lance-armstrong-dvds-after-cyclists-doping-admission-3360686/)
Yebbut IIRC safety was the ostensible reason for the 50% rule. High hematocrit isn't in itself a reliable indicator of EPO use, as that muddle-headed article seems to suggest.
I don't believe the UCI ever actually cared about catching riders using EPO.
d.
Somewhat OT, but I read an article recently about the effects of pre-emptive dosing with NSAID's, the theory being that taking e.g. ibuprofen before exercise would allow harder training. It may do, but it also may promote increased bleeding in the small intestine. Which in turn may prove injurious to health. The human body is a very complex organism.
I think a lifetime ban would be in his interest though. I don't think he yet realises how unpopular he would be at these events. I picture a chorus of booing as he makes his way along the triathlon course.Some good points there.
(As for whether event organisers would want him...of course they would..they'd get big money from TV companies to cover events that would normally remain anonymous).
I believe he's done some big-ish triathlons (Ironmans?) since retirement. I don't think they got much media coverage (outside the bike/triathlon nerdweb!).
Anyone know how welcome he was at those?
[Obviously these were before the recent admissions, but i'd still like to know.]
The organisers wouldn't get much money for the TV coverage if the audiences were apathetic or pxxed off about LA. His presence could have a very negative effect (I might be an anti-social oddity but I refuse to watch sports people I don't like even if I follow the sport. I can't be the only one. I also turn off for certain french commentators).
The UCI today announced that it will scrap its Independent Commission in favor of a "truth and reconciliation commission" (TRC).
Ever get the impression that the UCI are just toying with us?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-disband-independent-commission
The UCI today announced that it will scrap its Independent Commission in favor of a "truth and reconciliation commission" (TRC).
Ever get the impression that the UCI are just toying with us?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-disband-independent-commissionQuoteThe UCI today announced that it will scrap its Independent Commission in favor of a "truth and reconciliation commission" (TRC).
Or, to paraphrase someone on Facebook, they are dropping the forensic investigation in favour of an extended coffee morning.
Ever get the impression that the UCI are just toying with us?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-disband-independent-commissionQuoteThe UCI today announced that it will scrap its Independent Commission in favor of a "truth and reconciliation commission" (TRC).
Or, to paraphrase someone on Facebook, they are dropping the forensic investigation in favour of an extended coffee morning.
As WADA and USADA has refused to cooperate with the UCI's 'independent' investigation unless it incorporated TnR, I guess this is a logical development.
Did we all see this story in yesterday's Telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9831270/Lance-Armstrong-doped-during-cycling-comeback-insists-USADA-chief.html
He's doing his best to try and mitigate Lance's obvious lying on the Oprah show.
not sure if this has been posted before, I'm usually a bit behind the times ;D but should prove interesting
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21227052
Did we all see this story in yesterday's Telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9831270/Lance-Armstrong-doped-during-cycling-comeback-insists-USADA-chief.html
This is about Tygarts appearance on 60 minutes.
He's doing his best to try and mitigate Lance's obvious lying on the Oprah show.
Armstrong has to work with USADA, if he wants any sort of presence in sport, but he is trying to avoid it and obfuscate. Tygart and Armstrong had a meeting before Christmas about a possible confession, and the terms. Armstrong walked out in anger.
USADA is not a government entity, however the agency is partly funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), with its remaining budget generated from contracts for anti-doping services with sport organizations, most notably the United States Olympic Committee.[5] The United States has also ratified the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport, the first global international treaty against doping in sport, and relies in a large part on USADA to carry out this commitment
It's difficult to know what the financial status of USADA is.
It's difficult to know what the financial status of USADA is.
But in any case, it's irrelevant.
Lance has already tried to get the case against him turned over by questioning the integrity and authority of his accusers.
He failed spectacularly.
d.
That's if you think this whole affair is solely about Lance, or is partly a turf war between competing bodies
WADA sitting on the fence and/or pulling their punches...
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/536652/wada-uci-being-deceitful-by-disbanding-independent-commission.html
That's if you think this whole affair is solely about Lance, or is partly a turf war between competing bodies
???
I've never thought it was either of those things.
d.
You hadn't considered that the USADA case was timed to have the maximum impact on the run-up to the London Games then.
Or that USADA was asserting it's right to act beyond its original remit, and predating its founding.
This is becoming infuriating. Who is up for helping the following message to go viral?
I am a cycling fan. I suspect that the UCI is a disfunctional and corrupt organisation and is not fit to be the world governing body for the sport that I love. I will not spend any more of my money on products or services from companies that are connected through sponsorship or advertising with the UCI or any event sanctioned by it. I call for the resignation of Pat McQuaid and the removal of Hein Verbruggen from any position, honorary or otherwise, with the UCI. I further call for a genuinely independent inquiry into the role of the UCI during the period 1999-2010 with particular reference to drug use in cycling and the connection with Lance Armstrong
Anyhoo... fahey of WADA has made an outspoken statement about what a bunch of wankers the UCI are.
The UCI have hit back by publishing private emails:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails2011.asp?id=OTAxNg
The problem is the UCI is not a democracy. They are all in bed with the IOC. Same story.
The UCI should run the porn industry. Full of drugs, bad acting and fake performances.
It is probably no secret that I find the liberal analysis of the current state of sport and sports law deficient in so far as it tends to hark back to a state of affairs, which if they ever existed at all, clearly don’t exist today. But then again one of the things that makes Scandinavia such an interesting place is its tenacious belief in a classical liberal and even a social democratic world view. It is in many senses an island within a neoliberal globe in this respect. Although, sometimes reading the work of my Scandinavian colleagues, I feel the frustration of Sarah Lund in the Danish police show, The Killing, or that of Wallander – the restraints of the kid gloves dressed up as human rights with which they are compelled to treat the bad guys. None of this exists, in contrast, to the more pragmatic and gritty approach of the crew in the French policial Spiral, and its heroine Laure Berthaud, who get to the core of the issue as they bang the heads of the bad guys against the wall.
But back to sport, and or the law and Møller’s book. I am in no doubt that what happened to Michael Rasmussen was a sporting crime of monumental proportions and that in perpetrating this crime the rule book was conveniently thrown out the window. In our report “I Wish I was Twenty One Now – Beyond Doping in the Australian Peloton” (Hardie et al 2010) we included one quote in respect of Rasmussen. The question and the response of the interviewed professional cyclist put into context the gravity of the events that took place in Pau in July 2007:
Q: Are you ever amazed that Rasmussen is still alive? I actually think sometimes, I really seriously am amazed that he hasn’t committed suicide.
A: Yeah, that was I think an oversight on Rabobank’s point of view, I don’t know. I was there and I’m part of that team and I don’t know enough about that. But I think it was an oversight on them when they kicked him out of the tour, to leave him alone that night. They put him in a hotel room 100km up the road or something, with that, driven there by a PR lady or something. Really, somebody should have been on suicide watch.
Q: Well, I’m still amazed about it.
A: Taking the Holy Grail away from somebody.
Mr McQuaid concluded: “I would therefore urge the President of WADA one more time to try to set his personal vendetta and crusade against cycling aside and to support the UCI in doing what is right for cycling. Our aims are the same: to rid cycling and indeed all sports of the scourge of doping.”Fat Pat either can't see the difference between himself & cycling, or is deliberately obfuscating.
Most of that article seems to be talking about cooperation with the UCI on doping controls.
How long before we see Lance on Oprah?
I must be going soft - I actually felt a wee twinge of sympathy for Lance when reading that. But only a twinge. And probably only because even he's turning against the UCI now.
I must be going soft - I actually felt a wee twinge of sympathy for Lance when reading that. But only a twinge. And probably only because even he's turning against the UCI now.
I particularly enjoyed the bit where he says everyone should get the same punishment. Lolz.
d.
Perhaps because no-one else has been in the same position in the first place.
Sorry to drag this thread on but Private Eye has a good cartoon!
(http://private-eye.co.uk/pictures/strips/cartoons/small/1332.gif)
Events of last few days:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/steroids.png)
Its a bit more significant than a tandem and a major tour
Election later this year. He's going for re-election. I think his goose is cooked.
But.....the problem with this whole issue is that it is the minutiae that is important, and of course, mainstream news doesn't deal in minutiae
I don't think that is likely unless Larnce fingers the UCI (which he won't)
I don't think that is likely unless Larnce fingers the UCI (which he won't)
Tsk spelling...
It's Lairnce or Layurnce I believe.
The U.S. Department of Justice has notified a federal court on Friday that it would join Floyd Landis’ whistleblower suit against Lance Armstrong and others. NBC News reported the action on Friday morning.
So much for being the first tru' the door, eh?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/02/25/lance-armstrong-false-claims-act-defense/1947651/
He has been paying those expensive lawyers for a reason.
Lance Armstrong has withdrawn from the Masters South Central Zone Swimming Championships in Texas this weekend after an objection from swimming's international governing body.
The report didn't say whose name it's in though ;)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/apr/24/lance-armstrong-sued-us-government
So will they have a leg to stand on?
He is not interested in doing the right thing.
Ace. Kimmage counter suing the UCI :thumbsup:
Bravo. Brave souls like him need to keep pressing the buttons. Where do we donate again?
http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/paul-kimmage-defense-fund
Next!
http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/news/15264/8787644/
I'm shocked, shocked to find thatgamblingdoping is going on in here!
Strangely, watching Russia Today I saw a story that Jan Ullrich has now admitted doping (so the wikipedia entry on who won the '97 TdF will need editing).
I can only assume that his argument of "I was only doing it to create a level playing field" means that all the team doctors and riders got together and administered the exact same amount of "dope" to each rider, thereby not gaining a competitive advantage.
Am I being naive or is it possible that Jan's doctor tried to do a better job of doping than his competitors, actually seeking to gain a competitive advantage. Surely not.
Well, in that era, to have a chance of being competitive, you had to dope
I know, but Jan's dreadful (denial phase) argument logically implied he was only attempting to dope exactly the same amount as his rivals. He wanted it to be "fair". That means he never took more, or better, "dope" than his rivals..just the precise amount needed for racing to be perfectly fair.
As he saysI can only assume that his argument of "I was only doing it to create a level playing field" means that all the team doctors and riders got together and administered the exact same amount of "dope" to each rider, thereby not gaining a competitive advantage.
Am I being naive or is it possible that Jan's doctor tried to do a better job of doping than his competitors, actually seeking to gain a competitive advantage. Surely not.
http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing-field-doping-myth/
Don’t look to sport for an equal universe.
I've read the original interview in French. It has been misreported.
He was answering as to whether it could be won in his era without drugs, the answer to which is no.
It is about to get very messy......on the day of the Queen stage of the Tour, the French Senate will release the names of about 40 riders from the "98 Tour who's samples have been retrospectively tested and found positive.
.@lancearmstrong has settled with the London Sunday Times and David Walsh for over 1 million pounds.
Just in via @TheRaceRadioQuote.@lancearmstrong has settled with the London Sunday Times and David Walsh for over 1 million pounds.
I read that over 70 medical products were found in Powell's hotel room in Italy. 70?? Not even the most paranoid hypochondriac needs that much medication, let alone a very fit young man at the peak of health. I'll post the link if I can find it.
I read that over 70 medical products were found in Powell's hotel room in Italy. 70?? Not even the most paranoid hypochondriac needs that much medication, let alone a very fit young man at the peak of health. I'll post the link if I can find it.
Cozy Powell? 70? That's normal for a rock star isn't it?
I read that over 70 medical products were found in Powell's hotel room in Italy. 70?? Not even the most paranoid hypochondriac needs that much medication, let alone a very fit young man at the peak of health. I'll post the link if I can find it.
Cozy Powell? 70? That's normal for a rock star isn't it?
Don't be silly. They meant Enoch.
The report has just been published, but the pdf is taking its time to download.
The report has just been published, but the pdf is taking its time to download.
I suspect you're not the only one trying to download it.
Of course, it's worth noting that the French Senate report is on doping in sport in general, not just cycling in particular. The list of positives from the 1998 TdF is merely one of the appendices...
I'd be really disappointed, not to say stunned, if Boardman were named.
Unstunned. No Voigt either.
Interesting that as well as the 'positives' a list of 'suspicious' test results has also been revealed.
In fact the 'suspicious' list is more interesting than the 'positives'. Stuart O'Grady (retired yesterday), Axel Merckx wonder what his dad will say?), and Frederic Moncassin (bit of a surprise)
Positives
Andrea Tafi, Erik Zabel, Bo Hamburger (twice), Laurent Jalabert, Marcos Serrano, Jens Heppner, Jeroen Blijlevens, Nicola Minali, Mario Cipollini, Fabio Sacchi, Eddy Mazzoleni, Jacky Durand, Abraham Olano, Laurent Desbiens, Marco Pantani, Manuel Beltran, Jan Ullrich (twice), Kevin Livingston (twice)
Suspicious:
Ermanno Brignoli, Alain Turicchia, Pascal Chanteur, Frederic Moncassin, Bobby Julich, Roland Meier, Giuseppe Calcaterra, Stefano Zanini, Eddy Mazzoleni, Stephane Barthe, Stuart O'Grady, Axel Merckx
According to some reporters samples from Boardman, Svorada, Den Bakker and two from O'Grady were negative (as posted by someone earlier). A German Eurosport person said Voigt was negative too.
Another 'I only did it once', like Zabel
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/i-doped-for-1998-tour-de-france-confesses-australian-cycling-star-stuart-ogrady/story-fngr0c3f-1226684658992
Was Voigt definitely among the 60 samples?
Al true but he also started racing in the East German system and was a quite successful racer during the heights of the EPO era. The chances of him not being involved in doping are slim.Chances of being hit by lightening are slim, but it happens.
I don't think it implicates him at all. I actually think he has a point. Releasing these names with no intention, or indeed ability, to take any further action, and without any process for the rider to follow to dispute it (no B samples) does seem a bit ... I dunno ... cavalier.
No. But he has was second on one of the stages. He was one of the rider representatives that were saying that the release of the names was unfair. Not that that necessarily implicates him. It may have been because he is a senior rider, is respected by his peers, and that he makes a good advocate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/24/stuart-ogrady-admits-doping-tourdefrance
No. But he has was second on one of the stages. He was one of the rider representatives that were saying that the release of the names was unfair. Not that that necessarily implicates him. It may have been because he is a senior rider, is respected by his peers, and that he makes a good advocate.
Many of the samples were not available for retesting as there was not enough material left over.
So there was only a wee bit left?
IF you look at the report, rather than just one annex, there are some surprising stats
IF you look at the report, rather than just one annex, there are some surprising stats
Great stuff, thanks, Salvatore.
I've still not been able to download the report myself.
balle au tambourin (a sort of 5-a-side tennis played with a tambourine instead of a racquet, 4 cases).That sounds so eccentric I want to see it and I don't care if they're all doped!
balle au tambourin (a sort of 5-a-side tennis played with a tambourine instead of a racquet, 4 cases).That sounds so eccentric I want to see it and I don't care if they're all doped!
I hope the Olympics goes to Paris soon and it gets included!
IF you look at the report, rather than just one annex, there are some surprising stats
Great stuff, thanks, Salvatore.
I've still not been able to download the report myself.
It's now available in html (rather than pdf).
Like all stats, open to all sorts of (mis)interpretation. But the main thrust of that bit was that all sports are touchés, even la course camarguaise (bullfighting as practised in France, where the bull doesn't get killed, 5 positives) and balle au tambourin (a sort of 5-a-side tennis played with a tambourine instead of a racquet, 4 cases).
I'm disappointed that the tambourines don't have bells on them.
IF you look at the report, rather than just one annex, there are some surprisinglies and damned liesstats
IF you look at the report, rather than just one annex, there are some surprisinglies and damned liesstats
Here's another interesting statistic:
"The ITF website says it conducted only 21 out-of-competition blood tests in professional tennis in 2011 compared to 3,314 carried out by cycling’s world governing UCI."
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/more-sports/serbian-tennis-player-viktor-troicki-suspended-for-doping-violation/article13437398
Here's another interesting statistic:I'll add that to my cyclists-handy-facts-sheet for responding to idiots - if I ever get a Round Tuit.
"The ITF website says it conducted only 21 out-of-competition blood tests in professional tennis in 2011 compared to 3,314 carried out by cycling’s world governing UCI."
As the ball or the tambourine? :demon:I'm disappointed that the tambourines don't have bells on them.
Even so, I'd quite like to condemn Lance to a lifetime of playing le jeu du balle au tambourin.
But the main thrust of that bit was that all sports are touchés, even la course camarguaise (bullfighting as practised in France, where the bull doesn't get killed.
I'm disappointed that the tambourines don't have bells on them.
He really doesn't get it does he?
It's still everyone else's fault but his own. Breathtaking arrogance and vanity.
Mind you, it must be galling to see cheating tossers like Vinokourov winning gold medals and leading pro teams.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/nov/11/lance-armstrong-inquiry-loss-doping-uci
Oh waah waah waah, poor little Lance.
It's not USADA's job to punish Armstrong for being a cunt.
And as far as the cheating goes, Armstrong probably has been treated more harshly.
We don't know the extent of his cheating compared to others.
We don't know the extent of his cheating compared to others.
We may never know all the precise details but we now know enough to say with reasonable confidence that his cheating was a level beyond what anyone else in the sport was doing.
Using PEDs alone may not have been enough to secure seven TdF wins, but his mafia-like control and corruption of pro cycling prevented anyone else from competing on anything even vaguely resembling a "level playing field", even the ones that did have access to the same drugs.
Even if USADA can only technically convict him on the doping itself, I'm happy for the punishment to take anything and everything else into account. Including parking offences, if applicable.
We don't know the extent of his cheating compared to others.
We may never know all the precise details but we now know enough to say with reasonable confidence that his cheating was a level beyond what anyone else in the sport was doing.
2) It's clear that the actual physical doping that LA and his team were doing was just the same as everyone else, no more, no less.
2) It's clear that the actual physical doping that LA and his team were doing was just the same as everyone else, no more, no less.
I would say the exact opposite - from what I've read, it seems clear that he was doing considerably more than ..
A meeting I doubt many people would have foreseen. Sorry about the source.
http://tinyurl.com/onqom85
Time to buy your ringside seat tickets, I think the fun is about to start (at last). I'm starting to feel that there's some genuine hope for the future
I can't help feeling that this will involve Rebekah Brooks at some point.Oh no. She hasn't shagged Lance, as well, has she?
This just popped up..Not sure exactly why I bother finding this stuff, but if anyone is interested that quote was on this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzHmhgjL2pc about a year ago. The remaining comments are the ones left over when the bottom half of the Internet floated up an inch or two.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZiOj0dCIAAcX0S.jpg:large
Jeannie Longo is suing the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) for over €1.1 million. The 55-year-old, whose case was presented before the Conseil d’État in Paris on Monday, has contested her inclusion on the AFLD’s list of targeted athletes in 2012 and 2013, and is also seeking damages relating to the 2011 revelation that she had recorded three whereabouts violations.
I'll say this, she's got balls...
I think Lance has a point - it's really unfair that the USADA should single him out like this.
Why aren't they going after all the other pro cyclists who cheated their way to seven TdF titles while bullying, menacing and basically trying to ruin the lives and careers of anyone who stood in their way?
Just caught up with the latest dozen or so pages from this thread , this is ( in my opinion ;) ) potd material and not the first potential potd I've seen from citoyen today
This could almost be a 'Caption It'Wuss don't even give a proper handshake and no eye contact, yes I know it could have happened before and after the snap.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ba3unRnCcAIMUb1.jpg:large)
I'm pretty sure that'sFTFYArmstrongChristophe Bassons on theleftright but I don't know who theblokedown and out on therightleft is. ???
As in apartheid, the prevailing system in cycling may have set the tone, but Armstrong’s vengeful actions were deeply personal, not ordered by any higher power – only by his own intent to preserve his wealth and position as cycling’s greatest champion. This is precisely why his punishment fits the crime.(my bold)
10 year ban for Bruyneel. He has received the decision with somewhat less than good grace:
http://www.johanbruyneel.com/blog/article/statement-johan-bruyneel-regarding-aaa-decision/ (http://www.johanbruyneel.com/blog/article/statement-johan-bruyneel-regarding-aaa-decision/)
Bruyneel disputes USADA's jurisdiction. UCI under McQuaid tried same argument but WADA Code is clear, Art 15.3 allows USADA to prosecute
The only part of his whine I tend to agree with is that the roster for Motorola/ USPS/ Discovery etc. seems to be getting hammered whilst others seem to be getting off lightly.
The situation is quite clear.
USADA is an agent of WADA. UCI are signatories to WADA roolz. Bruyneel is bang to rights. End of.
Anyway, this is sport we're talking about, not a violation of human rights. What happens in a court of law isn't relevant.The only part of his whine I tend to agree with is that the roster for Motorola/ USPS/ Discovery etc. seems to be getting hammered whilst others seem to be getting off lightly.
How many other teams lied, bullied and cheated their way to seven consecutive TdF wins?
Anyway, this is sport we're talking about, not a violation of human rights. What happens in a court of law isn't relevant.
Anyway, this is sport we're talking about, not a violation of human rights. What happens in a court of law isn't relevant.
Exactly that. Different requirements, burdens, standards etc.
JB is toxic anyway. He'll not work with a cycling team again, regardless of any ban - nobody would touch him, he's part of the 'old era'. Cycling still offers an income for him but it'll never be hands on.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Different requirements, burdens and standards? Really? Seems to me that any verdict and penalties must be legally sound or they risk being successfully challenged in a court of law.
Neither Ferdinand or Rassmusen were banned for acting suspiciously'. Both fell foul of specified requirments- Ferdinand to attend a drugs test, Rassmusen to let the testing agency know where he would be.
Different requirements, burdens and standards? Really? Seems to me that any verdict and penalties must be legally sound or they risk being successfully challenged in a court of law.
Different requirements, burdens and standards? Really? Seems to me that any verdict and penalties must be legally sound or they risk being successfully challenged in a court of law.
People have been banned from sport for merely acting suspiciously (eg Michael Rasmussen, Rio Ferdinand). I'm sure if such bans were not "legally sound" we'd have heard about it by now.
Of course, Rasmussen eventually admitted that he'd been up to no good, somewhat belatedly, but there was no firm evidence against him at the time.
I look forward to JB's appeal being laughed out of court.
For example, you can't fine someone millions of euros just beacuse they didn't wear the sponsor's shirt, and it's "in the rules".
I suggest that if you intend to use rules to deprive people of their living, it is potentially a human rights issue, so you'd better be on legally solid ground.
if, as suggested elsewhere, the worldwide ban was imposed by the international governing organisation, not by a national body. If other national bodies don't ratify that ban, what strength has it?
make damn sure the process used to remove him is unchallengeable.
Look, people, if any of you think USADA and/or WADA are the bad guys in this case, you really need to take a long, hard look at yourself.Right. We've all suggested that they are nefarious bastards that don't care for the sport.
Look, people, if any of you think USADA and/or WADA are the bad guys in this case, you really need to take a long, hard look at yourself.
Let me get this right (it's important that everyone involved knows the rules):For example, you can't fine someone millions of euros just beacuse they didn't wear the sponsor's shirt, and it's "in the rules".
I bet you can. Not quite the same thing but Nicklas Bendtner was fined £80,000 for exposing a non-approved sponsor's logo on his pants during a foopball match. Nothing illegal about what he did but clearly against the rules of the sport.
A human rights issue? He's being banned from earning a living in his chosen career because he's broken the rules of that profession. It might be considered analogous to a doctor being struck off the GMC register for some misdeed - you'd have to be sure they did it and it was serious enough to warrant striking off and that the striking off was done according to all established procedure, but it's hardly a human rights issue.Different requirements, burdens and standards? Really? Seems to me that any verdict and penalties must be legally sound or they risk being successfully challenged in a court of law.
People have been banned from sport for merely acting suspiciously (eg Michael Rasmussen, Rio Ferdinand). I'm sure if such bans were not "legally sound" we'd have heard about it by now.
Of course, Rasmussen eventually admitted that he'd been up to no good, somewhat belatedly, but there was no firm evidence against him at the time.
I look forward to JB's appeal being laughed out of court.
I guess a 'sport' can take the ball away from anyone it doesn't want to play - that's how it works in most playgrounds - but if you're going to adopt the clothes of a legal process, you'd better be ready to justify your methodology - in a court of law if called to do so by those affected by your decisions. The way that both the UCI and USADA have gone about some of their business in the last few years seems to have been less than ideal, and eventually someone with balls and money will stand up and fight for a proper process. The thing is, there's no need for the process to be vulnerable to legal questioning if, as suggested elsewhere, the worldwide ban was imposed by the international governing organisation, not by a national body. If other national bodies don't ratify that ban, what strength has it?
I suggest that if you intend to use rules to deprive people of their living, it is potentially a human rights issue, so you'd better be on legally solid ground.
Our point is that the process must be seen to be fair and just. There is some doubt about that
Let me get this right (it's important that everyone involved knows the rules):
You're willing to bet me that £80,000 is millions of euros ?
We just want to make sure that they don't give the slimy turds the slimy turding room to slimy turd their way out of the slimy turd pile they are in :thumbsup:
We just want to make sure that they don't give the slimy turds the slimy turding room to slimy turd their way out of the slimy turd pile they are in :thumbsup:
Don't worry. It won't happen. Travis Tygart is a beacon of righteousness and probity. There is no doubt about the soundness of the case against Bruyneel.
We just want to make sure that they don't give the slimy turds the slimy turding room to slimy turd their way out of the slimy turd pile they are in :thumbsup:
Don't worry. It won't happen. Travis Tygart is a beacon of righteousness and probity. There is no doubt about the soundness of the case against Bruyneel.
If there is the opportunity to legally exploit vulnerabilities in the process, then the soundness of the case will be totally irrelevant.
10 year ban for Bruyneel. He has received the decision with somewhat less than good grace:
http://www.johanbruyneel.com/blog/article/statement-johan-bruyneel-regarding-aaa-decision/ (http://www.johanbruyneel.com/blog/article/statement-johan-bruyneel-regarding-aaa-decision/)
Actually I think MY point went over your head.Let me get this right (it's important that everyone involved knows the rules):
You're willing to bet me that £80,000 is millions of euros ?
This is silly even by your standards, matt. Sorry if my point went over your head.
Different requirements, burdens and standards? Really? Seems to me that any verdict and penalties must be legally sound or they risk being successfully challenged in a court of law.
Exactly. You can have what rules you like in the playground, but things get serious in the real world.
For example, you can't fine someone millions of euros just beacuse they didn't wear the sponsor's shirt, and it's "in the rules".
<snip>*I agree.*
USADA are not incarcerating him (they have no power to do so). Think of JB as being struck off, much as the BMA might do a doctor - after due process has been followed obviously. JB can question the due process (as LA did but the Texas courts found no fault with the USADA process, albeit with a caveat or two) but he'll get nowhere questioning USADA's authority.
Look, people, if any of you think USADA and/or WADA are the bad guys in this case, you really need to take a long, hard look at yourself.
Maybe....but you've been in The Clinic ;)
The BMA is another good example - if I were struck off unfairly (perhaps by a couple of disgruntled ex-colleagues) I could challenge the decision in the courts.
(and of course the BMA cannot stop me playing professional football!)
Out of interest, I've just done a bit of googling to find miscarriages of justice in anti-doping cases. One name that came up was baseball star Ryan Braun, who tested positive for elevated testosterone and was given a 50 match ban, but had it overturned due to an irregularity in the testing procedure.
Of course, he was later banned again after it turned out he was involved in the Biogenesis scandal. Doh!
[off topic pedantry] The BMA is a union representing doctors. The GMC (General Medical Council) is the quango that registers and can therefore "strike off" doctors. [/off topic pedantry] ;)
Not entirely correct...
Anyone genuinely interested in matters of procedure and jurisdiction as they relate to this case should read this:
http://www.usada.org/uploads/aaa42214.pdf
I would say that at the very least, Bruyneel has a sufficiently credible case against USADA's failure to maintain appropriate confidentiality that he may well successfully argue in court that a fair trial was compromised, and its findings must therefore be set aside.
I would say that at the very least, Bruyneel has a sufficiently credible case against USADA's failure to maintain appropriate confidentiality that he may well successfully argue in court that a fair trial was compromised, and its findings must therefore be set aside.
It has been established that the breach of confidentiality did not compromise Bruyneel's right to a fair hearing. This is old news.
The problem is that Bruyneel's involvement was central to the USADA's case against Lance, so it was impossible for them to leave his name out of the Reasoned Decision. It wasn't a lapse in procedure so much as a necessary compromise.
I would say that at the very least, Bruyneel has a sufficiently credible case against USADA's failure to maintain appropriate confidentiality that he may well successfully argue in court that a fair trial was compromised, and its findings must therefore be set aside.
It has been established that the breach of confidentiality did not compromise Bruyneel's right to a fair hearing. This is old news.
The problem is that Bruyneel's involvement was central to the USADA's case against Lance, so it was impossible for them to leave his name out of the Reasoned Decision. It wasn't a lapse in procedure so much as a necessary compromise.
But the Arbitration Panel's judgement doesn't say that; it says that they have serious reservations about it, and that the Reasoned Decision could perfectly well have been delivered without naming those who were awaiting proceedings. That isn't a trivial thing, and whether it was a 'necessary compromise' or not is at least arguable - which means it's vulnerable to challenge. My reading of the Panel's judgement is that this was a fuck up and could undermine the whole shooting match (vis-a-vis Bruyneel, not Armstrong) should Bruyneel have the chutzpah to take them on.
Despite the concerns raised by USADA’s disclosures, the Panel does not find that these disclosures undermine the Respondents’ right to a fair hearing in this proceeding since the disclosures have no bearing on the neutrality of the Panel.
The fact that the Panel itself raised the issue of confidentiality and then says something to the effect of, 'actually, it's ok 'cos we're good chaps really and we didn't think he was a guilty bastard before we reviewed the case' does not affect Bruyneel's right or capability of questioning the process in front of a properly neutral court. Whether he will or not is probably a matter of cash. The fact remains that USADA's open naming of other people in the Reasoned Decision was a cock-up, legally, and shouldn't have happened. And it may yet result in Bruyneel and the others getting off, at least in the sense that the verdict could be set aside. It's extremely unlikely that any of them could work in cycling again. However, the medics involved could (and should) find themselves up against misconduct proceedings within their own professional realm, and that process would fail if the USADA verdict was overturned. That's why it's so important that not only the right verdict is arrived at, but that it's arrived at in the right way.
The fact that the Panel itself raised the issue of confidentiality and then says something to the effect of, 'actually, it's ok 'cos we're good chaps really and we didn't think he was a guilty bastard before we reviewed the case' does not affect Bruyneel's right or capability of questioning the process in front of a properly neutral court. Whether he will or not is probably a matter of cash. The fact remains that USADA's open naming of other people in the Reasoned Decision was a cock-up, legally, and shouldn't have happened. And it may yet result in Bruyneel and the others getting off, at least in the sense that the verdict could be set aside. It's extremely unlikely that any of them could work in cycling again. However, the medics involved could (and should) find themselves up against misconduct proceedings within their own professional realm, and that process would fail if the USADA verdict was overturned. That's why it's so important that not only the right verdict is arrived at, but that it's arrived at in the right way.
WTF are you talking about " a properly neutral court"?
USADA may get away with their sloppiness this time, but I hope they learn the lesson that they can't afford to fuck up the legal stuff if they want to clean up sport properly.
The fact that the Panel itself raised the issue of confidentiality and then says something to the effect of, 'actually, it's ok 'cos we're good chaps really and we didn't think he was a guilty bastard before we reviewed the case' does not affect Bruyneel's right or capability of questioning the process in front of a properly neutral court. Whether he will or not is probably a matter of cash. The fact remains that USADA's open naming of other people in the Reasoned Decision was a cock-up, legally, and shouldn't have happened. And it may yet result in Bruyneel and the others getting off, at least in the sense that the verdict could be set aside. It's extremely unlikely that any of them could work in cycling again. However, the medics involved could (and should) find themselves up against misconduct proceedings within their own professional realm, and that process would fail if the USADA verdict was overturned. That's why it's so important that not only the right verdict is arrived at, but that it's arrived at in the right way.
WTF are you talking about " a properly neutral court"?
One that is nothing to do with sport. WTF do you think I mean?
I have some reservation about their neutrality, yes.
By discounting USADA's failure to protect confidentiality. I think another court (or even the same one on another day) may have come to a different conclusion. However, they are a bit between a rock and a hard place. Do they overturn the verdict themselves on the basis that the loss of confidentiality negates the fair trial (which I believe to be the case), or do they just reduce the sentence in the hope that it won't be legally challenged and that the desired end result will be achieved? It may work, but it's a risky strategy I think. I would be delighted to hear a lawyer's view of it.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion,
73. Certain Respondents presented evidence, which was not refuted by USADA, that they faced considerable legal proceedings in other jurisdictions and that their testimony here could work an unreasonable hardship or prejudice to their defense of those actions. In the case of Mr. Bruyneel, he is a named co-defendant in a qui tam action being prosecuted on behalf of the United States government by one of the witnesses in this action, Floyd Landis, who is a named plaintiff in that action. In that action, Mr. Bruyneel faces a claim of over USD$100 million, and he has not yet testified in the case. In the case of Mr. Martí, he is the subject of a criminal investigation into possible doping in Spain.
74. The legal proceedings against Mr. Bruyneel and Mr. Martí could justify their failure to testify despite USADA’s request that they do so. However, in light of the substantial evidence that USADA presented against them, as described more fully below, the Panel is convinced that they committed anti-doping violations without drawing any adverse inference from their failure to testify. Therefore, the Panel does not need to rule on whether an adverse inference should be made, and the Panel has declined to draw an adverse inference against any Respondent.
Or aiming to set record times for iconic climbs, just for laughs.I think Italian Gran Fondos are (at the front of the field) competitive events in which several ex-pros make a reasonable living. They aren't very closely related to UK-stylee sportives. Strava KOMs and plastic medals are not the pinnacle of the rewards at stake...
Dont really know what this will end up achieving.
I wonder why?Hard to say:
I wonder why?Hard to say:
Mandy Schleck & Federico Bahamontes are from very different eras, and "won" in rather different ways!
What do you think?
Hands up if you think Nibbles is clean..
Hands up if you think Nibbles is clean..
Good article in The Times today reminding everyone who surrounds Nibali (Vino, Martinelli, Scarponi) and their past records.
Good article in The Times today reminding everyone who surrounds Nibali (Vino, Martinelli, Scarponi) and their past records.
And I agree regards his effort compared to everyone else; either his sweat glands have been removed or he is able to pedal past everyone with seemingly no effort whatsoever.
Little wonder suspicions are raised.
Good article in The Times today reminding everyone who surrounds Nibali (Vino, Martinelli, Scarponi) and their past records.
Can you paste the text here from that article? Ta.
Lemond was a clean TdF winner. Who was the other one?
Lemond was a clean TdF winner. Who was the other one?
Lemond was a clean TdF winner. Who was the other one?
But he needed his bike cleaned up.
Wait a few years for the Sky stories to come out into the open. Who was the banned doctor that they used during a spectacular year?
He does have a point though.
When he entered the profession, it was a choice of dope or be spat out by your team. If you've sacrificed an education or vocational training to get there it isn't such an easy decision to make, especially when everybody around you is normalising doping, and especially also when doping (albeit less effective doping) had always been the norm for GT riders.
I think his comments are motivated by several factors. He has undoubtedly to be wary of exposing himself legally, but I suspect he may also be unwilling to be hypocritical. In a sense, given the context within which he operated, he comes out of this with more integrity than people like Landis, who's revelations were motivated purely by revenge and greed.
As for current riders? Who knows. Wiggins winning ride came straight after the Landis and Hamilton revelations and so, to an extent, he was doomed to be condemned. But he had a year of winning everything, followed by two years of sweet fa. Odd. Froome? An unlikely future winner, if viewed prior to his startling Vuelta ride of 2011.
I can't believe that riders would decide to stop doping all by themselves, en masse, without any external impetus, and I can't see that there has been any external pressure.
he comes out of this with more integrity than people like Landis,
An unpopular opinion, I fear, but I'm really not that fussed by doping in sport.Your avatar reflects your pragmatism.
Armstrong has been pilloried more than most because he has fought against accusations and punishment more than most.And the bullying, and abuse of power. Will the full story of the abrupt dropping of the fed case ever come to light?
he comes out of this with more integrity than people like Landis,
Low praise indeed
Also, it wasn't Lance's "win at any cost" attitude that makes him unpleasant, almost all top sportsmen and women have that in their character (See: Any Formula 1 Driver).
It's when it extends to targeting people outside of your immediate opponents. Starting press rumours about Greg Lemond being a drunk. Calling Emma O'Reiily a whore, purely to discredit her testimony. He went way beyond what other athletes regard as "any cost".
Nothing I've seen regarding his "apologies" make me think he is sorry about anything but being caught.
he comes out of this with more integrity than people like Landis,
Low praise indeed
Also, it wasn't Lance's "win at any cost" attitude that makes him unpleasant, almost all top sportsmen and women have that in their character (See: Any Formula 1 Driver).
It's when it extends to targeting people outside of your immediate opponents. Starting press rumours about Greg Lemond being a drunk. Calling Emma O'Reiily a whore, purely to discredit her testimony. He went way beyond what other athletes regard as "any cost".
Nothing I've seen regarding his "apologies" make me think he is sorry about anything but being caught.
I agree - there is sport and there is ... the other stuff.he comes out of this with more integrity than people like Landis,
Low praise indeed
Also, it wasn't Lance's "win at any cost" attitude that makes him unpleasant, almost all top sportsmen and women have that in their character (See: Any Formula 1 Driver).
It's when it extends to targeting people outside of your immediate opponents. Starting press rumours about Greg Lemond being a drunk. Calling Emma O'Reiily a whore, purely to discredit her testimony. He went way beyond what other athletes regard as "any cost".
Nothing I've seen regarding his "apologies" make me think he is sorry about anything but being caught.
this. Honesty (telling the truth) isn't the same as integrity. All successful sports people are driven. It's just part of the package, but that doesn't require bullying and coercive behaviour.
Perfectly clean sports would be nice
Perfectly clean sports would be nice
I'm not sure virtue and sport are wholly compatible. Any sport. Not when you introduce a competitive element to it. The Corinthian spirit has always been a myth.
I suppose a lot of people used the inspiration of Lance to enhance their performance, and they feel a bit let down by their imperfect imitation of imperfection.
I think part of his appeal was that he looked so average, an ordinary bloke, so ordinary blokes could project their fantasies onto him. I can't do that, so he's never been an inspiration.
I identify with the big domestiques. In rugby terms, the average bloke might identify with the scrum-half, while I'm one of nature's second-row forwards.
he comes out of this with more integrity than people like Landis,
Low praise indeed
Also, it wasn't Lance's "win at any cost" attitude that makes him unpleasant, almost all top sportsmen and women have that in their character (See: Any Formula 1 Driver).
It's when it extends to targeting people outside of your immediate opponents. Starting press rumours about Greg Lemond being a drunk. Calling Emma O'Reiily a whore, purely to discredit her testimony. He went way beyond what other athletes regard as "any cost".
Nothing I've seen regarding his "apologies" make me think he is sorry about anything but being caught.
Was LeMond's era totally clean?
When a professional Italian cycling team comes to town for a racing event, Dave is thrilled to be competing with them. However, the Italians become irked when Dave is able to keep up with and even speak to them in Italian during the race. One of them jams a tire pump in Dave's wheel, causing him to crash, which leaves him disillusioned and depressed. Although he had been upset with his own father earlier for his unethical business practices, Dave now realizes that everyone cheats. Dave's friends persuade him to join them in forming a locals' cycling team for the Little 500. Dave's parents provide T-shirts with the name "Cutters" on them. Mr. Stoller remarks how, when he was a young stonecutter, he was proud to help provide the material to construct the university, yet never felt comfortable being on campus.
When a professional Italian cycling team comes to town for a racing event, Dave is thrilled to be competing with them. However, the Italians become irked when Dave is able to keep up with and even speak to them in Italian during the race. One of them jams a tire pump in Dave's wheel, causing him to crash, which leaves him disillusioned and depressed. Although he had been upset with his own father earlier for his unethical business practices, Dave now realizes that everyone cheats. Dave's friends persuade him to join them in forming a locals' cycling team for the Little 500. Dave's parents provide T-shirts with the name "Cutters" on them. Mr. Stoller remarks how, when he was a young stonecutter, he was proud to help provide the material to construct the university, yet never felt comfortable being on campus.
I look forward to bike races where the leaders scatter tacks behind them, hook their opponents into the hedges, have their fans mug their opponents in a quiet part of the course and themselves hitch lifts to near the finish line. All good entertainment (the crowd need somebody in a black hat) and the first person across the line wins. That is all that counts.
Or perhaps USADA did us a favour by being so bloody-minded about it. I know that before they finally nailed Lance, I'd got to the "We'll never know one way or the other, just give up and drop it, guys" stage. However, they turned out to be right and what we've seen is due to their perseverance.
I look forward to bike races where the leaders scatter tacks behind them, hook their opponents into the hedges, have their fans mug their opponents in a quiet part of the course and themselves hitch lifts to near the finish line. All good entertainment (the crowd need somebody in a black hat) and the first person across the line wins. That is all that counts.
Like the early TdFs, for example? Or, in fact, any of the Grand Tours before TV?
Well, that approach would also rule out tennis, golf, rugby, football, boxing, swimming, skiing, gymnastics, baseball, american football, wrestling etc etc...
I would not be at all surprised to find a "Dr Ferrari" in Jamaican athletics.
Well, that approach would also rule out tennis, golf, rugby, football, boxing, swimming, skiing, gymnastics, baseball, american football, wrestling etc etc...
I think the big shock will be Jamaican Athletics.
They came to dominate sprinting but have absolutely no advantage over the US, in terms of training, sports science, pool of available athletes, athletes' body type or potential, other than a less stringent drugs-testing regime.
I would not be at all surprised to find a "Dr Ferrari" in Jamaican athletics.
As one who watched in awe after 'that look' on Hautacam and one who believed what turned out to be the hype, I have defended L A in the past.
I based my belief in the premise that having endured platinum based chaemotherapy and being somewhat aware of what he was capable of doing to his body, he wouldn't adulterate it with substances that could cause him further harm. Remember - EPO use was so widespread by the time of the Festina debacle that riders had to get up and jump around several times a night because their blood was so thick that more than one or two failed to wake up.
Well that turned out to be a load of old bollocks . . .
I had some sympathy when he was diagnosed with testicular cancer and given the prognosis was amazed by his recovery. That sympathy faded considerably when I read or heard that the cancer was attributable to previous steroid abuse.
My 'about face' is complete. There is no way I could ever dream of emulating his riding ability. You could give me all the performance advantages in the world, it wouldn't make a scrap of difference, I never WANTED to do what he did. I enjoyed watching him do it, up the Ventoux with Pantani, the cyclo cross after Beloki fell, The Alpe d'Huez time trial - but not any more.
He doesn't need a PR team or a spokesman. He needs to Foxtrot Romeo Oscar after facing the music and we should never hear from him again.
And like that <pffffttt> He's gone . . .
he may also be unwilling to be hypocritical
I look forward to bike races where the leaders scatter tacks behind them, hook their opponents into the hedges, have their fans mug their opponents in a quiet part of the course and themselves hitch lifts to near the finish line. All good entertainment (the crowd need somebody in a black hat) and the first person across the line wins. That is all that counts.Ah, the good old days!
Flaatuus, check your facts. There were tests for administered EPO before 2000, just not ratified for dope testing because of the authorities waiting for Ferrari. That was a good plan!
I look forward to bike races where the leaders .... hook their opponents into the hedges...
Now shut it, or I'll set Betsy Andreu on you.
I have been quizzed by Mrs Trekker since all this happened - I've got her watching bike racing - and I don't believe the sport is currently 'clean'. Doping is however, a minority and not systematically endorsed by teams or sponsors (I have my doubts about one team) and blind eyes being turned on occasion at all levels of the sport. There will always be bad apples in any sport or those who feel threatened in making the team next season.
IShould he be punished, yes. Should he race again, no. There are others who took drugs, there are worse cases than his.QuoteWorse than his?? Who are you thinking of??
Doping is however, a minority and not systematically endorsed by teams or sponsors (I have my doubts about one team) and blind eyes being turned on occasion at all levels of the sport. There will always be bad apples in any sport or those who feel threatened in making the team next season.
I think the LA affair will ultimately have done good for the sport. In the long term it will have highlighted the reasons why people cheat and that most of us watching want to see a fair fight taking place on our TV screens.QuoteI still like watching pro cycling, particularly the one day classics - the big tours are a bit over the top (and a three week race is likely to encourage doping).
I think that doping has moved on (breathing Xenon etc), and is still widespread - witness Chris Froome doing comedy motorbike impressions up mountains when he was previously rubbish uphill.....
Accused of lying again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/31125348
He's not taking EPO anymore (presumably) - but maybe something else?
And now a cameo appearance in a music video (Future User - Mountain Lion). I've saved a link to the point where Larry chimes in to save you from the terribleness of the previous 4 minutes 15 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzW8SnUKms0#t=251 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzW8SnUKms0#t=251) Warning: contains graphic images of fake drug use and SKATEBOARDING (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=87920.0)
Known cortisone user.
I think the reason why LeMond might be believable is that he won in an era where doping may not have been the decisive factor (unlike the 1990s onwards, and Roche's dodgy tour wins).
As for Wiggins, what makes him doubtful is that his winning year of 2012 didn't just mean a TdF win. He won everything.
2013 a coach load of Canadian school/college rugby players was raided by Dyfed/Powys finest after a tip off, they found coke and weed amongst other things,
Perhaps a little bit of context on drugs in other sports:and closer to home:
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sport/rugby/2011/08/03/school-boys-test-positive-for-steroids-at-craven-week
Smart drugs are capitalism’s little helpers.
Any cyclist I have seen retire, looked much fuller/rounder a few weeks later. Steve Redgrave, OK a rower, had a funny pot belly in his first interview after he retired. Even I put some Kg on, very fast, when not cycling simply because it is so very hard to stop eating.
Lemond has never had a hint or allegation of drug use, beat the USA's best riders as a junior, had a steady increase in performance (no strange leaps in ability) and was widely recognised as a future Tour winner as an amateur.Of course, that could just mean he had the foresight to start doping at an early age. Or his coach did.
That is very dodgy. Nobody who is already world-class drops that much weight and matches or increases their power output.
A lot of esoteric stuff about sports nutrition was discovered in the couple of years before that win which allowed him to drop the weight, although it must've hurt his power (and the mental will to do it must've been crazy). It was telling that it didn't take him long to put it back on afterwards.
Well, that approach would also rule out tennis, golf, rugby, football, boxing, swimming, skiing, gymnastics, baseball, american football, wrestling etc etc...
I think the big shock will be Jamaican Athletics.
They came to dominate sprinting but have absolutely no advantage over the US, in terms of training, sports science, pool of available athletes, athletes' body type or potential, other than a less stringent drugs-testing regime.
I would not be at all surprised to find a "Dr Ferrari" in Jamaican athletics.
I find it inconceivable that anyone should be shocked at any forthcoming revelations of doping in Jamaican athletics. Only slightly less surprising than revelations about distance athletes that train with Kenyans or with Salazar . Not a few high profile athletes have failed to stay in the hotel they said they would during off season training in his camp.
R
I should say that I love athletics. David Rudisha's Olympic final world record was one of the most beautiful runs I have ever been privileged to see. What is sad is that no one knows if the field is level, until we know someone has cheate. The doubt makes it even harder new entrants to survive and integrity is an uncommon virtue. Still, it's a market and that's how they work if unrestrained.
Am a bit sad to see the UK Nike squad's commentary around it all though - Coe, Cram and Radcliffe all appearing surprised when the rumours have been circulating in the world of athletics for years.
Just PR for the gullible and needs to be treated as such.
Am a bit sad to see the UK Nike squad's commentary around it all though - Coe, Cram and Radcliffe all appearing surprised when the rumours have been circulating in the world of athletics for years.
Perhaps they need to appear surprised.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/33090919
;D
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named: Rowling got the idea for this from two 1950s London gangsters called the Kray Twins. "The story goes that people didn’t speak the name Kray. You just didn’t mention it. You didn’t talk about them, because retribution was so brutal and bloody. I think this is an impressive demonstration of strength, that you can convince someone not to use your name. Impressive in the sense that demonstrates how deep the level of fear is that you can inspire. It’s not something to be admired." (TLC). As soon as Voldemort took control of the Ministry in 1997, he reinforced this fear by putting a taboo on speaking his name. Anyone brave enough to say 'Voldemort' would have their locations immediately revealed to "snatchers" or other enforcement squads who would come and take you into custody (DH).
QuoteHe-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named: Rowling got the idea for this from two 1950s London gangsters called the Kray Twins. "The story goes that people didn’t speak the name Kray. You just didn’t mention it. You didn’t talk about them, because retribution was so brutal and bloody. I think this is an impressive demonstration of strength, that you can convince someone not to use your name. Impressive in the sense that demonstrates how deep the level of fear is that you can inspire. It’s not something to be admired." (TLC). As soon as Voldemort took control of the Ministry in 1997, he reinforced this fear by putting a taboo on speaking his name. Anyone brave enough to say 'Voldemort' would have their locations immediately revealed to "snatchers" or other enforcement squads who would come and take you into custody (DH).
OK, so not as bad as the Kray twins. I accept that.
Best book I have read on the era is Tyler Hamilton's account co-written with Dan Coyle:
"The Secret Race: Inside the Hidden World of the Tour de France: Doping, Cover-ups, and Winning at All Costs"
If TH is to be believed then yes, he-who-must-not-be-named did use fear to impose his will and yes he was different from other cyclists. No remorse, no genuine repentance IMO. He may not be Voldemort but he is like a zombie that keeps coming back.
QuoteHe-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named: Rowling got the idea for this from two 1950s London gangsters called the Kray Twins. "The story goes that people didn’t speak the name Kray. You just didn’t mention it. You didn’t talk about them, because retribution was so brutal and bloody. I think this is an impressive demonstration of strength, that you can convince someone not to use your name. Impressive in the sense that demonstrates how deep the level of fear is that you can inspire. It’s not something to be admired." (TLC). As soon as Voldemort took control of the Ministry in 1997, he reinforced this fear by putting a taboo on speaking his name. Anyone brave enough to say 'Voldemort' would have their locations immediately revealed to "snatchers" or other enforcement squads who would come and take you into custody (DH).
OK, so not as bad as the Kray twins. I accept that.
Best book I have read on the era is Tyler Hamilton's account co-written with Dan Coyle:
"The Secret Race: Inside the Hidden World of the Tour de France: Doping, Cover-ups, and Winning at All Costs"
If TH is to be believed then yes, he-who-must-not-be-named did use fear to impose his will and yes he was different from other cyclists. No remorse, no genuine repentance IMO. He may not be Voldemort but he is like a zombie that keeps coming back.
There is an impression of certain characteristics, including a lack of fear and a lack of guilt, combined with a manipulative and completely focused approach to getting what he wants. That is the only goal and it doesn't matter what is necessary to achieve it. If these impressions are correct, which they may not be of course, they mark out a particular extreme in the range of 'normal humanity'
If Lance had been involved in another field of expertise, be it industry, commerce or just plain old being a member of society, his single minded self centered approach could have resulted in the type of tactics that would have a forensic psychologist diagnosing him as a sociopath.....
Any cyclist I have seen retire, looked much fuller/rounder a few weeks later. Steve Redgrave, OK a rower, had a funny pot belly in his first interview after he retired. Even I put some Kg on, very fast, when not cycling simply because it is so very hard to stop eating.
The Cannibal spent some time, post retirement, looking like he had consumed the entire population of a small country.
There is an impression of certain characteristics, including a lack of fear and a lack of guilt, combined with a manipulative and completely focused approach to getting what he wants. That is the only goal and it doesn't matter what is necessary to achieve it. If these impressions are correct, which they may not be of course, they mark out a particular extreme in the range of 'normal humanity'
There is an impression of certain characteristics, including a lack of fear and a lack of guilt, combined with a manipulative and completely focused approach to getting what he wants. That is the only goal and it doesn't matter what is necessary to achieve it. If these impressions are correct, which they may not be of course, they mark out a particular extreme in the range of 'normal humanity'
Monomaniac, not sociopath. The same "condition" as Robert Millar was diagnosed with - and I suspect many many other (and all the successful) pro sports people. "My sport above all else".
Hard to imagine this guy ripping it up at the Grand Tours in the 90s
(http://www.cyclismag.com/photos/berzin_copertina_500_20110505130535.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4KjXW8CcAEdlg-.jpg)
However that's not the same as being a sociopath.......
Banned cyclist Lance Armstrong has lost his bid to block a $100m (£79m) lawsuit by the US government.
The suit alleges that Armstrong defrauded the government by cheating while riding for the publicly funded US Postal Service team.
It was filed by Armstrong's former team-mate Floyd Landis before being joined by the government in 2013.
A federal judge refused to block the lawsuit on Monday, which clears the way for the case to go to trial.
According to a report in the Lancet of a Dutch trial, EPO has very limited actual effect; it's more of a mental than physical effect. However, there is debate over whether the trial, conducted on well-trained amateurs, is also applicable to professionals.You can see the trial write-up here: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-3026(17)30105-9/fulltext?elsca1=tlpr
According to a report in the Lancet
An Aside....
Is it just me or am I seeing a syringe zoom across top of the screen with every ITV highlights intro after the ads??? ::-)
(https://www.meiring.org.uk/photos/tdf-logo.jpg)
;DAccording to a report in the Lancet
I can imagine having your own medical publication will have helped over the seven years.
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/04/case-closed-lance-armstrong-settles-federal-lawsuit-for-5m/
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/04/case-closed-lance-armstrong-settles-federal-lawsuit-for-5m/
So drugs do pay, he's done well there
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/04/case-closed-lance-armstrong-settles-federal-lawsuit-for-5m/
So drugs do pay, he's done well there
Who - Landis for getting a quarter share of the settlement, plus costs, or Armstrong for having to cough up "only" $5M to the US government when he potentially could have been reamed for twenty times that amount? ;)
Lance won the Tour DuPont two years running
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/04/case-closed-lance-armstrong-settles-federal-lawsuit-for-5m/
So drugs do pay, he's done well there