Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => Freewheeling => Racing => Topic started by: Hot Flatus on February 16, 2011, 11:59:30 am

Title: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on February 16, 2011, 11:59:30 am
That is all
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on February 16, 2011, 12:05:32 pm
Bye!  (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-greet025.gif)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: her_welshness on February 16, 2011, 12:08:08 pm
Bye-ieee
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Torslanda on February 16, 2011, 12:16:22 pm
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.

*The above is a statement. An opinion. Not an invitation to debate. I don't care what you think.*
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: IanDG on February 16, 2011, 12:22:52 pm
Is he retiring again?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on February 16, 2011, 12:26:19 pm
*The above is a statement. An opinion. Not an invitation to debate. I don't care what you think.*

Don't post it on a forum then  ::-)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on February 16, 2011, 12:30:26 pm
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.

*The above is a statement. An opinion. Not an invitation to debate. I don't care what you think.*
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

Even if he was on the same drugs as (almost) everyone he was racing against, I think he's done more good than bad for this world.

(Hope he's back on the bike ASAP, Torslanda.)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Domestique on February 16, 2011, 12:41:24 pm
Is he retiring again?


I dont know, but was thinking the same  :-\
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on February 16, 2011, 01:15:46 pm
As much as his reputation seems to become more sordid as time goes on, I can't bring myself to hate him. His winning celebration the day after Casartelli died, being spat on by thousands of Frenchmen in that time trial, getting back on after tangling with a spectator's bag, giving Ulrich that look before he attacked, spectacularly avoiding Beloki's crash, waiting for Ulrich to get back on after he went over the crash barrier, reading his account of recovering from cancer... sorry, no, can't hate him.

Professional cycling is a big global business now. I have no doubt whatsoever that anybody who gets to the top of big business is a lying, cheating, backstabbing scumbag who'd sell his grandmother for an extra dollar, I'd be naive if I thought that bike racing was any different.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: fungus on February 16, 2011, 01:56:30 pm
I'm not his biggest fan, but thanks anyway Lance (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/bye.gif)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Giropaul on February 16, 2011, 02:13:16 pm
Hopefully now the riders who are currently putting themselves on the rack day in and day out will get some column inches, instead of the ever present "did he, didn't he" Armstrong stories.

That was then, this is now, let's move on.

I can't ever forgive him for wearing black socks though :facepalm:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on February 16, 2011, 02:16:11 pm
That was then, this is now, let's move on.

Yep, let's have headlines about Contador.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clifftaylor on February 16, 2011, 02:52:55 pm
Do you have a beef with Contador?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on February 16, 2011, 03:00:34 pm
 ;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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Giropaul on February 16, 2011, 03:57:00 pm
;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?

No.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on February 16, 2011, 04:31:56 pm
Sounds like you missed out on the best parties then  ;)

(I take it you've read Willy Voit's book?)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Giropaul on February 16, 2011, 05:06:04 pm
Soigneurs, mechanics and ex-girlfriends should have short memories. 8)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: welshwheels on February 16, 2011, 05:06:18 pm
GOOD BYE MR TOUR DE FRANCE A TRUE LEGEND :thumbsup: :'(
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: geraldc on February 16, 2011, 05:12:41 pm
From his books I quite liked the guy. It was a change to see an American athlete who was a staunch atheist. Plus his charity work, really is very good.
Re the doping, I'm still a don't know, I hope he was clean, but I kind of know better than to believe in fairytale endings.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: frankly frankie on February 16, 2011, 05:57:07 pm
Snatched pix -

2003 Alpe d'Huez
(http://www.aukadia.net/alps/pix/huez.jpg)

2010 Cote de Laffrey
(http://www.aukadia.net/alps/pix/tourlaffrey3.jpg)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LindaG on February 16, 2011, 07:35:36 pm
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.



When my day job involved caring for people with male cancers, LA was very often a great inspiration to them.  His books were a genuine help to people going through a hellish, frightening experience.

He has helped countless people with cancer through his Foundation.  Whatever the truth behind the drugs allegations, his cancer is real, and the help he has given is real.


Thanks Lance. 
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on February 16, 2011, 10:58:31 pm
Good article from Matt Seaton. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/feb/16/lance-armstrong-cycling)

The comments are worth a read as well.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on February 16, 2011, 11:33:23 pm
Perhaps he's got some inside info on the Novitzky investigation and is timing his run..

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Torslanda on February 16, 2011, 11:40:25 pm
Bless you, Linda  :-*
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on February 17, 2011, 07:15:00 am
Good bye and good riddance !  And take those bloody long black socks with you  >:(
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: De Sisti on February 17, 2011, 07:58:40 am
And take those bloody long black socks with you  >:(

Nah mate, you're wrong. Black socks are cool. In fact, anything other than white socks are cool. (I wear anything other than white socks to annoy the cycle fashion nazis  :demon:)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LEE on February 17, 2011, 09:33:20 am
7 consecutive Tour wins
(that buys you the right to dictate what colour socks are cool)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Mr Larrington on February 17, 2011, 09:43:51 am
And take those bloody long black socks with you  >:(

This ^^^^

Black socks don't make it, as the poet sang.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: loadsabikes on February 17, 2011, 10:33:36 am
Well said Linda!!
Black socks are the Biz!
Especially for wiping the grease off your fingers when you drop a chain!!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: bobb on February 17, 2011, 10:38:13 am
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....
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LEE on February 17, 2011, 10:41:42 am
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....


Oh Jesus!  Now you've really gone and stirred it up.

I'm going to lock myself away in the bunker for a few days (with the rest of us Gilet-wearing types)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Mr Larrington on February 17, 2011, 10:46:10 am
It doesn't matter what socks you wear in the winter coz no-one can see them unless you're one of those oddballs who wears SPanDals all year rounds.  Summer is a different matter altogether.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on February 17, 2011, 06:04:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on February 17, 2011, 10:39:54 pm
If you can see the colour of my socks then you are wheelsucking so have no right to comment.

..d
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Adrian on February 17, 2011, 10:51:05 pm
So cycling god or feet of clay and here we are discussing the fucking socks which covered those feet of clay
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on February 18, 2011, 08:25:43 am
So cycling god or feet of clay and here we are discussing the fucking socks which covered those feet of clay

The joy of socks  ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rapples on February 18, 2011, 10:40:59 am
Time for this one again

Not particularly work safe O:-)

http://www.tgfy.co.uk/i/Dyslexia.jpg
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on February 23, 2011, 08:08:47 am
Armstrong's Urine Samples Requested By US Authorities  | Cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-us-authorities)

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: GruB on February 23, 2011, 08:28:03 am
I used to admire him, his skill, his dedication.
That was before I read several books including Willy Voet's and others of the same genre.
And of course all those doping scandals.

Good bye.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on February 23, 2011, 10:02:49 am
Armstrong's Urine Samples Requested By US Authorities  | Cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-us-authorities)



Interesting how they say they'll hand them over, but they seem determined to delay the process as much as they can!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on February 23, 2011, 03:08:17 pm
Most of that article seems to be talking about cooperation with the UCI on doping controls.

How long before we see Lance on Oprah?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on February 23, 2011, 08:59:27 pm
Armstrong's Urine Samples Requested By US Authorities  | Cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-us-authorities)



As I said, timing his run! ;-)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: GrahamG on February 25, 2011, 02:23:44 pm
Back to socks... white is just so wrong, and what I find so amusing, is that the white sock wearing havit was allegedly started by a vain, preening French pro who donned them to complement his tanned legs.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rich753 on February 25, 2011, 08:39:09 pm
I don't understand - what other sort of French pro is there?   ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 20, 2011, 06:08:29 am
Looks like Tyler Hamilton is joining the show.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on May 20, 2011, 07:22:26 am
Boy, I hope he took some good legal advice before saying this...
Quote
"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."
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: GruB on May 20, 2011, 07:25:54 am
I thought Floyd was low in the credibility stakes.  Tyler makes him look like an angel  ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TheLurker on May 20, 2011, 09:33:21 am
This is going to drag on 'til hell freezes over isn't it?  Even then we still won't know the truth.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on May 20, 2011, 09:54:11 am
The answer is simple. Tyler has a book to sell?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: pcolbeck on May 20, 2011, 09:57:09 am
If Lance is clean it will drag on forever as there are lots of people who will never believe it and keep dragging it up again no matter how many tests come out negative.
If he is dirty and doesn't admit it same thing unless someone gets some non circumstantial evidence.
The only way it will ever be put to bed is if he is dirty and admits it.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 20, 2011, 10:34:59 am
Not entirely. Don't forget there is a fairly hefty federal investigation into USPS on the go. If that fails then the whole issue will slowly fade into obscurity along with Armstrong.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on May 20, 2011, 10:37:05 am
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).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 20, 2011, 10:50:03 am
Strange that because I have the exact opposite impression. To me Landis's motives seem a little purer. Particularly as he is prepared to face legal action over his allegations concerning UCI complicity in covering up positive tests. Have you seen the emails he has been sending claiming to be his own lawyer 'Grey Manrod'? They are a good read
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ham on May 20, 2011, 11:04:08 am
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).

I can only agree  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on May 20, 2011, 11:08:34 am
Landis has always struck me as rather dim, and a bit of a pathetic figure.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on May 20, 2011, 01:00:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ariadne on May 20, 2011, 01:11:40 pm
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TheLurker on May 20, 2011, 01:23:16 pm
Unsure, afraid? Dunno, but there is the transcript at cyclingnews.com of an e-mail he sent to friends and relatives before the interview was broadcast.

*rummages for link*

Tyler Hamilton's Letter Of Confession | Cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tyler-hamiltons-letter-of-confession)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on May 20, 2011, 03:34:51 pm
The letter reads quite straight to me.  I can understand anyone admitting their entire career has been built on lying and cheating might feel uncomfortable coming clean in an interview.  Especially when he knows that other people will be affected, and that he will thereby create a large number of enemies among US cycling fans.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 20, 2011, 04:28:27 pm
Tyler is jumping before he is pushed. He's testified against Larnce, and knows that in PR terms it looks best to own up now, rather than wait for the inevitable.

Maybe.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Seineseeker on May 20, 2011, 06:47:24 pm
Hamilton is pretty discredited, it doesn't really add anything to the weight of evidence against Lance. Until someone credible stands up and says what (presumably IMO) went on, then it will be just another one of those unprovable arguments. Even now it seems it's only the people who have been caught who have nothing to lose by speaking out, so it's gone to run and run for a while longer.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on May 21, 2011, 12:42:13 am
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/)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Seineseeker on May 21, 2011, 02:27:47 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Simonb on May 21, 2011, 07:14:15 am
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.

You bet. Hincapie and Armstrong are were practically joined at the hip.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Aidan on May 21, 2011, 07:39:09 am
If the reports of Hincapie spilling are true, then Armstrong is in deep doo doo. Hincapie is probably the most credible witness they could have other than Johann ( doubt he'll talk though ;D)  because their long and close relationship.  Hincapie cant be dissed as a previous cheat who is lying for personal gain either.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 21, 2011, 07:49:36 am
They are all credible.  It amazes me that people are sucked in by the Armstrong defence. Get busted, lie about it for a bit. Then tell the truth and say so did Lance. Does Lance believe that these guys are lying when they finally admitted to doping?

Of course, you wouldnt expect people to own up to drug use or to split on Armstrong unless they'd either already been busted or faced a possibility of a perjury charge for lying to a grand jury. This is what is happening now.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Jaded on May 21, 2011, 09:11:07 am
What goes on inside your head if you won by cheating...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: gonzo on May 21, 2011, 09:15:17 am
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on May 21, 2011, 09:27:30 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 21, 2011, 09:30:30 am
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: gonzo on May 21, 2011, 09:43:12 am
Good point. I suppose retrospective testing of all samples 25 years in the future and guaranteed jail time for anyone found guilty might persuade people to think twice. As it stands though, he was not warned that was going to happen thus the threat wouldn't stop him because it didn't exist.

Do you honestly think him doing jail time will worry most other doping pro-cyclists? No one will retrospectively test their samples because it's too expensive for your average domestique.

I personally can't see this bringing any real benefit to the world of cycling.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on May 21, 2011, 09:53:15 am
Let's be clear on this - he has gained many millions of dollars from his cycling wins.  If he cheated to gain those wins he's gained that money by fraud.  Of course he should be punished.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on May 21, 2011, 09:57:30 am
And cycling *needs* to do this. It's not about the past, it's about the future.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: gonzo on May 21, 2011, 10:02:06 am
What benefit do you see coming from this?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Domestique on May 21, 2011, 10:02:08 am
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?

And cycling destroyed forever  :(
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on May 21, 2011, 10:06:57 am
What benefit do you see coming from this?

I don't need to know that it's the best result for cycling's image to know that it has to be done.  It has to be done and the fact that it will be messy doesn't change that.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: AndyK on May 21, 2011, 10:24:23 am
On Twitter:

@ghincapie "I can confirm to you I never spoke with "60 Minutes." I have no idea where they got their information."

And:

@ghincapie "As for the substance of anything in the "60 Minutes" story, I cannot comment on anything relating to the ongoing investigation."
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on May 21, 2011, 11:47:12 am
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?

This is a very short-sighted view. One of the problems that cycling has now is that the "finished" dopers of the 90s are now running teams. Do you really think Bjarne Riis is doing all he can to keep his riders clean?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 21, 2011, 12:03:17 pm
How would that destroy cycling?  It would mean real consequences for cheats. At the moment all they have to do is benefit from the fact that testing technology lags behind doping technology.  This would remove that comfort.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Feline on May 21, 2011, 12:08:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: GruB on May 21, 2011, 12:15:28 pm
Previously perhaps a lot thought that most were cheating.  Introduce the biological passport and then it is more apparent that most are not.  Those that are using the tried and tested (pardon the pun) methods have been caught out.

In a recent CycleSport magazine it featured an interview with Friere.  He was quite damning of the Spanish media about not backing him when he wins but always criticising him when he doesn't.  He feels that because of doping that the masses of Spain believe he must be a doper or else he wouldn't win at all - and simply because he is a Spanish professional cyclist.  He has never (to my knowledge) been linked to any PED allegations or investigations.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Wowbagger on May 21, 2011, 12:16:00 pm
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.

I used to have a book of sporting quotations, compiled by the great Frank Keating, of the Grauniad. I part-recall one, which I paraphrase:-

Quote from: US Weightlifter
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on May 21, 2011, 12:20:47 pm
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.

Maybe rider X took a bit more EPO than rider Y, etc, etc.  It doesn’t create a level playing field.

A single dose of EPO increases your VO2max by 7%, I’ve been told.  That’s huge.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 21, 2011, 12:21:44 pm
I don't know about the bio-passport. I think you have to listen to people like Kohl who come clean after a bust. Bit of a contrast to people like Basso.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on May 21, 2011, 12:28:59 pm
Even if Armstrong is proved to have been doping and is punished appropriately (whatever appropriate would be), I can't see that as the end of cycling or the start of a new, clean era. Cycling is like all other professional sports, the commercial interest creates other pressures on the riders and teams. What's amazing is that we haven't yet had (AFAIK) any betting scandals; race-rigging, mysterious withdrawals, etc.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: jogler on May 21, 2011, 12:41:52 pm


A single dose of EPO increases your VO2max by 7%, I’ve been told.  That’s huge.


that could be handy on that last hill in the last kilometer on an audax ride ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on May 21, 2011, 12:46:17 pm
I increased my VO2max by 9% by losing weight last year.  :smug:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Feline on May 21, 2011, 12:48:17 pm
I have no clue what my VO2Max is, but I bet it's pathetic  ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Biff on May 21, 2011, 12:50:13 pm
<snip> What's amazing is that we haven't yet had (AFAIK) any betting scandals; race-rigging, mysterious withdrawals, etc.

There have been many on the pro Keirin circuit in Japan, but thats a tiny part of an already minority sport, so hardly surprising it doesn't make the news.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: jogler on May 21, 2011, 01:04:29 pm
I have no clue what my VO2Max is, but I bet it's pathetic   ;D

it's the most attractive on this thread ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Giropaul on May 21, 2011, 03:04:54 pm
What goes on inside your head if you won by cheating...

The same as goes on in the head of anyone who has gained an advantage at work by something "not quite the done thing".

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: kcass on May 21, 2011, 04:40:27 pm
Lance Armstrong: the endgame begins | Cycle Sport (http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/lance-armstrong-the-endgame-begins/)

Good article.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: smurphboy on May 21, 2011, 06:31:19 pm
Did I miss the part where he failed a (another*) test???

Seriously, is there any new evidence here?

* He has failed a test in the past - despite what he said on twa**er
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on May 21, 2011, 07:41:27 pm
True, but what if they are all cheating?

They are, still.  

The UCI could start taking the problem seriously, which would mean working with the WADA,  rather then keeping them at arms length and claiming to be trying to solve the problem themselves, which they demonstrably are not.   This would have to entail sanctioning cutting-edge testing with an associated risk of catching a small percentage of the innocent in the interests of catching most of  the guilty.  

Banning drug cheats from management could be made restrospective, so the likes of Riis and (soon) Bruyneel would go.

The culture change required is massive, and would require some drastic measures to implement.  Permenant WADA chaperones for every top 50 rider on major races and compulsory accomodation in open dormitories might help, as would a no-excuses implementation of athlete responsibility for their own diet, so no more protracted bollocks about eating contaminated meat.

Or cycling could just step down testing to the level of other major sports so the problem stops getting noticed.   More smokescreens along the line of the BP will give the illusion that the UCI is interested in tackling the problem, rather than following their real agenda of maintaining the status quo.

The latter is probably what will happen as it is far more compatible with the interests of the industry sport.  

The difference might evetually be made by fans and consumers rejecting the products of any sponsors associated with doping, but the opposite seems to be happening at present.

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..

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?

Full of regret about the olympic gold medal he just flushed down the toilet?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on May 21, 2011, 11:13:45 pm
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..

This has been my view for a while. Cycling has become big business, and big business is full of lying, backstabbing, cheating chancers. In fact, that's how you become successful in business.

The days of cycle racing being an honest route to success for talented, working class Europeans are long gone.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: gonzo on May 22, 2011, 08:58:44 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on May 22, 2011, 09:21:47 am
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: GruB on May 22, 2011, 10:13:16 am
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.

Totally agree Gonzo.
I would not have said that 4 years ago though.
If you look at the rider performances of the Giro - Contador can go away up the Zoncolan but Nibali could not match him.
Only another Spanish fly could.
Look at Cadel Evans.  Massive force in the Giro last year - bombed at the Tour.

Either the field is becoming fairer or there are some really shit drug takers out there.  I prefer to be positive about it and believe the bio passport and the police drug raids in Italy, Belgium and Spain - that are not being overly reported - are having an effect.  The spot light is firmly on Spanish sport for all manner of PED use - sanctioned at the highest level.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on May 22, 2011, 07:12:02 pm
So is Contador clean now?  Garzelli?  Nibali?  Cancellara? 

I just don't buy it.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on May 22, 2011, 07:13:25 pm
If they're pulling w/kg outputs anywhere near Armstrong in his prime, then i doubt it.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: GruB on May 22, 2011, 07:17:27 pm
So is Contador clean now?  Garzelli?  Nibali?  Cancellara? 

I just don't buy it.



Neither do I, but there is a big difference between 4 and ALL  ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on May 22, 2011, 10:35:12 pm
The days of cycle racing being an honest route to success for talented, working class Europeans are long gone.

"Honest route to success"? Sorry, but cycling been's riven with cheating of all kinds from the start...

Quote from: The Yellow Jersey companion to the Tour de France (Edited by Les Woodland)
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."

Nobody knows for sure what Warburton gave Linton, but heroin or strychnine were the most popular claims.

Quote from: List of doping cases in cycling (Wikipedia)
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.

See List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling) for more.

Drugs aside the early history of le Tour de France was riddled with skulduggery, with the 1904 Tour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1904_Tour_de_France) resembling Wacky Races on two wheels, prompting Henri Desgrange to announce the end of his race which had been ruined "by the blind emotions" it had aroused.

In 1905, about 125kg of nails were found scattered on Stage 1 between Paris and Nancy. Only one rider avoided a puncture and only 24 of 60 starters reached the finish. It took a strike by the riders to persuade Desgrange not to cancel the race.

In 1906 three riders were disqualified when thay caught a train to Dijon, only to stumble into Tour officals studying a map at the station exit.

In 1938 Georges Speicher, the 1933 winner and world champion was disqualified for hanging on to a car, a trick that goes back to the 1904 Tour.

Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.  ;)


(Edited for minor typo.)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on May 22, 2011, 10:39:52 pm
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: ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: GruB on May 23, 2011, 07:20:46 am
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: ;)

Or the Pro Plus  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 23, 2011, 10:09:57 am
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.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Giropaul on May 23, 2011, 10:23:45 am
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.



+1
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 23, 2011, 10:26:56 am
....but what does get my goat is Armstrong using money and influence. Certainly a corrupting influence.

He's right.. It's not about the bike. It's about money.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on May 23, 2011, 01:35:28 pm
I've just watched the 60 Minutes programme. It doesn't last a full hour btw, but it's well worth watching. Tyler Hamilton gives a much better account of himself than the trailers suggested.

Linky (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7366948n&tag=contentMain;contentAux)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Seineseeker on May 23, 2011, 06:10:30 pm
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?

You would only disagree with what Tewdric said if you took it literally. I think there are some clean riders these days. Some in the French teams for sure, ever wondered why France with an enormous cycling culture can barely manage to discover a top 20 rider. Then there are probably some riders on a second chance, like maybe Millar, would he dope after becoming such an advocate against it? I doubt it. The rest, the Italian teams, the Spanish teams, any team with Bruyneel involved. We really don't know anything about Sky, except they are British, so we'll say it's about fair play from our boys, they can't be doped. Like has been said, it's professional sport, success = money, you do what it takes.

I still don't like Hamilton's testimony, it's too late for the truth from him really.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on May 23, 2011, 06:32:44 pm
Ok I was being silly saying all, but I do believe it's most and will be until the UCI get their act together.  I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on May 23, 2011, 06:34:08 pm
'Most' is accurate enough but probably a little conservative.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Seineseeker on May 23, 2011, 06:38:52 pm
'Most' is accurate enough but probably a little conservative.

agreed
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Feline on May 23, 2011, 06:44:47 pm
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  :-\
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on May 24, 2011, 12:44:11 am
This, along with Ryan Giggs, was one of the main talking points at work today.  I pointed out that I didn't think Contador was clean either.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on May 24, 2011, 09:50:44 am
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 ;)

(Do you think Coppi and Anquetil are undeserving of adulation? )

Actually the "story" would probably read better if he had retired after (say) 5 wins. Like a lot of people at the absolute top of their game, it all rather went to his head later on.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on May 24, 2011, 09:53:38 am
If the UCI has been as corrupt as reported, Armstrong could dope more than his rivals without being sanctioned (exclusive access to the best doping doctor, knowing when tests were going to happen, knowing what tests were going to occur, positive tests hidden).

Coppi and Anquetil raced for part of their career when doping was not against the rules.  Given that background, their arguing for the continuation of doping when the rules changed is understandable.  Doping has been against the rules since well before the current crop of pros were born and before some of their parents were born.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on May 24, 2011, 09:56:18 am
A 'clean' rider is one taking drugs that haven't been banned yet.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on May 24, 2011, 10:12:14 am
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.
The only way that Armstrong could handle this was by adopting the role of a strong 'Patron' and standing with the policy of 'Omerta' within cycling. Because he was legally doping he had to condone doping by everyone else or his position as 'Patron' would have been undermined by a perception of hypocrisy.
Meanwhile he was a beacon of hope for cancer patients and their carers.
I tend to accept all that as a given and focus on his spirit, which was always exemplary in difficult conditions. It was always interesting to see how he manipulated situations so that he had something to push against. It was often the only interesting thing in an era dominated by technical issues.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on May 24, 2011, 10:39:06 am
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.

That's an interesting take on it - he says in his book he was prescribed EPO as part of his treatment. But I don't think there's any evidence the UCI "gave permission" for him to continue with this (and testosterone).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 24, 2011, 10:41:37 am
I think ESL just made all that up. There was no TUE for epo use.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on May 24, 2011, 11:02:41 am
I think ESL just made all that up. There was no TUE for epo use.

That's my reading, it doesn't make it true, the alternative story is of a cheating Lance with no sense of integrity, however distorted, which I don't like. What happened to Boardman at about the same time as Lance's comeback is another story.

Quote
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)

That's in the DailyMail because it fits in well with women's health issues. The Lance story was like that only magnified to a huge scale. Lance and his cancer was so compelling that it distorted the post-Festina landscape.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: JT on May 24, 2011, 11:14:14 am
That only makes sense in the context of him having won the TDF.

Prior to his illness he'd won a Tour stage and been world champion, sure, but no one expected him to go on to win 7 straight Tours de France. And before he'd won a Tour he wasn't the inspiration against cancer that he is now for so many people.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 24, 2011, 11:30:18 am
Here's my take on it:

In the 90's the majority of pro riders used PEDs.
Using PEDs was considered normal amongst the riders.
In their parallel moral world, using was not immoral, but talking about it openly, or if busted was. Within this context Lance was the same as everyone.

With his TdF win, Lance was the catalyst for unprecedented amounts of money being brought into the peloton. Many people got richer as a result of this. Getting off that gravy train became harder and harder because so much money was involved. By the early-mid 2000s there was so much money wrapped up in Armstrongs participation, tv rights, commercial sponsorship etc,  that Armstrong and Bruyneel were able to corrupt the UCI, who may have been willing anyway. With every TdF win, Armstrong's house of cards got bigger. Then he retired.  Along the way he starts a cancer charity, because he is a cancer survivor and may well have some sense of altruism, plus it makes for great PR, and adds another floor to his house of cards.  Remember, within the context of pro cycling Armstrong is not any worse than anyone else, in some respects he is a victim of his own success.

In 2006 Landis got busted. Who was Landis anyway?

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on May 24, 2011, 11:50:53 am
There's also the internal dynamics of the peloton. I found quite a good summation in Fortune of all places, a few errors but interesting.

Quote
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.


FORTUNE: Pack mentality - Jun.  1, 2006 (http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/26/magazines/fortune/peloton_greatteams_fortune_0612/index.htm)

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on May 24, 2011, 12:06:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on May 24, 2011, 12:18:03 pm
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.

The Patron always has to dilute some of his personal interest with a nod to the interests of the Peloton, that Fortune article is a good primer on some of the dynamics. I'd be most interested in knowing what Jens Voigt really thinks about the Armstrong era.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 24, 2011, 12:26:58 pm
He probably thinks lots of things, one of which might be gratitude that riders salaries are higher than they were.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on May 24, 2011, 12:36:13 pm
Jens is of course the last surviving rider in the peloton from the East German athletics programme, so his perspective would be a very interesting one.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on May 24, 2011, 01:40:31 pm
Here's my take on it:
<snipped for brevity>

I think you speak a lot of sense there, Ram.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: GruB on May 24, 2011, 06:07:20 pm
Here's my take on it:
<snipped for brevity>

I think you speak a lot of sense there, Ram.

+1

But add to that the deal with an insurance company in America - basically a bet I believe that Armstrong would not win the successive tours that he did.  It was an incremental debt that ballooned to millions.  I believe the company behind it even went bust as a result of paying him / his company out.  So there is a very good motive behind proving he was doping and therefore cheated to gain the millions in this way.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 25, 2011, 10:39:29 am
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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: JT on May 25, 2011, 10:53:30 am
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

I think the key difference in this situation to past confessions is the threat of incarceration if they lie.

I read somewhere at the weekend (sorry can't remember where - might have been David Walsh's piece in the Sunday Times) that the investigation team are very overt with their badges and guns when interviewing. Hamilton (and allegedly) Hincapie have testified in front of a Grand Jury not just a bunch of blazers from the UCI.

And all we have to go on at the moment is what 60 minutes have reported, not the actual evidence gathered by the investigation.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on May 25, 2011, 11:14:03 am
Pre-emptive admission?  I think so.

Given that he's presumably spilt the USPS beans to Novitzski (who's not interested in anything else, is he?) and is never going to ride professionally again, why not try and scrape back some credibility/reputation with a mea culpa, even if it's 7 years too late and follows another 8 year ban.  He has nothing to lose. I haven't seen the 60 Minutues programme, but I guess the confession also gives him a chance to publicize his new job as a cycling trainer (which may also lead to a book).

In my younger and more naive days, the positives which I was most surprised about were Millar's (he's British!) and Hamilton's - personable, clean-cut American, with pretty dog and wife (or the other way round, can't remember), and heroic stage win with broken clavicle.  Their behaviours following their respective bannings were very different.  Remember the chimera claim? I know which of the two gained my grudging respect and which did not.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 25, 2011, 11:24:53 am
Ah, but the circumstances were different. Millar didn't test positive, the police found EPO in his bathroom.... he had very little choice but admit. Hamilton tested positive, and had a stab at claiming the result was invalid.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 25, 2011, 11:40:48 am
Looks like Hamilton's lawyers saw my post  ;D

Armstrong Attorneys Said To Have Suggested Joint Defence With Hamilton | Cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-attorneys-said-to-have-suggested-joint-defence-with-hamilton)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: gonzo on May 25, 2011, 06:44:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 25, 2011, 07:00:22 pm
You are missing the point... he was inconsequential, compared to Armstrong
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on May 25, 2011, 08:08:36 pm
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!  ::-)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: andygates on May 25, 2011, 08:21:26 pm
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!  ::-)
If every day was that awesome, I'd be staunchly pro-drugs in sport!   :demon:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on May 25, 2011, 08:34:24 pm
It felt hollow almost as soon as it started, tbh.  There really wasn't any awesome in it.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Mr Larrington on May 26, 2011, 09:11:02 am
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?

Has anyone come up with an explanation of why Johann Bruyneel did a runner from the Giro so rapid the he apparently didn't even bother to take his luggage with him?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Aidan on May 26, 2011, 09:30:37 am
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.

Nah, that was Hushovd
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on May 26, 2011, 09:39:40 am
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?

Yes, more impressive imho. Apparently his father was a PoW with Coppi, and he said he'd win at Sestriere as a dedication to both. I haven't checked my facts here, but it's a good bit of cycling lore!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on May 26, 2011, 10:03:20 am
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?

An early example of how much difference EPO could make.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on May 26, 2011, 10:30:19 am
Undoubtedly, to my mind.

However, I see from reading Wikipedia, that his confession (later retracted) was of doping from 1993 onwards, which wouldn't have covered that stage.  I think that's almost certainly a lie anyway.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Seineseeker on May 26, 2011, 01:41:10 pm
Let's not forget how much power Lance has, he has every legal avenue at his disposal because of his wealth, not to mention his influence. And the fact that he is a national hero in the states. This whole thing has a long long way to run.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ian H on May 26, 2011, 01:47:04 pm
All this is nearly as fascinating as the racing.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 26, 2011, 01:53:20 pm
[metaphor overload]

I'm not so sure that it will be too much longer.

I think the tide will turn against him very quickly, if it hasnt already, and of course the moment a crack appears in the dam of public sympathy there will be a deluge of recrimination. 'We were duped' will be the headline. I don't know if he has been questioned before the jury yet, but will he risk continuing to deny with the possibility that Hincapie has grassed? Of course there have been other court cases before, such as the SCA trial, so the stakes could be pretty high.

This isn't just going to blow over, and he stands a good chance of being hung out to dry, regardless of whether he ends up as a defendant, or merely a witness.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 26, 2011, 01:59:53 pm
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on May 26, 2011, 02:18:20 pm
Continental racing exists for the British as a sort of moral example. If a young lad is keen to follow a career in cycling he is told that he can never make it to the absolute top unless he cheats. Tour riders are available as inspirational figures.  But they must ultimately be flawed, as the sensible advice to a young aspirant is for them to enjoy their cycling, but to concentrate on the day job. The real cycling scene is reflected in the pages of the Daily Telegraph. National cycling results and details - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/7012278/National-cycling-results-and-details.html)
I see that Wiggins thrashed Hutchinson in the National 10 on Saturday. A good omen for the Tour Prologue.

An interesting point is that British girls are world class, that's probably because there's less money about.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: GruB on May 26, 2011, 03:26:30 pm
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?

The papers may actually pick this up alongside the FA allegation of FIFA corruption as well. 
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Seineseeker on May 26, 2011, 04:30:02 pm
I hope you are right RP. If the UCI gets done at the same time, it will good for the sport.

Just seen Contador's case might be after the TdF. He could win both tours and then be disqualified, the whole sport is a farce at times. But I still watch it.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 26, 2011, 05:44:25 pm
It's a great sport, but the politics are fascinating too.

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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on May 27, 2011, 10:10:48 am
it's getting increasingly farcical:

Prudhomme Surprised By Delay In Contador Hearing | Cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/prudhomme-surprised-by-delay-in-contador-hearing)

It will be interesting to see how the french fans react to him if he rides the TdF.  I suspect dangling meat from a fishing rod might be the thin end of the wedge.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on May 27, 2011, 10:22:37 am
Yes, they won't mince their words with the credibility of their race at stake.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on May 27, 2011, 10:32:45 am
It's rare for them to give somebody a grilling though, but well done to them if they do.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on May 27, 2011, 10:34:29 am
It's a great sport, but the politics are fascinating too.

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
UCI, FIFA, and all those banks. There's a reason they're all in the same place.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on May 27, 2011, 11:09:31 am
Looks like there was a meeting to discuss "suspect" samples, but it doesn't tally with Tyler Hamilton's account.

Swiss lab director confirms meeting Bruyneel and Armstrong over "suspect" samples - cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-lab-director-confirms-meeting-bruyneel-and-armstrong-over-suspect-samples)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hatler on May 27, 2011, 11:22:45 am
It's a great sport, but the politics are fascinating too.

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
UCI, FIFA, and all those banks. There's a reason they're all in the same place.

And let's not forget the IOC.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on June 13, 2011, 04:50:58 pm
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/)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Seineseeker on June 13, 2011, 05:49:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on June 13, 2011, 05:55:28 pm
Restaurant owner is a friend of Armstrongs...

...wonder how he got to hear that Hamilton was eating there  ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Jakob on June 13, 2011, 06:11:25 pm
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)?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: GruB on June 13, 2011, 06:19:47 pm
Restaurant owner is a friend of Armstrongs...

...wonder how he got to hear that Hamilton was eating there  ;)

On the other hand, what better for the press to ensure Hamilton goes to an Aspen restaurant with the owner being a friend of LA?  I expect LA's solicitor has advised him to have no contact etc to avoid any more publicity.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Seineseeker on June 13, 2011, 06:46:23 pm
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)?


Wasn't it obvious who it was beforehand, he was running some cycling clinic/event in Aspen. Anyway it matters not, what is Lance doing confronting him? Or even going near him. Makes a nice story tho.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on June 15, 2011, 11:55:12 am
FBI interested in the altercation: FBI Set To Scrutinise Armstrong-Hamilton Altercation | Cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/fbi-set-to-scrutinise-armstrong-hamilton-altercation)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Riggers on June 15, 2011, 11:59:39 am
The FBI! What in tarnation have they got to do with it!!? Did they step across State lines when having the argument? Kidnap somebody? Grand theft auto, again, across State borders?

I dunno.  ::-) The world has gone mad hasn't it?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on June 15, 2011, 01:14:49 pm
Possible intimidation of a witness involved in a federal investigation, the possible charges of which could be "conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, racketeering, drug trafficking and defrauding the U.S. government".
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Riggers on June 16, 2011, 11:25:43 am
Well, I suppose it keeps them busy doing something.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Jakob on June 16, 2011, 06:28:41 pm
According to the Danish newspapers, none of the witnesses collaborates Hamilton's story and Hamilton came over to talk to Armstrong (Who was sitting at the bar).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on July 16, 2011, 07:42:29 am
Landis interview for anyone interested

Floyd Landis Full Episode - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/news/Graham_Bensinger_InDepth/25954415#news/Graham_Bensinger_InDepth/25954415)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on June 13, 2012, 10:05:19 pm
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)

Quote
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.

The evidence seems a bit flimsy to me, I don't know how they think it'll stick this time.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on June 13, 2012, 10:21:31 pm
What's interesting is who else USADA are fingering in the letter - Bruyneel, Ferrari, a current Team RadioSchleck doctor and someone was (and still is) Contador's coach.

As I posted in the other Lance thread, this could make for lively racing forum viewing.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on June 13, 2012, 11:10:58 pm
And here's a link to a scan of the USADA letter:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on June 13, 2012, 11:33:59 pm
"Multiple riders with first hand knowledge will testify that between 1998 and 2005 Armstrong personally used EPO and on multiple occasions distributed EPO to other riders."

Presumably this is Landis, Hamilton et al, so I'm wondering why this will succeed this time... but if it does, surely the criminal investigation will be re-opened? Interesting times ahead, for sure.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LEE on June 13, 2012, 11:53:51 pm
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.


 
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: HoundBiker on June 14, 2012, 11:54:29 am
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.


 

The tests don't work, that is the whole point. And even when they do, they don't, like the magical TUE for saddle sore 'cream' and the 20 minute 'shower', if you know what I mean.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on June 14, 2012, 01:08:23 pm
How many tests did Millar fail?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on June 14, 2012, 01:38:34 pm
We're stuck with Lance until another English-speaking rider wins seven Tours in a row.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rafletcher on June 14, 2012, 01:50:28 pm
How many tests did Millar fail?

Got me thinking about why he didn't. Of course his (admitted) doping was in "preparation" for races rather than during competitive races, but it's a bit surprising that the random out-of-competition checks didn't catch him out. But then they never got a positive from Lance either, despite apparently regular random testing. Maybe Millar wasn't tested that often?

So perhaps the question should be how did Millar (and many others no  doubt) get away with it?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Feline on June 14, 2012, 04:12:38 pm
I think Millar's book explains in full how they got (and currently get) away with it.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on June 14, 2012, 04:24:24 pm
I think Millar's book explains in full how they got (and currently get) away with it.

2009 Interview with Michael Ashenden on Armstrong's 1999 B samples testing positive for EPO:

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

A lot of detail about the process and the positives (and the fact that the EPO level varied suggesting top-up doses during the tour).

He also had a more recent interview about Contador which basically says Contador *was* blood doping during the 2010 tour.

This one is quite long, I got about 1/3 way through before deciding I haven't time to read all of this just now, but it's compelling reading just like the Contador one. The half-life of EPO is so short and the effect so long-lived that you don't need to dope during the Tour though, so dosing 4 days before the tour gives a significant benefit and the risk of a random test catching you out is small. This is probably how they got away with it. In 1999 there was zero risk because there was no test, but retrospective analysis of the samples with the test for synthetic EPO changes that.


Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Jakob on June 14, 2012, 07:08:14 pm
Part of me can't help thinking that this is a desperate attempt by the USADA to redeem itself after the  Barry Bonds/Roger Clemens affairs. If they fail again, then I'm sorry to say that the organisation needs to be tossed out an re-built.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Regulator on June 14, 2012, 07:18:04 pm
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)

Quote
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.

The evidence seems a bit flimsy to me, I don't know how they think it'll stick this time.

The vidence isn't flimsy at all.  The USADA just doesn't have to make full disclosure at this time and the letter clearly states that it is outling a portion of the evidence.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on June 14, 2012, 09:42:47 pm
Shamelessly nicked from elsewhere - an amateur triathlete doesn't take the news too well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia6dV_G5UxE&feature=share

Downfall - the meme that keeps on giving.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on June 14, 2012, 10:27:14 pm
If they'd inserted, 'or have dealt with cancer' at about 50 seconds it would have worked even better, but the subtitles were already a bit crowded.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on June 16, 2012, 11:39:32 pm
Good article by William Fotheringham (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/16/lance-armstrong-drugs-tour-de-france).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Jaded on June 30, 2012, 06:41:33 am
He's been charged now.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on July 05, 2012, 07:42:31 am

Wow.  Names of cyclists who will testify against Armstrong published. Cyclingnews story. (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-hincapie-leipheimer-vande-velde-zabriskie-vaughters-give-evidence-against-armstrong)

Quote
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.

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.
+Vaughters.
Ban to start after the Vuelta.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on July 05, 2012, 08:01:22 am
Oh my goodness, that's a lot of big names who know what they're talking about preparedto testify at great personal cost.
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 05, 2012, 08:12:43 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on July 05, 2012, 08:42:56 am
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.  And no doubt they'll be receiving the vitriol of the American Lance fans.  Why aren't these riders considering the poor cancer sufferers?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on July 05, 2012, 08:53:45 am
It looks like the bubble might burst then.  I'm sure the ASO will delight in stripping him of his yellow jerseys when the time comes..
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Jaded on July 05, 2012, 09:20:27 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 05, 2012, 11:07:22 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Honest John on July 05, 2012, 11:16:13 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on July 05, 2012, 11:19:23 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Honest John on July 05, 2012, 11:20:47 am
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.

Well, they don't eat anything, according to Uncle Phil, so they have to get their energy from somewhere  ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Karla on July 05, 2012, 11:24:34 am
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.

Vaughters denies it (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-no-slipstream-sports-usada-suspensions), it seems the Dutch press have shot their mouths off.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on July 05, 2012, 11:25:05 am
Conversation recalled from about 20 years ago:
A offering B some whisky: Do you drink?
C interjecting before B can answer: Does he drink? He's vegetarian, he drinks like a fish!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on July 05, 2012, 11:33:33 am
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.


To be honest, if you look back at how USPS/Discovery operated in the mountains, the whole team would have had to have been on the juice in order to ride as they did on a daily basis. As Dave Z was in USPS 2001-2004, the balance of probability points towards him being on the juice as well.

Given the way Armstrong dealt with anyone who he felt had slighted him, it's fair to assume that USPS/Discovery riders would have been told to get with the (doping) program or get out, the latter option probably also involving their career prospects being ruined by Armstrong and Bruyneel.

Now, didn't the abortive Federal investigation include people testifying before a Grand Jury? IANAL but I imagine that the threat of having to do hard time for perjury would have concentrated a few minds...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on July 05, 2012, 11:45:50 am
At the end of the day all the sanctions that the USADA has against Lance is to rescind his Olympic Bronze at Sydney. They weren't a competent body for the Tour, which at one point even placed itself outside the UCI system and was organised under the French national body. I'd be looking at riders who have 'slimmed down' for the Olympics at present.
Edit, the USADA only started operations in October 2000, after Lance had competed at Sydney, which probably tells us a lot about Lance, but makes you wonder what they are trying to acheive.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on July 05, 2012, 12:41:48 pm
Given that LA is implicated with corruption at the UCI and his teammates and support staff are prominent in the pro peleton, there might be a reason to thoroughly investigate and punish. 'To encourage the others' if nothing else.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on July 05, 2012, 12:49:19 pm
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on July 05, 2012, 12:51:24 pm
Telling the truth, albeit under duress, should have no reward?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on July 05, 2012, 02:03:51 pm
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.

Quote
Lance's ex-teammates confess to doping with the same substances, get 6-month off-season ban.

Anybody else struck by the imbalance here?

First, we have no idea what testimony any of Armstrong's former team-mates have given to either the Grand Jury in the federal investigation, or to USADA. None of the four mentioned in the report have said anything definitive in public.

Jonathan Vaughters has denied that any Garmin riders have been issued with post-dated suspensions* (which covers Dave Z and Christian Vande Velde), and I've seen comments elsewhere to the effect that the story in De Telegraaf smacks of Bruyneel leaking to the press, trying to make USADA look bad. If suspensions have already been issued, I'm sure USADA would have announced them in the proper manner.

One last thing, plea-bargaining is a well-established tactic, on both sides of the Pond, and if it helps to chisel away at the culture of omertà, then I'm all for it.

* see also Mr Bunbury's post above.

EDITED - to correct names of Garmin riders "outed", Leipheimer rides for Omega Pharma-Quickstep.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on July 05, 2012, 02:15:17 pm
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'?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on July 05, 2012, 02:40:13 pm
Lance is quite handy for the USADA. Every Olympic year they can go after him to show US Athletes that no-one is immune if the taint of suspicion is on them. He's be less useful if the case was resolved. Eventually the legend will fade and they'll have to hope someone else comes along.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on July 05, 2012, 02:42:56 pm
Further to my comment about Bruyneel in my previous post, Matt Rendell retweeted an interesting snippet from Shane Stokes a little while ago:

Quote
as UCI_Overlord just reminded me, Johan Bruyneel writes a column for Telesport, which printed today's leaked news. Interesting


 http://twitter.com/SSbike/status/220843568061890561
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: alexb on July 05, 2012, 02:55:15 pm
So, given that the Tour is "owned" by ASO, why haven't they reacted and thrown the implicated/confessed riders off the Tour? They could and have reacted like this in the past.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on July 05, 2012, 03:14:53 pm
The USADA is not the competent body overseeing the Tour, that's the UCI. ASO have had disputes before with the UCI, running the 2008 Tour under the French Federation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/7435173.stm
The Olympic doping bodies become significant in an Olympic year, when the Olympic riders are under greater scrutiny.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 05, 2012, 03:42:40 pm
USADA responds to De Telegraaf article...
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12299/USADA-responds-to-Dutch-report-says-attempts-to-guess-at-witnesses-can-lead-to-errors-or-intimidation.aspx
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on July 06, 2012, 07:05:57 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LEE on July 06, 2012, 08:24:45 am
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.

I couldn't agree less.

A cheat is a cheat.  If Hincapie cheated then throw him off the tour immediately.  How come he gets to finish his career even though he appears now to be a self-confessed, unpunished, drugs cheat? 

To me plea-bargaining seems to be a way of buying the evidence you want to hear, a way to forever make any evidence doubtful.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on July 06, 2012, 08:32:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on July 06, 2012, 08:34:56 am
The majority of the pro peleton are 'unpunished, drugs cheats'. Self-confessed is a small step forward.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LEE on July 06, 2012, 08:42:12 am
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.

So getting it wrong is OK if the crime is less serious than murder? 

This seems like someone who committed Crime A getting a reduced sentence so they can convict someone for committing Crime A.  They are throwing away what principles they have left to get Lance.

I don't see why a blatant drugs cheat is now cycling in the tour, appearing clean as a whistle.

It would be quite funny if Hincapie testified that "I never saw Lance doing anything wrong" after all this.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LEE on July 06, 2012, 08:43:41 am
The majority of the pro peleton are 'unpunished, drugs cheats'. Self-confessed is a small step forward.

"Self-confessed" is usually done a few seconds before someone is exposed by someone else.

You think Hincapie just saw the light and got a conscience?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on July 06, 2012, 08:48:27 am
Of course! How do you think that drug testing methods can come close to keeping up with ever-evolving avoidance techniques and drugs?

Hit dopers hard and be relentless, otherwise the rewards far outweigh the risks. The ones to hit the hardest are the ones that have the most to lose.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LEE on July 06, 2012, 10:11:21 am


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.


Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on July 06, 2012, 10:18:32 am
Armstrong and Bruneel are heavily linked with corruption in the UCI and systemised doping. That counts for extra attention in my book but please yourselves.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on July 06, 2012, 10:24:44 am
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!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tigerrr on July 06, 2012, 10:44:09 am


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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: alexb on July 06, 2012, 10:44:38 am
Why Vino is there is also a mystery.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 06, 2012, 10:57:39 am
Why Vino is there is also a mystery.

Because he's served his punishment according to the rules of the sport. If you think he deserves further punishment, campaign to get the rules changed. If you think he's still cheating, show us the evidence.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tigerrr on July 06, 2012, 11:02:42 am
Of course! How do you think that drug testing methods can come close to keeping up with ever-evolving avoidance techniques and drugs?

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

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

Lance is an iconic figure, he laid out a huge story that transcended cycling - he was much bigger than any of the events or possibly the sport itself. IN the3 USA - which is where anything that matters matters more than anywhere else - teh Tour only exists in the minds of people because he made it so. Indeed sport cycling's popularity in the USA today is probably an extension of his franchise.
In the USA he is a demigod, living proof that cancer can be beat, not just beat but triumphed over through clean living, sporting endeavour, and uniquely american competitive spirit. He's a brand that represents american excellence, and has potential to become a political leader etc. The other pros were employees in his team, treated as such, bit players in his brand building.
All of this is based on his emphasis on being drug free and beating the cheats (characterised as perfidious european trolls).  Thats the lynchpin that makes it work for the wider public and that's what would get him to e.g  the white house in due course.
If he's a cheat the whole brand is exposed as a con. That's important, because people in the USA totally believe in his brand - if its a cynical lie it really is a big deal - and its not about cycling. 
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Karla on July 06, 2012, 11:54:45 am
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: fungus on July 06, 2012, 12:13:21 pm
The penalty should be the same for everyone, Amateur, Pro, successful, unsuccessful, famous, infamous or anonymous.
I don't see that you CAN make the penalty the same. Every situation will be different. Banning Lance from all future tours would have rather less effect than banning Hincapie!

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

It's his last TDF in any case.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on July 06, 2012, 12:18:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: red marley on July 06, 2012, 12:39:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 06, 2012, 12:50:25 pm
In that respect a 6 month off-season ban seems rather lenient to me.

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

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on July 06, 2012, 12:53:17 pm
Hincapie made the point that BMC had nothing to do with old doping offences.

Now you may not think that should let him get off lightly, but it is a fair point. (You could argue that BMC should be more careful who they hire, but then what about innocent-until-proven-guilty ?)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on July 06, 2012, 12:53:32 pm
What I find depressing about Lance's underlings' involvement in doping (apart from the obvious aspect of riders I had respected turning out to be cheating) is that they will have known how damaging their collective behaviour would be to the sport. Sure they would have been under pressure to 'dope or quit', but given Lance's success and his iconic status (esp. in the US as Tigerr points out), doping "all the way to the top" does much greater damage than a Rasmussen or Vino or even Festina. In that respect a 6 month off-season ban seems rather lenient to me.

How many times do I have to say this - the story in De Telegraaf about certain riders getting post-dated six-month bans in return for dobbing Armstrong in was shit-stirring by, or on behalf of, those accused in the USADA letter. It's a fishing expedition aimed at flushing out USADA's witnesses so that they can be either intimidated into changing/retracting their testimony, or be subject to a campaign of character assassination by Armstrong's shills in the media.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on July 06, 2012, 01:03:57 pm
Apparently Bruyneel has written a Tour de France column for De Telegraaf in the past and has written for it again today.  Is it the suggestion that he was an anonymous contributor yesterday as well, for the reasons Spesh has given?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: red marley on July 06, 2012, 01:04:28 pm
How many times do I have to say this - the story in De Telegraaf about certain riders getting post-dated six-month bans in return for dobbing Armstrong in was shit-stirring by, or on behalf of, those accused in the USADA letter.

Fair enough. I've not been following the whole affair in enough detail to have spotted this. Let's hope it was only shit-stirring.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 06, 2012, 01:07:17 pm
Now you may not think that should let him get off lightly, but it is a fair point. (You could argue that BMC should be more careful who they hire,

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

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

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

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

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

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

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on July 06, 2012, 01:10:35 pm

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

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

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

Yes, there will be PR benefits to avoiding suspected dopers (or ban-served ones, I guess). But the fact is that suspected dopers can race, win you stages, support your GC rider etc. Until proven guilty.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 06, 2012, 01:18:48 pm
Noone gets banned on suspicion of doping.

Rasmussen.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on July 06, 2012, 01:26:36 pm
<sigh>

Yet more pedantry. The point is that he broke the rules.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 06, 2012, 01:31:11 pm
Yeah, the rule about behaving suspiciously wrt doping, ie there's an actual rule that says you can be banned for doing something that gives rise to suspicions of doping.

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

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

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rafletcher on July 06, 2012, 01:42:42 pm
How many times do I have to say this - the story in De Telegraaf about certain riders getting post-dated six-month bans in return for dobbing Armstrong in was shit-stirring by, or on behalf of, those accused in the USADA letter. It's a fishing expedition aimed at flushing out USADA's witnesses so that they can be either intimidated into changing/retracting their testimony, or be subject to a campaign of character assassination by Armstrong's shills in the media.

And you know this how? Just interested in your sources.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rafletcher on July 06, 2012, 01:44:37 pm
Noone gets banned on suspicion of doping.

Rasmussen.

d.

And I thought I'd read upthread that Armstrong has been "banned"?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 06, 2012, 01:49:51 pm
And you know this how? Just interested in your sources.

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

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on July 06, 2012, 02:46:18 pm
The point being that such a rule wouldn't stand up in a court of law for the reason you mentioned.

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

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

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


Anyway, what point are you trying to prove that has actual relevance to how Lance and/or Hincapie should be dealt with? That might be more useful to discuss than the above semantics!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 06, 2012, 03:10:27 pm
Anyway, what point are you trying to prove that has actual relevance to how Lance and/or Hincapie should be dealt with? That might be more useful to discuss than the above semantics!

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

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

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

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

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on July 06, 2012, 03:36:55 pm
As regards Hincapie, there's so far no reason for him to be suspended. He's not "innocent" because he hasn't been charged with anything.
Yes he is. That's why he's racing (last time I checked - no spoilers please!).

If he couldn't race, BMC wouldn't hire him.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 06, 2012, 04:26:31 pm
Innocent of what?

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on July 06, 2012, 04:37:51 pm
Innocent of what?

d.
Of any offences that would prevent him racing.

[Am I missing something here?]
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Honest John on July 06, 2012, 04:38:59 pm
Haven't you lot got a bike race to watch :-\ ?

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

And doesn't it occur to anyone that one Dutch newspaper may have an agenda other than disseminating fact? When was the last time a Dutchman won anything important?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 06, 2012, 04:55:34 pm
[Am I missing something here?]

Apparently.

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

He is Schrödinger's Doper, if you like.

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

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on July 06, 2012, 05:41:56 pm
Hincapie hasn't been accused of any offence, therefore he is neither guilty nor innocent of any offence.

He is Schrödinger's Doper, if you like.
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).

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 09, 2012, 03:01:26 pm
Is this really how you view every man on the street, or all your loved ones?

Generally, it doesn't occur to me to think of people in terms of whether or not they've committed a crime.

Anyway, more interestingly...

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.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mzjo on July 09, 2012, 08:43:29 pm
Hincapie hasn't been accused of any offence, therefore he is neither guilty nor innocent of any offence.

He is Schrödinger's Doper, if you like.
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).

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.

FWIW The riders (and others) cannot be accused and judged of anything before the Armstrong case comes up because that would mean that USADA would have to release their names, which it doesn't want to do because of protecting witnesses' identities. There is no positive test to trigger action, only the word of others. Thus no reason to stop them racing, if anything the opposite because if they stop racing in doubtful circumstances it lets the cat out.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on July 10, 2012, 12:57:11 am


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.

And the injunction was dismissed in fairly short order. (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-federal-lawsuit-against-usada-dismissed)

Quote
"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."

80 pages... I mean, seriously?  :o

No wonder the judge told Armstrong - or more accurately, his lawyers - to go away and try again.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on July 10, 2012, 06:54:42 pm
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ferrari-del-moral-and-marti-banned-for-life-in-us-postal-case
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on July 10, 2012, 07:07:04 pm
http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-usps7102012

3 down, 3 to go...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on July 12, 2012, 09:38:32 pm
Given Michele Ferrari's reputation, any rider who has ever had anything to do with him will be under suspicion (and that's a LOT of riders, including Cadel Evans).  If Armstrong was clean, he was a fool to be associated with the man.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on July 12, 2012, 09:40:54 pm
And Rogers and...

Does anybody seriously believe that LA wasn't doped to the eyeballs, really?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on July 12, 2012, 09:44:29 pm
Like I say, either doped or a fool.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: fuzzy (retd.) AAGE on July 16, 2012, 12:37:50 pm
And Rogers and...

Does anybody seriously believe that LA wasn't doped to the eyeballs, really?

In the course of my business I have got to know many a drug peddlar. Not everyone who is associated with the drug peddlars I know makes use of their product. Some folk make use of the drug peddlars other professional services....
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on July 16, 2012, 12:45:34 pm
You have looked at just the evidence already public and still think he was clean?

There is plenty of examples of 'never tested positive' athletes who doped heavily. LA does have positive dope tests, just not sanctioned for them for various reasons. How does that make him clean?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ian H on July 16, 2012, 12:56:04 pm
In the context of pro-cycling I really don't care whether Armstrong doped or not.  But perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on July 16, 2012, 01:47:26 pm
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1113450

Some info on the blood test data from 2009 which form part of the doping case. Very large change in hematrocrit between giro and tour.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TimC on July 16, 2012, 01:58:25 pm
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 16, 2012, 02:00:08 pm
Do we know?

We don't, but presumably USADA won't be calling on any of us to provide expert testimony.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on July 16, 2012, 02:13:34 pm
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?

From the article

Quote
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.

(My emphasis)

Reticulocytes are immature red blood cells, variations can indicate EPO use or blood doping.


Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: IanDG on July 16, 2012, 03:33:04 pm
Or iron tablets! ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on July 16, 2012, 03:39:29 pm
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
Me too. (Somewhere in-between).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hillbilly on July 17, 2012, 06:06:01 pm
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.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on July 17, 2012, 09:36:46 pm
I am interested to know for sure just how much the UCI have assisted LA.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Domestique on July 21, 2012, 05:34:12 pm
I am interested to know for sure just how much the UCI have assisted LA.

Wasnt LA the most tested rider ever at one point?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Steph on July 21, 2012, 05:48:26 pm
Well, Armsytong [French accent] MUST have doped, because he was so much better than clean riders like our wondeful Virenque...oops.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Dibdib on July 21, 2012, 05:51:01 pm
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.

Completely agree. I'd be incredibly disappointed if it's shown that he was doping, but let's be realistic. In that era, it seems that any advantage he gained would only have put him on a level footing with much of the rest of the peloton.
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on July 21, 2012, 06:19:04 pm
Wasnt LA the most tested rider ever at one point?

Ha! That old chestnut!

No. He isn't even the most tested US cyclist called Armstrong...

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mr magnolia on August 03, 2012, 12:22:22 am
I've noted a seeming complete absence of mention of LA throughout this years tour commentary, newspaper coverage, and the Olympic road racing. Interesting.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 03, 2012, 01:25:11 am
I've noted a seeming complete absence of mention of LA throughout this years tour commentary, newspaper coverage, and the Olympic road racing. Interesting.

There was some mention of Lance in an article by Paul Kimmage in The Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2177405/Bradley-Wiggins-battle-cyclings-drug-demons--Paul-Kimmage.html

That's the kind of article that the Times might have run, but Kimmage was cut from the Times in the wake of the News of the World debacle, so it might be sour grapes, or a case of the chicken and the egg.
http://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/jobs/kimmage-and-hawkey-cut-from-sunday-times-sport/
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 03, 2012, 07:42:52 am
Kimmage is of course the 'Anti-Lance'. With the Murdochs firmly behind British Cycling, Wiggins writing a column in The Guardian and the Telegraph catering for an audience of cycling enthusiasts, The Mail is his last refuge. I suppose the parrallel with Sky would be Deutsche Telekom with Riis and Ullrich, who were single-time Tour winners propelled by a big-money sponsor. Their success was on top of that of Zabel, who mentored Cav's success, Cav having ridden with Telekom of course.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 04, 2012, 12:25:41 am
Here's an interesting development I spotted being discussed elsewhere.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12563/USADA-denies-UCI-request-to-take-control-of-ArmstrongUSPS-doping-proceedings.aspx

Quote
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 gave the UCI a somewhat dusty response:

Quote
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.

So what's made Fat Pat change his mind? Curiouser and curiouser...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: kcass on August 05, 2012, 01:45:24 pm
In his book Kimmage painted McQuaid in a pretty poor light re doping I seem to recall
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on August 08, 2012, 08:10:40 am

WADA comes in to support USADA, suggesting that UCI doesn't understand its own rules: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-does-have-jurisdiction-over-armstrong-case-says-wada

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 08, 2012, 02:10:20 pm
Quote
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 backing up USADA is a no-brainer, they haven't seen eye-to-eye with the UCI in the past, if my memory serves. Given that prior to July 13th (see my previous post), Pat McQuaid had said that USADA had jurisdiction in this case, the more cynical observer would be inclined to think that it's not so much that the UCI don't understand its own rules, it's more that the UCI is conveniently ignoring them.  ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 09, 2012, 12:57:42 am
The Inner Ring has a good piece on the latest developments: http://inrng.com/2012/08/uci-vs-president-mcquaid/#more-10348

WADA backing up USADA raises the stakes significantly.

Quote from: The Inner Ring
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/):

Quote
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.

Note the last sentence: if a governing body doesn’t follow the Code, it can be ejected from the Olympics.

Consider how many* of the medals won by Team GB were courtesy of the cyclists...

* Leaving aside the admittedly less certain medal prospects in the upcoming BMX and MTB XC events.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on August 09, 2012, 07:33:10 am
Oh yeah, like that counts for a lot. Victor Conti has today claimed that six out of ten athletes at the Olympics are using PEDs and that it's easy to avoid testing positive. Now, he may well have an axe to grind but are the IOC and/or WADA going to investigate his claims properly?

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TheLurker on August 09, 2012, 08:30:48 am
Hmmm, just read the inner ring article and I think it's all part of an evil UCI conspiracy to stop TeamGB dominating the cycling at Rio. They've tried restricting the pool of competitors and that didn't work so the only thing they can do now is get cycling removed from the Olympics and to hide the fact that it's an anti-TeamGB manoeuvre they're using the "non-adherence to anti-doping policies" gambit.  Very cunning eh wot?

IGMC, it's the one with the tin-foil hat in the pocket...  :)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 13, 2012, 11:11:18 pm
In this week's episode...

After making a series of cryptic Tweets in recent days, Jonathan Vaughters has come out and confessed to doping, in an article he wrote for the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-doping-out-of-sports.html) about how to clean up sport.

As the Inner Ring's latest post (http://inrng.com/2012/08/vaughters-confession-usada/) says, this time JV has used clear language rather than expecting the world to read between the lines, as per his 2010 interview with Cycling News.

And Tyler Hamilton, Armstrong's trusted lieutenant in his first three TdF wins, has a book out, co-written with Daniel Coyle. According to the blurb on Amazon, "The Secret Race is a definitive look at the world of professional cycling—and the doping issue surrounding this sport and its most iconic rider, Lance Armstrong"

Amusingly, the publication date of September 18th happens to be Armstrong's birthday.  ;D

Book available at Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Race-Inside-Cover-ups-Winning/dp/0345530411/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344889152&sr=1-8)
Kindle only on Amazon.co.uk (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Race-Cover-ups-Winning-ebook/dp/B008WOUJQG/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344894059&sr=1-3)
Title: Case dismissed!
Post by: spesh on August 20, 2012, 06:20:41 pm
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-sides-with-usada-in-armstrong-suit

Quote
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".

The full details of the judge's decision: http://www.scribd.com/doc/103348811/Sparks-Decision

So, Armstrong now has four days to either take ze punishment, or go to arbitration, where all witness testimony and other evidence will be aired publicly.

Now the real fun begins...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mr magnolia on August 20, 2012, 06:56:07 pm
Wow. Worlds change in the blink of an eye.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on August 20, 2012, 07:07:55 pm
There must be a lot of runners-up hoping to get their names in the TdF record books (and that their own doping doesn't come to light).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 20, 2012, 07:15:24 pm
It is unlikely Ullrich cares
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 20, 2012, 07:20:46 pm
I'd agree with Sparks' conclusion on pages 28 and 29.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103348811/Sparks-Decision
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on August 20, 2012, 08:24:21 pm
There must be a lot of runners-up fifth 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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Veloman on August 20, 2012, 08:31:53 pm
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'.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: vorsprung on August 20, 2012, 09:03:53 pm
There must be a lot of runners-up fifth 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?


Fifth or sixth??  More like nineteenth or twentieth

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 20, 2012, 11:01:33 pm
Once this affair reaches a conclusion, either the TdF records will have asterisks appended to Armstrong's victories, or the winner's name will be left blank. ASO have done both, but given the difficulty in finding a convincingly clean winner out of the top ten on GC in 1999-2005, I suspect that the latter option may be taken.  :-\

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 20, 2012, 11:25:47 pm
According to a report on Velonation, the UCI have backtracked on McQuaid's last comments on the affair, when he was claiming that the UCI had jurisdiction, and that USADA should hand over the case file.

Now, it appears that the UCI have accepted today's federal court ruling that the arbitration panel will be neutral.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12681/US-Postal-case-UCI-says-it-was-never-fighting-to-defend-Lance-Armstrong.aspx

Interesting that it's not McQuaid coming out and saying that arbitration was what they had really wanted all along now. Perhaps even he has realised that after getting slapped down by WADA when he tried to put the hard word on USADA, a welcoming of the federal court verdict from him would be a case of inserting his free foot into his mouth.  :demon:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 23, 2012, 11:37:57 pm
Cycling News has a truckload of bedtime reading - an index of every story relating to Lance Armstrong and doping allegations, staring with the "non-negative" for cortisone test result in the 1999 TdF, right up to the latest comments from Michael Ashenden, saying that it's time Pat McQuaid actually helped USADA's investigation:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years

Given that USADA's deadline (midnight Mountain Daylight Time) for accepting sanctions or arbitration falls at 6 am tomorrow morning in the UK, there should be enough reading material there to pass the time...  ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 23, 2012, 11:45:14 pm

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 24, 2012, 12:16:52 am

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.

Judge Sparks is undoubtedly not as conversant as serious racing fans and those in the sport are with the ins and outs of Armstrong's career, doping in the sport, anti-doping arbitration procedures and the conflict between WADA and the UCI, etc etc.

The link in my previous post shows that questions have been hanging over Armstrong ever since he made his comeback after beating cancer. The implications of a number of the reported allegations concerning Armstrong and doping are that, at best, the UCI has been engaged in a major conflict of interest; at worst, there is corruption in the sport that runs right to the top, and that the current and previous presidents of the UCI have serious questions to answer.

Sometimes a scab has to be picked off, because the wound underneath hasn't been cleaned properly.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 24, 2012, 12:41:07 am
Going by comments elsewhere on't webs, Armstrong (or a spokesman) is making a statement at 10pm EST, that's 3am in Blighty.

And that's it from me for tonight - it'll be interesting to see what news the morning will bring...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 24, 2012, 01:27:24 am
Jonathan Vaughter's op ed piece reported elsewhere may have been a template for Lance. It certainly leaves him enough wiggle room to say that he was in essence a 'bionic man', He was rebuilt by Bristol Myers Squibb, he placed himself in their hands, he had no choice, and they had a test-bed in him for innovative medicine. I like a bit of spin more than I like scab-picking.
I probably like Anquetil the best.

Quote
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.[

I ilked Vaughters' piece, and it would be nice to draw a line under the era of doping, but I do like a bit of moral ambiguity. Part of the appeal of that ambiguity is being part of the inner circle,and I can't ever see the appeal of that dying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bVGTVrQd6M

The fastest time trial performance in open competition I ever witnessed was the 2007 25 mile championship, when I pushed off. Over 30 mph for the first time on a D course. Jason Mac Intyre, the winner, is no longer with us, following a collision with a lorry while out training.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnF3OWiZZhw&feature=g-upl

The fastest TT I ever saw was Bradley Wiggins on our local club 10 doing a 19.01, also in 2007. He straddles the two traditions.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: woollypigs on August 24, 2012, 03:53:47 am
http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armstongs-statement-of-august-23-2012
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Jakob on August 24, 2012, 04:14:58 am
Hmmm. Not sure what to say..
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 24, 2012, 06:08:22 am
LA didn't want testimony from lots of former team mates coming out in open court, along with the other evidence. This way, he is appealing to the court of public opinion, regardless of how he is sanctioned.

I wonder if this approach is also damage control for his link with the UCI and the associated corruption.

It'll be very interesting to read the evidence against Bruyneel.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on August 24, 2012, 06:34:18 am
It reads more like "I never got caught" than "I didn't dope".
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: AndyK on August 24, 2012, 06:49:33 am
It's over. Armstrong says he will no longer fight doping charges and USADA says he will be stripped of all titles.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE87N03N20120824?irpc=932
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Chris S on August 24, 2012, 07:02:23 am
Well. That's an ignominious end to a great sporting story, isn't it?  :(
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 24, 2012, 07:09:02 am
This isn't the end until the rest of the systemised doping, the covered-up positives, the intimidation and the corruption comes out.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Aidan on August 24, 2012, 07:24:12 am
Maybe he is just fed up of it all, I know I am.   

Whether he did or not  , he has been great to watch, inspirational, exciting and a bloody good cyclist. And that isnt all down to drugs.

And the Usada thing stinks of someone trying to make a name for themselves by bringing him down.

My two penneth worth.  And I'm not arguing about it ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 24, 2012, 07:34:41 am
And there we have the reason why LA isn't actually fighting the mountain of evidence but instead going for public relations damage limitation.

USADA's rules don't really allow the evidence to be released to the public unless the accused fights the charge but I imagine there is a lot of crossover with Bruneel's evidence and he is fighting. Then there will be no way for any sensible person to say "maybe LA did, maybe he didn't"
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rafletcher on August 24, 2012, 07:57:23 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Redlight on August 24, 2012, 08:22:56 am
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.  The USADA looks to be a bit of a kangaroo court and AFAIK has no power to strip him of his titles, but the stink will always linger unless he is proven innocent.  You can't take away from him thr admiration he deserves for his fight back after the cancer but if he did dope then what about the damage done to the careers of any riders that he beat who were not doping?

PLus, of course, the damage to the reputation of the sport. Maybe it's down to the Brits now to revive it - please, please, please let all "our" lot be clean.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TheLurker on August 24, 2012, 08:36:12 am
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.

Whatever.  It's all very depressing.

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on August 24, 2012, 08:51:51 am
Flouncetastic!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 24, 2012, 08:57:19 am
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.

After Bruyneel, the UCI. If that happens, it will lay bare why the UCI tried to stop the matter previously.

If that doesn't happen, we'll continue on with the UCI playing favourites and not picking up the big fish.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 24, 2012, 08:59:21 am
[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.

+1

He said he was "done fighting" in a magazine interview earlier this year, which makes you wonder what the last couple of months have been all about, beyond shrinking the corner that he has painted himself into. In not going to arbitration, he's effectively pleading "no contest", but in a way that avoids making any admission.

There's a good piece by Matt Seaton in the Guardian this morning:

Quote
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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/aug/24/how-lance-armstrong-strongarmed-cycling
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Wowbagger on August 24, 2012, 09:12:33 am
It's not about the bike.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: road-runner on August 24, 2012, 09:20:44 am
I missed that he stated unequivocally that he didn't dope but I do remember him saying repeatedly that he never tested positive. I read that to mean he was as pedantic about substances (in food, drinks, medicine and drugs) as he was about his diet and training, which was evident from reading his book, It's not about the bike.

I learned that it is not a black and white issue. Our bodies have natural and fluctuating levels of chemicals and WADA publishes a list of the maximum concentration that is acceptable at the point of being tested. We would not live with a zero level but athletes have maximum limits. There is a an acceptable band, a grey area.

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Charlotte on August 24, 2012, 09:37:04 am
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on August 24, 2012, 09:39:40 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: eeymsmo on August 24, 2012, 09:45:34 am
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.

Or a big enough budget to have allegedly had test results 'sorted' for them

Hopefully Bruyneel won't back down and we'll get to see the testimonies.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 24, 2012, 09:49:11 am
An interview between VeloNation and USADA head honcho, Travis Tygart, suggests that USADA's evidence will be made public in due course:

Quote
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.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12712/Travis-Tygart-Interview-Armstrongs-results-from-August-1st-1998-will-be-stripped.aspx#ixzz24R6Deq5I
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 24, 2012, 09:51:28 am
The drugs do work though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iji8xKgDzaQ
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 24, 2012, 09:54:19 am
Does all this mean that Our Bradley now comes 3rd in the 2009 Tour?

That's up to ASO, the organisers of Le Tour. Depending on what doubts one has about how clean Contador and even Schleck minor were in 2009, then morally, Wiggins could be on any step of the podium you like.  :demon:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on August 24, 2012, 10:02:39 am
Rewriting the history books is a real can of worms, considering the even stronger evidence for those below him. I'm guessing they'll strip him of his wins but that the record books will be appended with asterisks and footnotes. The entire era will written off with this taint.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ian H on August 24, 2012, 10:04:51 am
It's all just part of the rich tapestry of cycle sport.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Wascally Weasel on August 24, 2012, 10:06:25 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: RJ on August 24, 2012, 10:09:46 am
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)?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Torslanda on August 24, 2012, 10:27:04 am
This leaves me angry.

I don't for one minute believe that when Lance Armstrong was sacked by Cofidis (according to the story this was when he was lying in a hospital bed with an IV dripping platinum into him) he formulated a plan to dominate world cycling and take shitloads of performance enhancing drugs, stuff that could kill him just as certainly as the wrong dose of chemo could.

For USADA read 'Witchfinder General' and for all the people who have created 'new' rules or new interpretations of rules - including it seems retrospectively banning substances used to help riders 'recover' or 'rehydrate' - bollocks to the lot of you.

Maybe he did or maybe he didn't. I could have taken all those 'legal' substances and a shitload more 'illegal' substances besides and it wouldn't have made the tiniest difference. I could never have ridden up the cols and alps like that. Not even once. At my absolute peak of fitness I was nowhere near him or anyone else.

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.

If he's dead by 50 I'll stand to be proved wrong.

Good luck to the USADA in promoting sporting endeavour on the back of intimidation, threats and bullying.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 24, 2012, 10:28:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: jogler on August 24, 2012, 10:41:13 am


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.

Indeed,IIRC he was a World Champion in some event or other before his cancer was diagnosed?

That's an interesting comment wrt to the post-Festina mood of the peleton & it's associates who may have been,at that time,more inclined to avoid treading on eggshells thus giving LA an unexpected competitive edge?
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: ran doner on August 24, 2012, 10:51:01 am

Good luck to the USADA in promoting sporting endeavour on the back of intimidation, threats and bullying.

Of course many cycle journos/writers would say that this is a perfect description of lance.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on August 24, 2012, 11:02:38 am
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.

But is it really 500 ? - the number may not matter but it may be an example of say it enough and the public (who buy into the livestrong brand) start believing it - apologies if it's been posted before but an estimate here:
http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/
(interestingly in the first 2010 quote of his lawyer it mentions 300, which is nearer the article's estimate of 230-odd)

plus some quoted/linked stuff in this first post re testing/irregularities
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17704

Usual caveats of not believing anything/everything you read on the internet, but some interesting reading..

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TimC on August 24, 2012, 11:24:23 am
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.

I agree with Ross. The USADA case appears to be one that can't be fought, innocent or not, not least because much of it depends on the testimony of people who have an axe to grind. And Lance, almost certainly like nearly all pro's of the time, was probably exploiting medical technology to the limits of what WADA and the UCI allowed, which would explain why he doesn't say 'I never doped' but is truthful when he says he never failed a dope test. All sports have rules, and anything that isn't forbidden is allowed. To retrospectively apply modern testing techniques to one athlete and declare him guilty of transgressing the rules of an earlier time seems, to me, to be somewhat unfair - especially if it isn't applied to all athletes in that competition.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on August 24, 2012, 11:50:41 am
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.

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?

Good luck to the USADA in promoting sporting endeavour on the back of intimidation, threats and bullying.

There has been no greater bully in all this than LA himself.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on August 24, 2012, 12:17:06 pm
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.

He could still be clean but won't fight an unwinnable, or even unfightable, fight - though personally I think the "just inside the limit and occasionally stepping outside" is most likely. I'm not sure to what extent it matters for the record books as he was probably no better or worse than those below him.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 24, 2012, 12:38:32 pm
Believe what you like but there is plenty of evidence that LA and his team charged more than anybody else, protected by the UCI.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Torslanda on August 24, 2012, 12:42:55 pm

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Torslanda on August 24, 2012, 12:43:52 pm
Believe what you like but there is plenty of evidence that LA and his team charged more than anybody else, protected by the UCI.

When that is proven to be true I will be the first to acknowledge the fact.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 24, 2012, 12:53:35 pm
You should be looking closely at the evidence in the Bruyneel case.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on August 24, 2012, 01:04:16 pm

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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Speedy611 on August 24, 2012, 01:09:19 pm
Lance has been and remains a huge inspiration to me. The rights and wrongs of the issue are perhaps unknowable and I'd deny no one their view.

Cancer is real, life changing, and utterly shit for those in or around it. Anyone or anything that can help restore dignity, courage and humanity is to be thanked in my opinion. Bike racing is fun, awe inspiring and transient by comparison.

Thanks.
Mark
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rafletcher on August 24, 2012, 01:11:55 pm

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?

So, what's been "proven" in the case of LA? All it seems to me is that hearsay evidence from self interested alleged witnesses has been believed.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: RJ on August 24, 2012, 01:15:11 pm
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)

Quote
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.
.

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)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: jogler on August 24, 2012, 01:24:30 pm
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)

Quote
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.
.

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)

so the riders who might benefit from LA's loss are themselves proven or suspected drug cheats ::-)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 24, 2012, 01:30:07 pm

[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?


By the time LA came back from cancer, oxygen vector doping had moved from riders effectively experimenting on themselves to some teams letting medical staff take charge for the reasons given above. Many substances that get used for doping are still at the experimental stage, and athletes have been misusing them before the pharma companies have even got them properly assessed in trials. So in that respect, in the early days of synthetic EPO usage (or in doping as a whole), the abusers of the substances were flying blind with regard to safe doses, so it's hardly surprising that a number of athletes got it fatally wrong.

In a way, the 50% haematocrit limit wasn't so much an anti-doping measure, more an anti-unsafe doping measure. Riders who were clocked at >50% were told to take a break from racing for "health reasons". It took some time to develop tests that can detect the use of synthetic EPO, leading to the story in l'Equipe in 2005 about Armstrong's 1999 TdF urine samples testing positive for EPO.

Quote from: Cycling News
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.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on August 24, 2012, 01:30:48 pm
Yes. Virtually none of the top 10 in lance's 7 tour wins are untainted.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 24, 2012, 01:36:23 pm
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

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: RJ on August 24, 2012, 01:36:57 pm

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?"  ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 24, 2012, 01:38:59 pm
In reading the Vaughters article in the other thread, this was the bit that stuck out.
Quote
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.


I want to know who devised Armstrong's medication regime, who payed for it and how it evolved in the context of his cancer treatment. I'd be in favour of a truth and reconciliation line being drawn, so we can access a very interesting bit of science. The veiled half-truths hinder that. Big Pharma should square away the disputed win bonuses in exchange for all the data, and Ferrari should cooperate fully.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: CrazyEnglishTriathlete on August 24, 2012, 01:42:28 pm

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?"  ;)

+1
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on August 24, 2012, 01:43:44 pm
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

Ta. :) I might have bothered to look for the link myself if I'd not been using the phone at the time.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 24, 2012, 01:44:50 pm

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)...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Toady on August 24, 2012, 01:48:13 pm
I find myself oddly unconcerned by a lot of this.  If LA had been busted while he was winning I'd have felt cheated, but I enjoyed the Armstrong era, even though LA was never my favourite rider.  Now,  really, even if they had film of Lance shouting "hey, inject more really illegal drugs in my butt right now, man!  I can't win without them!" it wouldn't change the fact that I enjoyed that era, but it's over.  I'm more interested in what's going on now.

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

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

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

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on August 24, 2012, 01:53:53 pm

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)...

Refers to yesterday's Vuelta stage:
(click to show/hide)

People who are tempted to dope need to know that they won't be allowed to get off the hook.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on August 24, 2012, 01:59:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 24, 2012, 02:02:10 pm
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:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 24, 2012, 02:02:58 pm
People also need to know who to put their faith in. Someone in a Jersey decorated with the logos of multi-national companies, being paid hundreds of thousands of Euros to draw attention to the sponsor's message during a lull in the sporting season is not going to be the most appropriate vehicle for our hopes and fears
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on August 24, 2012, 03:13:22 pm
Remember there's the 1999 tour samples that were re-tested and then linked to Armstrong

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

There is no B sample to compare with but this is not consistent with Lance being clean.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: RJ on August 24, 2012, 03:29:36 pm
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:

Yes, that's a good piece.

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

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

And on Armstrong's statement:
Quote
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.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TimC on August 24, 2012, 03:34:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: docsquid on August 24, 2012, 05:12:28 pm

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

I think that is the only fair thing to do - just asterisk the results (e.g. all those who have had doping penalties applied have an asterisk against their names, and people can draw their own conclusions).  Most of the top 10 in most of these years subsequently had doping issues, and since we don't really know who was doping, with what, or when, then retrospectively awarding the win to anybody else is difficult - Evans, Zubeldia, Sastre and Kivilev aside (unless I have missed something, and there are questions over them as well!).  Trying to untangle all of this now is not going to be helpful.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: fungus on August 24, 2012, 05:19:39 pm
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" 
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 24, 2012, 06:12:53 pm
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"

Going from a Cycling Weekly article (http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/346046/tour-de-france-1999-2008.html), and allowing for more recent info:

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

Which leaves Escartin and Nardello...

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

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

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

http://cypresstrees.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/revised-tour-de-france-top-10-clean.html
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: andyoxon on August 24, 2012, 06:38:56 pm
wiki has...
Quote
In June 2012, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) officially charged Armstrong with the consumption of illicit performance enhancing drugs,[6] based on blood samples from 2009 and 2010, and testimonies from other cyclists. On August 23, 2012, Armstrong announced that he would not be fighting the USADA's charges.[

I haven't read all the thread or even much on LA, but in summary how are they about to strip him of TdF titles from 99-05, based on "testimonies from other cyclists"?  Are there actually no test results positive for this time?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 24, 2012, 06:48:27 pm
Only dim athletes get caught, beating the tests is pretty easy. Off-season testing is more useful than in-competition testing but that is difficult to carry out on a small island or other isolated area without tipping off your quarry. How many biopassport prosecutions have there been recently and indeed, why has biopassport testing dropped recently? Even if you are caught, the 'favoured few' get a pass from the UCI and/or their national organisation.

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

As has been said previously on this forum, corroborated witness testimony is plenty good enough for a murder trial. Why isn't it good enough to be sure LA is a doper?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on August 24, 2012, 07:01:37 pm
If the witnesses are lying they could end up doing bird for a long time, in a US prison.  Therefore they're probably telling the truth.

It's interesting to look up what happened to Greg LeMond when he suggested Armstrong might not be clean (shortly after Armstrong's comeback).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 24, 2012, 07:16:34 pm
Only dim athletes get caught, beating the tests is pretty easy. Off-season testing is more useful than in-competition testing but that is difficult to carry out on a small island or other isolated area without tipping off your quarry. How many biopassport prosecutions have there been recently and indeed, why has biopassport testing dropped recently? Even if you are caught, the 'favoured few' get a pass from the UCI and/or their national organisation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-speaks-out-on-leaving-biological-passport-panel
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-ashenden-resigns-from-ucis-biological-passport-panel
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 24, 2012, 07:33:31 pm
It's interesting to look up what happened to Greg LeMond when he suggested Armstrong might not be clean (shortly after Armstrong's comeback).

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

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/5-questions-betsy-andreu
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on August 24, 2012, 07:46:18 pm
I think there is some merit in not playing with the results but applying a general 'we think these results were achieved with pharmaceutical help', as it's impossible now to know who doped and who didn't - and anecdotal evidence suggests that all the contenders did, so taking a Tour from one doper and giving it to another seems highly unsatisfactory. By all means let us see the evidence against Armstrong, but (if the evidence is conclusive) I think it would be misleading to suggest that he was the only culprit, or even one of a few.

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

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

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

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on August 24, 2012, 07:56:29 pm
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!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 24, 2012, 08:31:50 pm
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.
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on August 24, 2012, 08:51:52 pm
we don't really know who was doping, with what, or when, then retrospectively awarding the win to anybody else is difficult - Evans, Zubeldia, Sastre and Kivilev aside (unless I have missed something, and there are questions over them as well!).  Trying to untangle all of this now is not going to be helpful.

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

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 24, 2012, 10:04:27 pm
spesh, I know the problem with the biopassport is money. If you don't want to catch dopers, don't fund anti-doping. Teams don't want their riders to be identified as dopers, so don't want it to be more effective.

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

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

Quote

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Séamas M. on August 25, 2012, 01:47:09 am
In this instance, I'll defer to Jonathan Vaughters - the following is an excerpt from an interview with Bicycling magazine (my bold):

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

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

I'm one of those who really wanted Armstrong to be clean. I can remember watching the Nike ad where he rode past a group of child cancer patients and thinking "you'd better be clean, you bastard". I lost faith in him a  long time ago, my Livestrong bracelets have been replaced by Bike-Pure.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: welshwheels on August 25, 2012, 09:59:41 am
 there have been around 100 TDFs now, I reckon you can void most, like 90% of them. Let's start with the first one in 1903: he took the train. 1904: "Stories spread of riders spreading tacks on the road to delay rivals with punctures, of riders being poisoned by each other or by rival fans. Lucien Petit-Breton said he complained to an official that he had seen a rival hanging on to a motorcycle, only to have the cheating rider pull out a revolver". Now that is proper cheating, racing with a gun. Do they make carbon fibre guns?   I am sure most of the top riders in the peleton at the moment are doping they just have better products to mask the EPO or whatever other crap they are taking !! TBH the racing was better when they were all drugged up to their eyeballs  :demon:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on August 25, 2012, 10:14:08 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: welshwheels on August 25, 2012, 10:47:42 am
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 !!!! 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 ?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Giropaul on August 25, 2012, 12:00:14 pm
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.

Caffeine (over a certain level) was on the list until a couple of years ago, when cycling followed the Olympics/world bodies in dropping it.
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on August 25, 2012, 12:26:49 pm
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 ?

At what speeds? At the speeds Lance, Mig, Bjarne, Jan, Marco etc were winning the TdF then yes, you had to be on something.

At the speed Ryder Hesjedal won the Giro this year? No, apparently you can achieve that by being a naturally phenomenal athlete plus lots of very hard training and dedication (assuming you believe Garmin to be a clean team). If you then apply a scientific approach to coaching and race strategy, you can achieve the kind of speeds at which Wiggo won the TdF this year, which were a lot faster than the opposition but still not nearly as fast as ten years ago (again, assuming Sky are a clean team).

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 a shame - he was in some ways a victim of the era he rode in. But on the other hand, he appears to have been one of the main perpetrators and exploiters of those circumstances, and actively stamped down on anyone who wanted to change the sport for the better, so I have absolutely no sympathy for him at all.

Whatever anyone thinks of the USADA, they are by far the lesser of the two evils in this story.

d.
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on August 25, 2012, 01:20:57 pm
Great piece from last year by Lionel Birnie...
http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/lance-armstrong-the-endgame-begins/

And a more recent one by Ed Pickering...
http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/lance-armstrong-the-end/
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on August 25, 2012, 01:38:25 pm
It's very telling that Johann Bruyneel held the record for the fastest TdF massed-start stage for so long.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 25, 2012, 02:00:26 pm
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.

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. I raced (as a reasonable senior) against a current Oz pro (then a junior) when he'd made the National squad, mostly as a road sprinter. I just beat him in a hill TT. Up a hill, turn around, finish at the bottom. I gained all my time on the descent, he climbed faster than me. Even crap-climbing pros climb better than any of us at our very best.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on August 25, 2012, 02:12:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 25, 2012, 02:21:04 pm
Not in my experience. The few pros I have ridden with have descended at a similar speed to me and I've found few amateurs that descend faster. The fastest climbers do tend to be slower descenders though.

The TT didn't have a technical descent. I suspect that my greater weight and higher top gear made the difference downhill. I always used a 54t big ring.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on August 25, 2012, 03:01:06 pm
It's very telling that Johann Bruyneel held the record for the fastest TdF massed-start stage for so long.

Interesting next move from Johann.  He can't fold like LA, because he has already asked for arbitration.  I think that he will have to take his medicine.  Not a bad thing, I reckon he was a bully as well.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 25, 2012, 03:52:59 pm
Methinks it's time to revisit a riff from the TdF thread - C***strong bracelets... ;D :demon:

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=60346.msg1268067#msg1268067
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Gareth Rees on August 25, 2012, 04:55:31 pm
There's an interview with Paul Kimmage on velonation.com (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12721/Paul-Kimmage-Interview-Armstrong-the-UCI-and-the-true-winners-of-those-Tours.aspx). Maybe now would be a good time for McQuaid and Verbruggen to drop their legal action against Kimmage.
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on August 25, 2012, 05:12:52 pm
Armstrong was a good 1 day racer and ok at week-long stage races but crap at major tours.

Ok, you may well know more about that than me. I didn't follow pro cycling so closely in those days so can't claim to be an expert.

Quote
EPO changed that.

That much is apparent!

Quote
All pro cyclists are phenomenal athletes, it is part of the job description.

Of course. But some more so than others - 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?

(Of course, he may already have been on the sauce by then.)

Quote
Even crap-climbing pros climb better than any of us at our very best.

IIRC, only one person on this year's Etape would have finished inside the cutoff time for the equivalent TdF stage. Says it all, really.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on August 25, 2012, 05:25:15 pm
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:

   Reluctant but resigned, he insists he will only take drugs when it is absolutely necessary. Questioned when that is, he clarifies: "almost always."
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Veloman on August 25, 2012, 06:44:25 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on August 25, 2012, 07:18:19 pm
The whole sport is rife with it, from the evening "10" upwards.  Nothing would surprise me. However, it's less worthwhile doping domestiques like Yates; you'd be more likely to take the risk (and pay Dr Ferrari's fees) for your potential winners.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on August 25, 2012, 07:22:54 pm
That's at odds with what I (vaguely) remember from Kimmage's book. The 'lesser' riders are struggling to earn a living, which is arguably a better justification for cheating than those cheating to win.

If your results aren't quite good enough to stay in the 'A' squad, your boss says you could be a great pro, and everyone ahead of you is taking them ...

[I'm not sure about your evening 10s allegation either ... :P ]
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Domestique on August 25, 2012, 07:38:01 pm
Watching Eurosport on Friday, is Sean Kelly very uneasy talking about doping  :-\
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 25, 2012, 07:50:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 25, 2012, 08:05:26 pm
Found this interesting potted history of Armstrong and doping this afternoon: http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike

The bit that stands out for me is that Armstrong's cancer would have messed around with his hormone ratios to the point that they should have been easily spotted in a dope test, but as he relates in his autobiography, he didn't go to a doctor until he was coughing up blood from the lung metasases. As alluded to elsewhere (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=62532.msg1299724#msg1299724), either the stuff he may have been taking at the time was making the levels, or the UCI testers ignored the results. Contrast that with the case of Jake Gibb, a beach volley ball player, who was informed by USADA in 2010 that his hormone levels were abnormal, and that he was going to be suspended. Before hanging up, the tester told Gibb to see a doctor, but didn't say why. Gibb discovered he had testicular cancer, which was successfully treated, and the doping suspension was dropped.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Honest John on August 25, 2012, 08:33:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on August 25, 2012, 08:34:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on August 25, 2012, 08:35:10 pm
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.
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on August 25, 2012, 08:49:04 pm
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.
I've been over 90km/h myself, and we don't have mountains in Wiltshire  :smug:
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on August 25, 2012, 09:12:11 pm
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?

It's no coincidence that the Giro was made "easier" this year - fewer of the really brutal climbs...

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 25, 2012, 09:23:14 pm
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.

Thor Hushovd was clocked at 69mph (111km/h) descending from the Col d'Aubisque last year. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Hushovd#2011
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on August 25, 2012, 09:25:00 pm
Sorry, been meaning to do this since the news came out.
(http://www.peeble.com/la.jpg)
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: ran doner on August 25, 2012, 09:33:08 pm
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.

Dave Harmon is always mentioning that Sean Kelly got clocked at 120+ kph (pretty sure this is correct but not far off) on the descent from Col de Jeau Plan to Morzine

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: welshwheels on August 25, 2012, 09:51:38 pm
(http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/419790_407948579268182_1301921323_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on August 25, 2012, 10:36:16 pm
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.
I've been over 90km/h myself, and we don't have mountains in Wiltshire  :smug:
It was the cosmic attraction radiating from Avebury, wasn't it?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on August 25, 2012, 11:22:25 pm
I was wondering, with so many allusions to it actually being impossible to do something like the TdeF without "assistance" and so many current pros, including BW being so vocal against doping, 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?  I just don't know.  Brailsford bis obviously an incredible motivator and organiser but I don't think it's true to say that Sky were actually that far ahead of all the others, whose "motivators" are less well-known.  Have we suddenly evolved, or something?  Just wondering.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on August 26, 2012, 07:46:43 am
One of the big differences is that the TdF hopefuls only really race once a year.  Granted, they turn up to other races, but they use them as training and don't try to win them.  I don't think we'll see anyone do Roche's triple again for a while, or someone like Merckx winning all the one-day races and the TdF and the Giro (and anything else he had time for).  LeMond reckoned it took him  three months to fully recover from the TdF, which basically meant the rest of that season was gone. 

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Gareth Rees on August 26, 2012, 10:17:27 am
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. Take a look at the fastest ascents of Alpe d'Huez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d%27Huez#Fastest_Alpe_d.27Huez_ascents), for example. The top ten times are all from the 1997–2006 period, and all by riders who are known to have been doping, or where there is strong circumstantial evidence. Sanchez's winning time of 41:21 in 2011 would have been nearly four minutes behind Pantani in 1997 or Armstrong in 2004.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Honest John on August 26, 2012, 11:08:35 am
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".
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Honest John on August 26, 2012, 11:10:40 am
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. .

Indeed. Added to which, races are closer than they have been for years. Riders are beginning to look genuinely knackered towards the ends of stages. I see this as a Good Thing and a Hopeful Sign.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on August 26, 2012, 11:15:36 am
Roger, Gareth and HJ,

Interesting replies, thanks.  HJ, I did wonder about Bradley and his one day successes but he's not riding all the crits. and so on that most of the peloton does, I suppose.  I do want to believe!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on August 26, 2012, 11:31:40 am
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".
True, but not in the same league as the 1960s and 1970s riders.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LEE on August 26, 2012, 11:59:14 am
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.

Unimpressive?  7 consecutive Tours against competition who were probably all doped-up as well?

I know what you mean Rog but I don't think unimpressive is the best way to describe it.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hubner on August 26, 2012, 12:17:53 pm
Armstrong only rode one race per year (post cancer) and did so because he was catering for the American market which doesn't know about any other race, maybe with the exception of the worlds.

He could put everything into winning one race whereas his rivals couldn't.

The same goes for Lemond as well. Although both in their early careers did ride more throughout the season, but I guess found they couldn't win many races at all doing that.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Giropaul on August 26, 2012, 02:33:39 pm
I'm looking forward to the huge numbers of Treks that will shortly be for sale!

(and not seeing USPostal/Livestrong jerseys at every turn on a sunny Bank Holiday!) 8)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on August 26, 2012, 02:45:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Domestique on August 26, 2012, 02:48:26 pm
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.

Done and won, but maybe by cheating.
Cycling really has been, and maybe still is, corrupt from the top down to the evening 10.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: jogler on August 26, 2012, 03:02:41 pm
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.

additionally,it is,AIUI, beyond USADA's remit to formally strip LA of his TdF titles.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Gareth Rees on August 26, 2012, 03:32:11 pm
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: WADA
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.

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 participants

Quote from: USADA
worked 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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on August 26, 2012, 09:16:18 pm
From Sickipedia:

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rafletcher on August 27, 2012, 10:52:29 am
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: WADA
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.

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 participants

Quote from: USADA
worked 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?

From cyclingnews today:

"One of Lance Armstrong’s key arguments in fighting United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) charges of doping and conspiracy was that the agency was acting outside the eight-year statute of limitations. USADA boss Travis Tygart has now revealed that if Armstrong had co-operated with the investigation, that statute may actually have applied."

And he'd have kept 5 out of 7 titles.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 27, 2012, 02:22:15 pm
Regarding the statute of limitations (SOL), USADA did state in the charging letter to Bruyneel, Ferrari et al that fraudulent activity aimed at concealing doping violations is sufficient grounds for waiving the statute.

Quote from: USADA letter, page 14
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.

Eddy Hellebuyck, a Belgo-American marathon runner, tested positive for EPO in an out-of-competition test in 2004. Hellebuyck went to arbitration, where he stated that he had never used EPO prior to 2004. He received the usual two-year ban, commencing January 31, 2004. However, in 2010, in an interview with Runner's World magazine, he admitted to using EPO, and then wrote to USADA, confessing to using EPO in 2001. As a result, new proceedings were instigated in 2011, with his results going back to 2001 being wiped.

As noted in a Some Random Thursday blog post on LA and SOL (http://somerandomthursday.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/lance-and-law-part-2-statutes-of.html), the way SOL worked meant that in theory, USADA couldn't have been able to do anything about Hellebuyck's 2001 doping violations, not least because the applicable SOL period in 2001 was six years. However...

Quote from: Some Random Thursday
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."

So, for USADA to use Hellebuyck as justification for scrubbing all results post-1998, never mind post-2004, there has to be something in their case file which shows that Armstrong was fraudulently concealing prior violations, preferably during the SOL time frame preceding the posting of the charging letter. From what I was reading yesterday, I think it has to be something to do with the 2006 arbitration hearings connected to the dispute between SCA Promotions and Tailwind. The Wiki entry on Armstrong had only a cursory mention of the SCA case, but the cite note linked to an investigative article in the Los Angeles Times from 2006, which makes for interesting reading.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/09/sports/sp-armstrong9

Quote from: LA Times
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.

(My bold)

For those who are interested, Armstrong's testimony found it's way on to the web in both video and transcript form:

http://velocitynation.com/content/features/2011/bicileaks-full-armstrong-sca-testimony
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31833754/Lance-Armstrong-Testimony

USADA stripping results outside the SOL time frame suggests that there is recent sworn testimony in the case file, and other evidence, that shows Armstrong was lying through his teeth in 2006, and in my opinion, Armstrong's refusal to contest the charges suggests that he knows that if he testifies to USADA truthfully now, this will become all too apparent.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on August 27, 2012, 05:33:22 pm
I can't believe that Armstrong has really thrown in the towel on this.  Surely it's just a tactic to pit USADA against the UCI ?  I reckon he's confident that the UCI will win and will refuse to recognise USADA's ruling.  That way he gets to keep his wins and without incurring further legal costs of his own.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Gareth Rees on August 27, 2012, 10:34:12 pm
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 (allegedly £400,000) to drop the case.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 27, 2012, 11:05:56 pm
SCA Promotions are undoubtedly watching current events with interest as well.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12723/Armstrong-case-Sunday-Times-and-SCA-Promotions-considering-options.aspx

I'd imagine that everyone's holding their fire until USADA releases its "reasoned decision" and the UCI acts on it in accordance with their obligations under the WADA code. Plenty more water to be passed before everyone that LA has reamed in the past queue up to invoke the law of threefold return, methinks.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 28, 2012, 12:27:06 am
A couple of good pieces on the apparent lack of response from riders to the latest developments:

http://inrng.com/2012/08/armstrong-should-riders-speak-up/
http://gerard.cc/2012/08/27/lets-focus-on-the-future/

As much as we'd like the riders to speak up, both articles and most of the comments show that perhaps it's not as simple as armchair warriors think it is. A few riders and team managers have offered a response, and these can be found via the CN news archive:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/archive/2012/34/5
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/archive/2012/34/6

It's interesting to see who's willing to speak out in support of USADA, who's got a fence post where the sun doesn't shine, and who's a full-on Armstrong supporter.

And to finish off, here's a good piece on the The Science of Sport blog, which offers a rebuttal to the most common arguments against the USADA action:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on August 28, 2012, 12:39:08 am
Thanks, Spesh.  I've only had time to skim that last article but it is very thought-provoking.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: woollypigs on August 28, 2012, 05:05:21 am
Been reading a lot about this, head spinning, the cycling world needs a good old clean up.

Here are a few articles I found (some long)

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/paul-kimmage
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/david-walsh
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden

The fist one is good to explain how EPO was/is used and how you can hide it and how they test for it too.

This one does make you go hmmm about livestrong
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on August 28, 2012, 09:02:30 am
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.

Since the Sun never got any money back from Sir Elton John which they'd paid out for shockingly suggested he was not entirely heterosexual, I doubt they'll see a penny.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 28, 2012, 01:00:22 pm
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?

Only the USA-ian mags looking for the next Lemond talked about LA as a Tour winner. Everybody else picked him as a future Classics king.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 28, 2012, 01:15:25 pm
Lance came to prominence by winning the Worlds in bad weather in Oslo in 1994. He might well not have made much impact on the 1999 Tour de France, were it not for the horrendous weather, which suited him.

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4220990-3x4-700x933.jpg)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 28, 2012, 01:24:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 28, 2012, 03:58:37 pm
I've been wondering what's going to happen to all the Fantasy Tour de France results from 1999 to 2005. What faith can we have if fantasy is not based on reality. There's going to be a lot of work to do, but I'm sure it will be worth it to clear the dopers out of our fantasies.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: De Sisti on August 28, 2012, 04:40:51 pm
Quote from: LittleWheelsand
Big Sean Yates was assigned as LA's minder at Motorola, teaching him how to be a good pro.
:jurek: :jurek:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 28, 2012, 05:48:13 pm
Do you think Yates did a good job?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LEE on August 28, 2012, 06:00:06 pm
I was watching Stephen Roche (on The Cycling Show) and it crossed my mind what a superhuman effort it was for him to catch Delgado.

When asked about Lance, he seemed very vague and "let's just move on" about it.  Inquiries at the time seemed to point at Roche and EPO/doping but his "Triple Crown" will stand I guess. 

Which Tour Winners would we say didn't use some degree of doping?

I'll say Wiggins as a starter.  After that i wouldn't like to say (and I'm just praying Wiggins hasn't).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 28, 2012, 06:07:28 pm
Lemond was the most recent. After that, there are just varying degrees of doubtfulness or knowledge.
Title: Re: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mr magnolia on August 28, 2012, 06:55:11 pm
Which Tour Winners would we say didn't use some degree of doping?

I'll say Wiggins as a starter.  After that i wouldn't like to say (and I'm just praying Wiggins hasn't).
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...
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: teethgrinder on August 28, 2012, 07:04:57 pm
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.

Pre cancer Lance was a classic rider. Very aggressive. World Champion at 21. He was a triathlete before he was a cyclist so he carried a lot of muscle. Too much muscle to be a top climber, which meant he'd never win a tour. He'd probably had a better chance at the green jersey.
Cancer treatment wasted his muscle away which is why he developed a high cadence. His muscle loss made him lighter for the climbs.
Sean Yates was his mentor and taght him the finer points. He made himself very unpopular when he started out as a pro. One Italian rider eased off on a sprint finish so that he wouldn't have to share the podium with Lance, as an insult to Lance. They became friends later on.
At least, that's what it says in his book.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was Sean who taught him how to descend. Sean was The Daddy!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 28, 2012, 08:12:09 pm
Cancer treatment wasted his muscle away which is why he developed a high cadence. His muscle loss made him lighter for the climbs.

LA didn't actually get as much lighter as was suggested at the time.

The high cadence thing was because high blood levels meant that there was no lack of oxygen for big muscles, part of the reason Indurain (apart from lots of talent) could match or ride away from the best climbers of his generation. You ended up with TTers and sprinters turning themselves into climbers because lack of oxygen wasn't a factor anymore. It got too obvious when people were climbing at the front of the peloton with their mouths closed and riders were having to brake for hairpins on Alpe d'Huez.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on August 28, 2012, 08:19:05 pm
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.

I was a LeMond fan in the 1990s and saw him at Lewes in 1994, when he was way past his best.  I was waiting to see him the next day near Basingstoke, but he was already in the broom wagon.  That was prtetty much the end of his career.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on August 28, 2012, 08:27:54 pm
Did he know you were waiting for him?!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on August 28, 2012, 08:31:37 pm
Did he know you were waiting for him?!
I think he knew Basingstoke was only 5 miles away.
Title: Re: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 28, 2012, 09:23:34 pm
Which Tour Winners would we say didn't use some degree of doping?

I'll say Wiggins as a starter.  After that i wouldn't like to say (and I'm just praying Wiggins hasn't).
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...
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.

I've seen mention elsewhere of a French scientist claiming that Wiggins and Froome's power/weight ratios were comparable to the EPO years, but his analysis was picked apart for using poor assumptions, and comparing power outputs on shorter climbs (15-16 minutes) with EPO-boosted power on longer climbs of up to 40 minutes. It might take me a little while to find where I'd seen it, so in the meantime, I'll repost a link I'd mentioned in the 2012 TdF thread, which points to a good article on the Science of Sport blog. Apart from discussion of C***gate, the author has a look at power/weight calculations, and his analysis is that power outputs in this year's TdF are more believable than those in the EPO years.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html

Quote
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...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on August 28, 2012, 09:27:54 pm
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!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on August 29, 2012, 08:26:28 am
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!
Anquetil on drugs:
He and other cyclists had to ride "through the cold, through heatwaves, through Basingstoke, in the rain and in the mountains", and they had the right to treat themselves as they wished
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on August 29, 2012, 09:30:02 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TheLurker on August 29, 2012, 09:58:09 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on August 29, 2012, 10:01:14 am
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.

How many of the twitterati are doing the paying?  I guess exactly none.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on August 29, 2012, 10:04:02 am
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!

Lets face it, most of the twitterati couldn't even ride a grand tour, let alone do so inside the time limit.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Karla on August 29, 2012, 10:25:07 am
I think there was once a cyclist who said something about that.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on August 29, 2012, 11:26:34 am
How many of the twitterati are doing the paying?  I guess exactly none.

Well, I'm a Sky subscriber so...

I think they should make me a DS.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 29, 2012, 11:40:05 am
100m track and field sprinters dope. It isn't the distance causing it.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Toady on August 29, 2012, 12:33:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on August 29, 2012, 12:49:37 pm
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!

Lets face it, most of the twitterati couldn't even ride a grand tour, let alone do so inside the time limit.
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rafletcher on August 29, 2012, 12:56:09 pm
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!

Lets face it, most of the twitterati couldn't even ride a grand tour, let alone do so inside the time limit.
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.

He may be the only one to win 5 (I haven't checked) but Schumacher won 7 I believe.  ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on August 29, 2012, 12:58:30 pm
'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> ...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on August 29, 2012, 01:04:32 pm
And cycling. It is a road race, not a time trial.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 29, 2012, 01:16:51 pm
'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> ...

'I wish I was 21 now' has a section on this aspect, 'Self organisation or cheating?', page 124. I downloaded the pdf, as it covers so much ground, so effectively. That chapter is 6 pages long. Discussions are more fruitful if we are singing from the same hymn-sheet, and that document gets closer to reality than others I've seen. The pdf format is quite useful, in that it doen't permit cherry-picking.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on August 29, 2012, 01:34:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 29, 2012, 01:59:32 pm
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.

They all have use for the rewards that sporting success brings, be that the Pound, The Dollar or the  Euro.
What most people seem object to is the betrayal of 'authenticity' for cash. Lance is an interesting case, because his tainted success expanded the opportunities for professional cyclists, by bringing more money into the sport.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 29, 2012, 02:11:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on August 29, 2012, 02:39:02 pm
Indeed, I've been told a poor vo2max is associated with poor recovery.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on August 29, 2012, 03:09:25 pm
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.

OK, I'd be partly wrong. Whatever. I still think there's a lot of wisdom in what David Harmon said. It's the sporting performance arms race - whether it's pushing cyclists to climb ever more brutal mountains, or pushing 100m sprinters to shave another couple of hundredths of a second off their time. They're just different sides of the same coin.

The point is not that making the route of the Grand Tours less brutal will necessarily discourage riders from doping, but that making them harder will definitely increase the temptation to dope.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 29, 2012, 04:17:48 pm
No. They will dope regardless of event difficulty provided the chances (and penalties) of being caught are low enough and the rewards of winning are high enough.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on August 29, 2012, 04:50:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mzjo on August 29, 2012, 09:20:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: twiddler on August 29, 2012, 09:56:55 pm
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).


This is true, except that one of the earlier aims of Le Tour was to make it so hard that only one man could finish it, not so today, so perhaps it's riders and organisers?


The thing that is always hard to do clean, is to beat the guy you think is NOT clean!


Especially if the guy in front hasn't got 'guards on!  :P


Has Lance left yet?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hubner on August 29, 2012, 10:59:12 pm
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.

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.

And before the Tour lifted the ban on derailleurs in 1937 (not banned in other races), riders used single speed freewheels.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on August 30, 2012, 11:40:16 am
Sports like shooting can also benefit from applied pharmaceuticals.

I think the modern heptathlon used to have a different order of events - rearranged (in part) because some competitors were taking some sort of sedative to help them during the shooting. Can't use a sedative if you've got to follow up with a run, tho'...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on August 30, 2012, 12:00:33 pm
In the Olympics, the running and shooting were combined into a single event, in a biathlon-stylee. Didn't know that was the reason for it.

d.

PS typo ignored - obviously you meant the modern pentathlon.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rafletcher on August 30, 2012, 12:32:10 pm
And by sedative I assume you were referring to beta blockers (was it Bill Werbinuik in snooker who was using them?). They help stop hand tremors (my wife needed then whilst hyper-thyrodic).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 30, 2012, 12:42:49 pm

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.

To put the "you can't ride/win on mineral water" comment into some form of context, when Jacques Anquetil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Anquetil#Doping) said that only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride Bordeaux–Paris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordeaux%E2%80%93Paris) on just water*, the kind of knowledge about training, nutrition and post-race recovery available now just wasn't there, and with a racing schedule heavier than what most grand tour GC contenders put themselves through today, riders ended up reliant on the amphetamines that fooled their body and mind into carrying on. That's not to say it was right, but the riders themselves didn't really know any differently.

Prior to the advent of steroids, growth hormones and oxygen vector doping, brandy and Benzedrine weren't enhancing the riders' performances in the same way, it was more that they numbed the pain and fooled the body and mind into pushing on beyond fatigue limits. It's pure speculation, but imagine if a rider of Anquetil's generation had access to current knowledge on training and nutrition - he probably could do just as well without needing to pop the speed tablets.


* That probably goes double if you've just finished riding the Critérium du Dauphiné beforehand.  :o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Anquetil#Dauphin.C3.A9_and_Bordeaux.E2.80.93Paris_double
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on August 30, 2012, 12:52:04 pm
it was more that they numbed the pain and fooled the body and mind into pushing on beyond fatigue limits.

...which is what did for Tom Simpson, of course.

Whereas if you're Jens Voigt, you just say "Shut up, legs!"

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 30, 2012, 12:55:18 pm
Cracking post in Bicycling on sports journalism and cycling: http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2012/08/29/friday-night-lights-out/

Quote
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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJz4kwm9mXc

Oh dear, oh deary, deary me...  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on August 30, 2012, 01:16:22 pm
>heptathlon

Well, mental typo  :P - I wondered whether I meant heptathon as I posted..

>Beta-blockers

Think I heard it during some commentary - more likely tranquilisers, and this seems to confirm it:
http://pentathloncircuit.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/doping-cheating-and-modern-pentathlon.html
 - and also mentions a Swede who 'doped' himself with a couple of beers ;)
I gather beta blockers are distinct from sedatives and transquilisers..

As for Liggett..  ::-)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 30, 2012, 01:29:07 pm
In fairness to Phil Liggett, at least once he's bought, he stays bought. :demon: ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Pip on August 30, 2012, 02:01:58 pm
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rafletcher on August 30, 2012, 02:03:14 pm
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?

Look at the post from Spesh above it.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 30, 2012, 02:37:14 pm
That Paul Sherwen is involved with the Ugandan gold mine is a given, he's mentioned it every so often during TdF commentary, but doing a google  search for "Phil Liggett + gold mine" mostly draws a blank. However, a couple of pieces on the web suggest that Phil's a partner in the same mine as Paul.

http://www.tdf100.com/2012/06/phil-liggett-40-years-at-tour-de-france_27.html

Quote
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.

The fact that Phil may be an investor in the same mine as Lance is neither here nor there IMHO, there are many ways to buy influence and support, such as free meals, giving people lifts in your private jet, paid speaking engagements for Livestrong... ;)

Oh, and here's an interesting, albeit complex map of influence: http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBusinessConnectionsV2.pdf
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on August 30, 2012, 05:02:10 pm

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:

Check out the comments on tubeface:
"Phil Liggett you're a fucking embarassment. Retire.
Hearing you still trying to tow the party line in the hope that Lance gives you a reach-around is just pathetic."
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 30, 2012, 07:40:53 pm
^^^ Now there's some mental cinema best left on the cutting-room floor...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on August 31, 2012, 08:16:28 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 31, 2012, 08:42:45 am
What a load of bollocks
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: JT on August 31, 2012, 09:19:22 am
What a load of bollocks

+1

There's a staggering amount of denial around.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 31, 2012, 09:32:57 am
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.

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/
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on August 31, 2012, 10:39:59 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on August 31, 2012, 11:43:53 am
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.

 ???
The USADA (or more generally any ADA) is there for exactly that purpose - to all intents and purposes it is a court of law as far as operation of the sport is concerned. As a pro racer you're signing up to their (and other ADOs) jurisdiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency

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

As for Liggett's 'I know someone approached by the USADA being offered payment' - I think that needs putting into context against the alleged corruption in the UCI wrt LA and testing/test results. Plus there was this rather interesting incident:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-hotel-search-cancelled-in-2005.

So it wouldn't be exactly surprising if the supposed approachee had been offered money by someone (if at all), but not the USADA..

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: sg37409 on August 31, 2012, 12:00:33 pm
http://road.cc/content/news/64891-french-cycling-federation-says-it-views-lance-armstrongs-refusal-fight-charges

"It added that it hoped for the restitution by Armstrong of €2.95 million in prize money won at the Tour de France and other races, and that the money to be used to develop cycling at youth level and for anti-doping initiatives."

 ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on August 31, 2012, 12:25:05 pm
Time will tell.  But the USADA 'ruling' has certainly been ignored by all concerned to date.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Gareth Rees on August 31, 2012, 12:29:41 pm
Whatever USADA have to say on the matter is irrelevant unless tested in court.

Come on, keep up! Armstrong went to court arguing exactly this, and in his ruling (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B92CyI7iP9pqYjNRWURXZ3RIaEk), Judge Sparks said that USADA was in fact the proper tribunal to hear the evidence against him:

Quote from: Sam Sparks
Armstrong's due process claims fail as a matter of law, and must be dismissed.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on August 31, 2012, 01:04:51 pm
A little more on the evidence coming out at some point:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990

Time will tell.  But the USADA 'ruling' has certainly been ignored by all concerned to date.

err....what did I post above ?
Quote
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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on August 31, 2012, 01:28:13 pm
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.

Not too surprising, even though it was banned in the Olympics over a decade earlier. It is difficult to test for and gives almost a guaranteed performance improvement. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that only people from foreign countries dope. Smart, personable, talented, hardworking, English-speaking athletes dope too.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Manotea on August 31, 2012, 02:18:57 pm
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that only
Able bodied athletes dope.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-29/paralympian-boosting-cheats-under-the-spotlight/4230886?section=sport (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-29/paralympian-boosting-cheats-under-the-spotlight/4230886?section=sport)

It seems a universal constant to push boundaries to excess.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on August 31, 2012, 03:42:34 pm
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12763/Liggett-generates-controversy-with-claims-Armstrong-investigation-witnesses-were-bribed.aspx

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-united-states-of-omerta
(Gary Imlack seems to have a more measured view..)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 31, 2012, 03:55:36 pm
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 was thinking of the East German coaches who were scattered to the four winds when the DDR institutes were closed down. Charlie Walsh in Australia had studied in East Germany in the 80s and Heiko Salzwedel moved to Australia, then to the UK, after the fall of the Wall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiko_Salzwedel
Australian riders of that period describe a regime of 40,000 km a year but without the drugs, which crushed many ambitions. It is said that the Australians bought the East German training logs. The idea of the Australian Institute of Sport was modelled on East German practice, and inspired our performance programmes, even using ex DDR staff such as Salzwedel.
Heiko said some interesting things about the WADA rethink on Caffeine and Pseudoephedrine in 2003.

Quote
"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.
"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."

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2003/interviews/?id=heiko_salzwedel03

Heiko has moved onto the next new East Germany, which is Russia, where the model of a ProTour team meshing with a national team is being followed, RT had a video report in March.
http://rt.com/sport/rusvelo-cycling-russia-salzwedel-kupfernagel-romanyuta-669/

The only impact so far were the Bronze medals for Olga Zabelinskaya in the TT and the Road Race.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on August 31, 2012, 06:52:44 pm
News outlets are starting to unleash juicy snippets from their preview copies of Tyler Hamilton's book:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8321135/book-former-lance-armstrong-teammate-friend-turns-banal-very-ugly
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/tyler-hamiltons-book-reveals-in-depth-doping-network
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/Keyes-hamilton-the-secret-race.html?168178276

Whilst all three articles do overlap, each one has different revelations contained therein. And if anyone thinks that the book is a tissue of lies from a disgraced former team mate of Armstrong's with an exe to grind, think again...

Quote from: Christopher Keyes, Outside Online magazine
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.



EDITED - removed link to CNews omerta story (already posted upthread), added extra Tyler Hamilton book-related links.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on August 31, 2012, 07:18:58 pm
A little more on the evidence coming out at some point:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990

Time will tell.  But the USADA 'ruling' has certainly been ignored by all concerned to date.

err....what did I post above ?
Quote
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

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on August 31, 2012, 07:41:16 pm
Does FCF have any power? Do they run anything?

Are the UCI and/or ASO actually "in charge"?

IAMFI!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Honest John on September 01, 2012, 11:02:20 am
Sorry, guys and gals, but I am beginning to wonder why we're banging on about an unpleasant has-been who may or may not have doped while there are not one (http://www.lavuelta.com/indexen.html?e=14) but two (http://www.letour.fr/us/homepage_horscourseWPC.html) very interesting bicycle races going on, which would still be interesting if some of the riders were demonstrated to have doped.

I don't watch cycling for the doping gossip. I watch it to see clever tactics, battles against the elements and struggles between riders.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on September 01, 2012, 11:05:10 am
I understand your point HJ but this is a forum not a TV screen!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Honest John on September 01, 2012, 11:12:30 am
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.

Vuelta - hardly any discussion, despite it being far more interesting this year than most previous editions;
World Ports Classic - newish race that has attracted all the big names among the Big Lads of northern European racing.

Are people who visit "Racing" actually interested in racing, or just in slagging off one L Armstrong (not that he doesn't thoroughly deserve a slagging-off, but not for doping)?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on September 01, 2012, 11:50:57 am
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.

I agree the Vuelta is very good, this year!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Honest John on September 01, 2012, 12:20:52 pm
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on September 01, 2012, 12:38:55 pm
What is there to say about the Vuelta ?  Yes it's been very good and I'm enjoying watching it.  Now, back to the witch-hunt being waged against Armstrong...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ewan Houzami on September 01, 2012, 01:41:00 pm
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 also found it sad that Cummings' win didn't attract even one comment of congratulations on the Vuelta thread (including from me), as we've been so spoiled by Sky and Team GB's  recent successes. 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. Funnily enough newspapers seemed to have latched on to this a long time ago.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Honest John on September 01, 2012, 02:49:19 pm
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 01, 2012, 02:55:18 pm
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 was 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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Honest John on September 01, 2012, 03:00:02 pm
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.

I monitor some of the UK media for cycling coverage.

Often, even when a UK rider has done well, they give greater prominence to cycling doping stories, even when the alleged doper isn't British or isn't well-known. However, they rarely mention the vast amount of doping that goes on in other sports, not to mention the match-fixing, diving, arguing with the ref, drunkenness, sexual misbehaviour and recreational drug-taking that is commonplace in most games.

Why do we want to add to this prejudice against people who ride bikes for a living?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Honest John on September 01, 2012, 03:15:23 pm
Then there's the violence, verbal abuse, pettiness, prima-donna posing and general behaviour in the manner of a big girl's blouse (including among the girls in some sports) that you don't see in cycling.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on September 01, 2012, 03:21:37 pm
The mass media coverage can be annoying.

But most posters here are actually fans of the sport! (You do start to wonder about a few sometimes, but I'll give them the BoftheD ...) You don't get many posts like:
"More doping offences! Aaargh - sod this, I'm off to watch Champions league ... "

The fans would just prefer a clean sport. this may be impossible, but their intentions are good.

And as long as the doping talk stays (mainly) out of the other racing threads, I'm happy  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 01, 2012, 03:25:35 pm
We discuss dopers in cycling because it is a big part of the whole picture. In LA's case, it points out major structural problems with the culture and administration of the sport. Just because other sports don't look at the whole picture isn't a good reason to turn a blind eye to it here.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: vorsprung on September 01, 2012, 04:01:19 pm
All the stuff about LA's dopeage is in this thread.  If you aren't interested, don't read it!

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Honest John on September 01, 2012, 05:07:21 pm
But most posters here are actually fans of the sport! (You do start to wonder about a few sometimes

As do I. I've been following pro cycling since about 1984, so nothing surprises me.

Quote
And 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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on September 01, 2012, 05:13:44 pm
Quote
And 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?
You could probably achieve the same effect by putting LWAB on Ignore.


I'm not suggesting anyone do this!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 01, 2012, 05:38:43 pm
Please feel free.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: sg37409 on September 01, 2012, 08:25:43 pm
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.


I think the "pretty meaningless" is missing the point by miles. The UCI have a lot to answer, and needs "root and branch" surgery to quote another. I think this could be the most important thing in cycling racing since I've been watching it.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on September 01, 2012, 11:56:37 pm
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!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: RJ on September 02, 2012, 12:07:04 am
Oh, and here's an interesting, albeit complex map of influence: http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBusinessConnectionsV2.pdf

What a tangled web we weave ...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on September 02, 2012, 12:24:04 am
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!

It's worth re-reading this thread right from the start - in a way, the current fun and games starts on page 3 (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=44116.msg865491#msg865491) (February/May 2011), the thread necromancy sparked by the USADA charging letter is on page 12 (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=44116.msg1250776#msg1250776) (June 13, 2012). 24 pages in just under 11 weeks* makes this thread, post-necro, only 9% more active than the La Vuelta thread, so it hardly counts as "obsessive" - not when the equivalent threads elsewhere are already at least 100 pages long.  ;D


* By way of a comparison, this year's TdF thread notched up 75 pages in just 7 weeks - that's nearly 5 times as active as this thread, post-necro.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on September 02, 2012, 02:43:21 am
Oh, and here's an interesting, albeit complex map of influence: http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBusinessConnectionsV2.pdf

What a tangled web we weave ...

It's interesting to note that Phil Liggett is a regular paid speaker for Livestrong.  That would explain his recent support for Armstrong.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on September 02, 2012, 06:47:11 pm
A little more on the evidence coming out at some point:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990

Time will tell.  But the USADA 'ruling' has certainly been ignored by all concerned to date.

err....what did I post above ?
Quote
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

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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on September 02, 2012, 07:11:04 pm
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.

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/
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 says
Quote
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.

An obvious difference is that here we are allowed to cast aspersions at our own national teams and even question their existence.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on September 02, 2012, 07:54:27 pm
A little more on the evidence coming out at some point:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990

Time will tell.  But the USADA 'ruling' has certainly been ignored by all concerned to date.

err....what did I post above ?
Quote
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

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

But he's not wanting to race in France. 
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Biff on September 02, 2012, 09:58:38 pm
If this is true, its not getting any better (for Lance anyhoo)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-usada-in-possession-of-positive-armstrong-samples
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on September 02, 2012, 10:02:38 pm
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

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 02, 2012, 10:14:30 pm
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.

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/
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 says
Quote
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.

An obvious difference is that here we are allowed to cast aspersions at our own national teams and even question their existence.

I'd be interested in a Polish perpective on the appointment of Haiko Salzwedel to run Rusvelo, the Russian equivalent of British Cycling. Obviously his experience with the Australian and British teams is a good recommendation, but is it easier for a German with experience in the DDR period to deal with the Russians?
http://rt.com/sport/rusvelo-cycling-russia-salzwedel-kupfernagel-romanyuta-669/
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: DaveJ on September 02, 2012, 10:45:50 pm
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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Biff on September 02, 2012, 11:14:00 pm
David Walsh on Liggett in today's ST

http://freetexthost.com/g35tjktvau
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on September 02, 2012, 11:16:02 pm
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

<Manuel> Que? </Manuel>  ???

And if you mean this comment from Honest John, how many stages behind are you?  ;D

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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 03, 2012, 12:46:59 am
I quite like the party political dimension to the Lance story. To the cycling enthusiasts of the college towns of the USA Lance is a man who comes from his base in Austin Texas to steal the Tour de France by nefarious means in 1999. Meanwhile, George W Bush comes from Austin Texas in 1999 to steal the Presidency by nefarious means.
George W can't be impeached, he's long gone, but Lance can be impeached. It harms US cycling, but so what, the man supported Bush.
The David Walsh story is interesting.
David Walsh on Liggett in today's ST

http://freetexthost.com/g35tjktvau

We can't link to the article itself, because it's behind a paywall. So it's unclear if the arms length link is out of distaste, as in Daily Mail linking, or because we can't access it by other means. At some point I'd expect the YACF attitude to shift to the idea that Murdoch bought the Tour de France to soften his profile in the Olympic year, following a lot of negative press, using talent which was developed using lottery and Sports Council funding, along the lines of the outrage at Lance using public money from the US Postal Service for his early victories.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on September 04, 2012, 01:29:17 pm
Quelle surprise!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9518947/Lance-Armstrong-book-to-be-amended-for-UK.html

I can't help thinking it's a bit pointless, because the juicy bits from the unexpurgated Leftpondian edition of Hamilton's book will be all over the interwebs by the time the UK edition hits the shops, or someone will have scanned the entire book and posted it to scribd.com. And there's no reason to stop someone in the UK from ordering the book from the States.  ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on September 04, 2012, 05:57:04 pm
Slightly off-topic, but there's an interesting story over on Cycling News about Jörg Jaksche, who was popped as a result of the Operation Puerto inquiry. I've linked to it here, rather than opening a fresh doping-related thread, because Jaksche's comments about the UCI's response to his full disclosure add further weight to the argument that the UCI needs major reform in the wake of the Armstrong affair.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/jorg-jaksche-doping-hypocrisy-and-a-dog-called-bella

Quote
“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.”

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on September 07, 2012, 10:26:03 pm
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

And now for the latest from Pat "U-Turn" McQuaid:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-may-not-appeal-lance-armstrong-ban

Apparently, the UCI aren't going to appeal to the CAS over jurisdiction, but Fat Pat is still demanding that USADA hand over the complete case file. The last bit of the article is interesting...

Quote
[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.

A cynical translation might be "if Armstrong's going under the bus, we're going to make damn sure the witnesses for the prosecution join him there, too."
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mr magnolia on September 08, 2012, 08:19:29 am
I think the UCI may be screwed, long term, by this affair.
They need to wake up, form a newCo and start again. Clean.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 08, 2012, 09:35:51 am
That will take concerted effort by the majority of cycling federations. That might happen if there are legal charges laid against enough UCI officials, otherwise the corruption will continue to fester.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on September 08, 2012, 12:59:41 pm
http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=42552.msg823886#msg823886

I agree!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on September 08, 2012, 07:00:24 pm
And now... http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-introduce-doping-amnesty

Some kind of amnesty in return for disclosure is somewhat different from truth-and-reconciliation, as talked about by Dick Pound or Jonathan Vaughters, and it's worth noting that if a cycling T&R process is to resemble, say, the South African one, sanctions - even if reduced - would have to be applied across the board where applicable, not just against current and ex-riders who have confessed/been outed before and if the UCI agrees to an amnesty. And as someone commented elsewhere, should the teams be considering granting the UCI an amnesty, given their alleged role in covering Armstrong's doping, among others'?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 12, 2012, 09:59:40 am
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/
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 12, 2012, 11:40:19 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on September 12, 2012, 12:03:51 pm
Reading Hamilton's book, there's a lot of stuff I'm wary of taking at face value but much of it rings true. He doesn't come out of the book looking great himself - Coyle's footnotes provide context that casts doubt on some of Hamilton's claims.

This interview with Daniel Coyle is interesting...
http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2012/09/11/daniel-coyle-interview-on-writing-the-secret-race-tyler-hamilton-and-lance-armstrongs-legacy/

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 12, 2012, 12:11:34 pm

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. It's a good way for people to build up resistance to Paxman style grillings out of the public eye. It's quite revealing in a 'Would you buy a used car from this man' way. Lance has essentially put himself before the court of public opinion, so interviews like this serve as a cross examination to establish the reliability of the witnesses.
I'd like to see Vaughters do one, and Lance obviously.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on September 12, 2012, 12:15:35 pm
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on September 12, 2012, 12:20:16 pm
That's what Hardtalk interviews are like.

Doesn't reflect well on the BBC.

Quote
I'd like to see Vaughters do one, and Lance obviously.

Lance would trample all over an interviewer like that idiot.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 12, 2012, 12:26:04 pm
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?

Quote
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.

http://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/olympics/bbc-appoints-war-correspondent-to-cover-sports-news/


Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on September 12, 2012, 12:29:51 pm
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? ]
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TimC on September 12, 2012, 12:34:35 pm
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.

I wasn't impressed with Hamilton OR Tim Franks! The satcom delay was irritating and destroyed the flow of the interview, but it did seem to me that Hamilton was unconvincing and Franks failed to nail him down on some of the important stuff. I'm not saying he's not telling the truth, but what he said is insufficient (I would have thought) to support charges in a legal scenario. However, Hamilton has never been a great communicator and has always had something of the stoned hippy about him - he reminds me very much of my eldest's inability to actually put what he's thinking into words!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on September 12, 2012, 12:42:04 pm
A chap I knew at uni worked as a war correspondent in Afghanistan. He's a first-rate news reporter. I wouldn't ever let him anywhere near sport though.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 12, 2012, 12:57:00 pm
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? ]

Franks was in Washington at the time of 9/11. and subsequently in Iraq and the Middle East.
Armstrong was an inspiration to the US at that time. The US was determined to prevail at all costs, and those costs included the results of soldiers carrying out patrols while hyped up on medication to counter sleep deprivation. Armstrong is to a certain extent identified with the Bush doctrine, and this has persisted. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/04/29/george-w-bush-lance-armstrong-lead-afghanistan-iraq-veterans-in-texas-ride.html

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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on September 12, 2012, 01:40:45 pm
His hair.  That is good hair for a sportsman.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 12, 2012, 01:57:36 pm
His hair.  That is good hair for a sportsman.

Yeah, my Mother insists that wearing a motorbike helmet made me bald. The helmet companies should sign him up. Maybe EPO helps, although Riis suggests otherwise.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on September 12, 2012, 02:11:51 pm
Pantani likewise, though I suspect there was more than EPO involved!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 12, 2012, 02:33:56 pm
There's room for a whole thread about pro's hair. Evidence of doping persists in hair, which is why the whole Festina team bleached theirs blonde in 1998. US Postal or Motorola all shaved their heads in one Tour, what year was it?
The Italians usually had good hair, especially Cippolini, Bugno and Poli.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on September 12, 2012, 03:15:33 pm
Blimey, I'm learning stuff all the time - never knew about that Festina ruse!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 12, 2012, 03:50:42 pm
Pantani's entire team had their hair dyed Blonde in 1998, ostensibly to match the Yellow jersey, but eyebrows were raised at the time. Later on there was a tendency to dye the hair back to a natural colour, giving the key riders a Grecian 2000 look.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vhIrN0aCszw/TLQHpGFJfxI/AAAAAAAAAOY/ADL5AmxBmE0/s1600/marco_pantani.jpg)

Bobby Julich came third in the Tour in 1998, he also came third in the 2004 Olympic TT, but he's now moved up to Silver following Hamilton's admission of doping, note Hamilton's hair in this shot. Julich is the second US winner of the Tour if you discount Pantani and Ullrich from the 1998 podium.

(http://cdn1.media.cyclingnews.futurecdn.net/2012/06/06/2/000_par2004081886282_600.jpg)

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on September 13, 2012, 12:49:36 am
Unless they had been overdoing the Pot Belge in between races, the Festina squad would have been wasting their time:

Quote from: Trimega Labs
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).

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 13, 2012, 01:30:32 am
Unless they had been overdoing the Pot Belge in between races, the Festina squad would have been wasting their time:

Quote from: Trimega Labs
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).

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.

How closely did you follow the 1998 Tour Spesh?
I was probably at my keenest about then, riding an Audax SR series, two 10 mile time trials a week, open TTs, including my first 24 hour, and finishing the season with a LEJOG surrounding my 40th birthday. I read Cycling Weekly and Cycle Sport from cover to cover and the coverage in the Guardian every day, although I only bought my first computer in 1999, the year I first rode the Paris Brest Paris.

Colour me sceptical about your views. After all, Lance is being condemned by an organisation that didn't exist when he won his first Tour, on the the basis of a test that didn't exist when he gave the sample.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on September 13, 2012, 12:33:13 pm
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?

Armstrong doped, there's no two ways about that. Tyler's testimony doesn't tell us anything we don't already know in general terms, it just fleshes the story out with names, dates and places. You can either believe him or disbelieve him, that's up to you. Fwiw, I believe most of what's in the book, though I'm slightly wary of accepting it entirely at face value because it's clearly written in a way to make you feel sympathy towards Tyler (much like David Millar's book). Coyle says there's lots of stuff that got left out of the book because he couldn't corroborate it. Most of what Tyler says tallies with what other former team-mates and associates of Lance have said. Are they all lying? Is this really some massive anti-Lance conspiracy? Was he really the only one riding clean and convincingly beating all these dopers? Or is that argument just as ridiculous as it sounds?

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 13, 2012, 08:32:21 pm
I ask myself what it is that I want from the Tour. Mainly it's to sit down to watch the highlights show in the summer, with the predictable rythym of the race schedules, marvelling at the shots the cameramen come up with, and trying to get the department numbers before they come up on the screen. It's about knowing enough background to be able to poo-poo, (Or should that be Poupou)  the commentary in front of your mates, when the commentary is only supposed to be inclusive to a general audience anyway. It's about inferring character from a grimace or a flick of the elbow. I've never felt it was fixed like television wrestling, but it's obviously not 'Chariots of Fire'.
It's corrupt, and the race often goes to those with the sharpest elbows and the biggest ego, but that's a lot like life. I look at Hamilton and I ask why he was never a contender. He rode as fast as Armstrong, a Gold medal in the 2004 TT proved that. It's down to the character faults we see in the Hardtalk interview, which reminded me of the thwarted character in a gangster movie who ends up in cement boots at the bottom of the Hudson River, when he's squealed to the Feds, and then been hung out to dry. These long form interviews are actually extending the pleasure I get from the Tour, rather than detracting from a Corinthian ideal which I've neither expected nor demanded from three weeks in July.

It's up to me how I consume the dish that the ASO puts before me, and I'm minded to think that too many cooks spoil the broth.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on September 20, 2012, 11:59:33 am
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/
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on September 20, 2012, 12:31:43 pm
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/

Ta.  :thumbsup:

Most of what's in that list has already been discussed, in varying degrees of detail, elsewhere, underscoring what I'd said earlier about there not really being much point in redacting bits of a book for a given market.

The "Motoman" angle is something that has generated a lot of traffic in the last week, though as Cervelo co-founder Gerard Vroomen notes, some people have been making a little too much of the pictures of Philippe Maire with ex- and current riders that have been circulated across the interwebs.

http://gerard.cc/2012/09/17/motoman-madness/
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on September 24, 2012, 03:35:52 pm
Today's L'Equipe contains an interview with Travis Tygart, which someone has translated - syntax-wise, some of it does look like a Google translation, but you should get the gist:

Quote
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.

 :o

At best, it's probably deranged Armstrong fanboys, but if the Feds discover any of the threats come from the "inner circle", that would be seismic.

Quote
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.

So the USADA dossier lands in Aigle this week. It's implied elsewhere that all the evidence will be in the public domain by the end of the year. The intro to the L'Equipe interview states that the damage to Armstrong will be thirty times worse than anything that's come out thus far.

Quote
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.

What's the betting that Bruyneel changes his mind about arbitration at the last minute?  :demon:

Quote
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.

http://tourdejose.com/2012/09/24/transcript-of-travis-tygarts-interview-with-lequipe/#more-1712

Also summarised at Cycling News. The translations in the CN piece are subtly different, but the gist is the same:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tygart-received-death-threats-during-usadas-armstrong-investigation
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: sg37409 on September 28, 2012, 12:37:48 pm
Its all building up nicely. This time its UCI on the offensive.  I hoep the showdown between these 2 doesnt disappoint.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-questions-usada-on-armstrong-file-delay (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-questions-usada-on-armstrong-file-delay)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on September 28, 2012, 01:03:15 pm
Unless I'm misreading between the lines, it really is all about the UCI
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: tom_e on September 28, 2012, 01:56:18 pm
It does look a bit weird.  The courts already decided it was USADA's authority, USADA put together a case, Armstrong declined to defend himself, and thus the legal decision goes one way, as far as I can tell.  Either the UCI really doesn't understand the rules or they're just posturing for PR?  Either way it looks really bad, as it appears to be giving up any pretence of being a dignified governing body which should in principle be neutral to the question of deciding one athlete's drug status.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 28, 2012, 03:33:28 pm
The UCI are next in the firing line and want to strengthen their position.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on September 28, 2012, 04:12:30 pm
Absolutely.

It's from the Team Armstrong book of tactics of trying to discredit your accusers.

The UCI already look totally shit for failing to do the job that USADA is doing.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on September 28, 2012, 08:28:36 pm
Retweeted by Not Pat McQuaid (UCI_Overlord) (http://twitter.com/UCI_Overlord)

Quote
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."

 ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on September 30, 2012, 06:38:53 pm
Today's Cycling News report on David Walsh's latest piece in the Sunday Times (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrongs-ex-wife-involved-in-doping-scheme) underlines some stuff in the Hamilton book about the complicity of the USPS WAGs*. Walsh's report is behind the Murdoch pay-wall, chiz, but someone's posted the text in a comment on NY Velocity's page on the Kimmage defence fund.  :demon:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/paul-kimmage-defense-fund#comment-106569

Turns out that Kristen Armstrong wasn't just aware of what was going on, but was dealing. Which begs questions about Sheryl Crow, who was in a relationship with LA from 2003 to 2006...

Quote
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.

And whilst the USADA didn't receive any of the non-Grand Jury evidence from the FDA investigation, in a way, the Feds made sure that those who were testifying to USADA were being on the level.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Biff on September 30, 2012, 06:55:27 pm
* With the honourable exception of Betsy Andreu.
How I admire that woman. Balls of steel.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: DrMekon on September 30, 2012, 07:20:03 pm
Put $10 in the kimmage defence fund on the basis that it might lead to more cycling enjoyment than a £7 trinket for the bike.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on September 30, 2012, 07:22:33 pm
Methinketh his costs will be awarded to him  ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on September 30, 2012, 09:17:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Biff on October 01, 2012, 12:24:59 am
I guess 'boy butter' had a rather different meaning chez Armstrong.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Toady on October 01, 2012, 12:45:10 pm
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.

Oh, sorry, dear.  Is that what it was?  I thought the milk was a bit off.  Still, at least my haematocrit levels will be OK.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 03, 2012, 03:36:53 pm
I don't really know what to say about this. It's just astonishing...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/108847964/Judgment-Floyd-Landis-En
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: eck on October 03, 2012, 04:24:49 pm

Nah, it's a spoof:
Quote
... 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...

Isn't it?  ???
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 03, 2012, 04:42:51 pm
Nope, it's real. The comedy is entirely unintentional.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 03, 2012, 04:43:29 pm
Not according to Cycling News: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-court-finds-in-ucis-favour-in-landis-defamation-case

Actually, that's a tad unfair to compare PM and HV to the late Libyan Dictator. Goodness knows what Gaddafi had done to merit such vile calumny.


;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 03, 2012, 04:53:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Toady on October 03, 2012, 04:59:28 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 03, 2012, 05:10:50 pm
I don't think Floyd will care.

It's a Phyrric victory for the goons McQuid and Verboten
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 03, 2012, 06:05:31 pm
From  http://twitter.com/Doctor_Hutch

Quote
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.

 ;D

As for corruption, Lionel Birnie's been pointing out a few of the UCI's conflicts of interest today: http://twitter.com/lioneljbirnie  :demon:
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 03, 2012, 06:55:02 pm
Lionel Birnie has been on top form this afternoon.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on October 03, 2012, 07:05:34 pm
That judgment is just mad.

Mind you, so's Landis, and, whatever I think of the UCI, I do wish he'd shut his ignorant gob.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 03, 2012, 07:25:38 pm
I think he's brilliant
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 04, 2012, 12:45:43 am
http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/10/uci-reveals-words-rejected-in-judgement-against-landis/

 ;D :demon: ;D

There may be a small trace of satire lurking somewhere in the linked story.
Title: Re: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mr magnolia on October 04, 2012, 06:54:18 am
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.

I'm looking forward to the tee shirt, although I suspect I'll be forbidden to wear it chez magnolia!
Title: Re: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Somnolent on October 04, 2012, 11:31:36 am
Good take on it here: http://inrng.com/2012/10/uci-are-not-terrorists/

I particularly enjoyed
Quote

 if it’s forbidden to say McQuaid and Verbruggen are full of shit, should we deduce they regularly use colonic irrigation?

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 04, 2012, 02:14:55 pm
It turns out that the UCI tried to silence Greg LeMond after he had cast nasturtiums about the dice-loading terrorist ass-clowns them w.r.t. the Vrijman report and Operation Puerto - only his lawyers successfully told the terminally constipated Gadaffi emulators the UCI where they could get off. The quoted extract from the reply fired back to the UCI is a doozy. ;D

Quote
“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.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-failure-to-silence-lemond
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Somnolent on October 04, 2012, 03:40:43 pm
This is just WRONG !
On so many levels.
http://instagram.com/p/QNazrCHCO8/
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: alexb on October 04, 2012, 06:17:20 pm
I vote we lobby Trek to reissue the LeMond brand of bikes.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 05, 2012, 12:30:22 pm
Dick Pound interview on VeloNation - worth reading:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12997/Richard-Pound-Interview-The-Kimmage-case-Armstrong-the-governance-of-cycling-and-more.aspx
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on October 05, 2012, 12:54:11 pm
I've lost track. 

1. 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?

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?

3. Many of the witnesses are supposedly current pros.  Is it expected that they will be sanctioned by UCI?   Why not USADA?

4. Bruyneel and others of the 10 investigated by USADA have challenged the charges and the case will be going to CAS, I think.  When does that happen?  Has it started?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 05, 2012, 01:13:55 pm
It will all come out by the end of the year, when all the outstanding cases are concluded. Bruyneel will almost certainly conduct a volte face and at the last minute decline to defend.

The UCI have tried various ways to undermine this case, because, when all is said and done, it is really about them.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 05, 2012, 01:15:30 pm
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?

AIUI, the UCI are signed up to WADA and if WADA accept the USADA's case then the UCI have no choice but to strip Lance of his titles.

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 05, 2012, 01:17:51 pm
The UCI have tried various ways to undermine this case, because, when all is said and done, it is really about them.

I think it always was about the UCI all along. Lance may like to think that it was a witch hunt against him personally, but it seems to me that the USADA always had its sights set on the bigger target. Lance was just a stepping stone.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on October 05, 2012, 08:08:58 pm

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.

They have.

Quote
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.

http://www.usantidoping.org/media/sanction-armstrong8242012
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 05, 2012, 08:38:53 pm
Yes, it's a simple statement of fact.

d.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mzjo on October 05, 2012, 10:23:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 05, 2012, 11:23:51 pm
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.

Not so much WADA, but the bodies that have adopted the WADA code can apply sanctions. See:

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-Organizations/The-Code/QA-on-the-Code/

Quote
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.

A check through the list of WADA code signatories (link below) doesn't seem to include the WHPVA, so I think we can discount the idea if the pro peloton being made to ride recumbents. In any case, I'm not sure that the WHPVA would be willing to be, or capable of, taking on the administration of all cycle sport, on top of a niche group that revels in its eccentricity.  :demon:

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-Organizations/The-Code/Code-Acceptance/

If the UCI were to be ejected from the Olympics, it's more likely that there may be some kind of palace coup, or a revolt by a number of national federations. But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 06, 2012, 07:18:10 am
Given that the IOC are even more corrupt than the UCI, I doubt they'll want to risk rocking the boat too much.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ian H on October 06, 2012, 09:34:38 am
Given that the IOC are even more corrupt than the UCI, I doubt they'll want to risk rocking the boat too much.

d.

Are there any international governing bodies of sports that aren't corrupt?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on October 06, 2012, 12:25:26 pm
There is a question of degrees of corruption though.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on October 07, 2012, 10:22:46 am
Maybe there are even degrees IN corruption?  Available (for a consideration) from a university of your choice.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 08, 2012, 09:16:41 am
Yes, they're called "Business Studies"  ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on October 10, 2012, 12:54:01 pm
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?

A possible answer to my own question:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 10, 2012, 01:03:17 pm
Thousands of pages?  :o

That's an awful lot of evidence.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 10, 2012, 04:57:44 pm
Now the fun begins...

Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Zabriskie, Danielson, Barry and Hincapie have been suspended, though given that Hincapie and Barry are retiring at the end of the season, that's neither here nor there, and the others may well get back-dated suspensions, which means that they may be free to resume racing come the start of next season:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/six-former-armstrong-usps-teammates-receive-bans-from-usada

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/george-hincapie-admits-doping?page=0,1

And testimony from ex-team-mates isn't even the half of it - money talks, in many ways:

Quote
... 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".

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usadas-reasoned-decision-on-lance-armstrong-follows-the-money-trail

http://www.usada.org/cyclinginvestigationstatement.html
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 10, 2012, 05:07:19 pm
"You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the fuck it's gonna take you." - Lester Freamon
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 10, 2012, 05:09:16 pm
http://www.usantidoping.org/

Watch that site for the 100 page précis to be released later on today (us time)

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.

I think they're very fucked.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 10, 2012, 05:16:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 10, 2012, 05:18:09 pm
Also, it'll be very interesting to see what happens to Bruyneel now.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 10, 2012, 05:19:26 pm
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.

Judging by the calibre of the last offerings from Armstrong's lawyers, he's probably stopped paying them.  ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 10, 2012, 05:21:35 pm
I think Bruyneel was stalling for time, in the hope of a procedural  hiccup in the case. He won't defend, and he'll be out of cycling forever.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 10, 2012, 05:24:59 pm
Now, yer average Livestrong band-wearer may not give a hoot about the doping allegations, but if you want to get an American all riled up, just mention misuse of tax dollars... :demon:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 10, 2012, 05:27:18 pm
McQuaid and Verbruggen must be shitting themselves now - if the money trail leads directly to their door...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 10, 2012, 05:33:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 10, 2012, 06:21:16 pm
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).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on October 10, 2012, 06:27:33 pm
In the comments:

Quote
For you to say that you're innocent is a stretch, Armstrong.

 ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 10, 2012, 06:58:29 pm
So far, open confessions from Barry and Hincapie. Implied confessions from the others.

'Move on' from Armstrong  ;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 10, 2012, 07:14:19 pm
I would very much like to see some non-USPS riders now coming forward and making a full confession. Whether or not the UCI set up a truth and reconciliation committee.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 10, 2012, 09:22:48 pm
Statements from the Garmin-Sharp riders:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13038/Garmin-Sharp-and-its-riders-comment-on-their-parts-in-USADA-investigation.aspx

Leipheimer statement:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13039/Levi-Leipheimer-accepts-his-part-in-the-dirty-past-of-cycling.aspx
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 11, 2012, 02:38:46 am
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).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on October 11, 2012, 07:43:52 am
There was quite a bit about This Business on the radio just now. On 6Music!

Perhaps I should start paying attention, it sounds important.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rafletcher on October 11, 2012, 08:15:25 am
It wa even mentioend on the Today programme.
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 11, 2012, 08:33:34 am
Quite a lot of coverage on Five Live this morning.

Judging by the listener comments they read out, there are still plenty of diehard fanboys who refuse to accept simple facts writ large in black and white. Astonishing.

Mind you, most of the comments seemed to be along the "most tested" and "level playing field" kind, so they clearly haven't read the report.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mr magnolia on October 11, 2012, 08:36:07 am
feck me. What a poisonous pile of doodoo.  startling stuff, even after all thats been discussed.
is it survival of a near-death experience that means that all is fair in what you do thereafter? Or was he always a gangster?
or are they all gangsters?
can't wait to see the tennis player, football, waterpolo, athletics etc fallout.

as if....
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on October 11, 2012, 08:57:49 am
Has Phil “The Voice of Cycling” Liggett made a statement yet?   Is he sticking to his “the fact remains there is no evidence” defence of his friend?

And will there be pressure to get an explanation of why the federal fraud case was dropped?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Toady on October 11, 2012, 09:04:27 am
Is this all a cunning publicity setup for Armstrong's new book?  "You got me guvnor, bang to rights"
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clifftaylor on October 11, 2012, 09:05:02 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Toady on October 11, 2012, 09:07:47 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 11, 2012, 09:09:50 am
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 just goes to show the courage of USADA in making this stick - and of those coming forward to break the omerta.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: sg37409 on October 11, 2012, 09:18:17 am
It just goes to show the courage of USADA in making this stick

Totally agree with the courage and tenacity of USADA.  They must have come under a ton of pressure on this.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Andrew on October 11, 2012, 09:22:01 am
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.

He perhaps does. But, in fairness,  I think there was more to it than that. I've no doubt the was a political side to the decision,  but I don't think Armstrong was responsible for having it shut down.

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.

Whether the climate will have changed sufficiently now to make a conviction more likely, I don't know but it would not surprise me to see the federal case re-opened.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 11, 2012, 09:22:33 am
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.)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 11, 2012, 09:23:05 am

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*
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Wascally Weasel on October 11, 2012, 09:24:58 am
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"?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Andrew on October 11, 2012, 09:26:38 am

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*

 ;D but I didn't say it was MY view! I only acknowledged the possibility ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: JT on October 11, 2012, 09:28:13 am
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 UCI haven't suspended anyone have they? It's down to the riders' local federation.

And I presume that Bruyneel hasn't been banned/suspended yet because he's going to challenge the decision. I don't believe he will go through with it unless he's going to go down in a blaze of glory, taking as many people with him as possible.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LEE on October 11, 2012, 09:30:01 am
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...."

Edit: What a sick bunch they all are, it sounds like modern day vampires, sitting in rented French houses, transfusing stored blood in the dark.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Regulator on October 11, 2012, 09:30:20 am
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.

That's true of most of the sporting governing bodies, from the FIA to the FA...  those who have regulatory function tend to fail to exercise them consistently.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Regulator on October 11, 2012, 09:32:20 am
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).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LEE on October 11, 2012, 09:36:36 am

It also contain reference to statements made directly by Armstrong.

And hearsay is not automatically irrelevant or inadmissable (a common misconception).

Which bits of that text would be admissible as proof that Lance was doping?

Edit. I mean which statements by Lance could be used?  He doesn't seem to state very much.

Yes, there's lots of "by that I took him to mean..." but surely this is where the defence lawyer screams "conjecture m'lud" and the judge starts furiously banging his gavel (based entirely on "Crown Court" from the 1970's)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on October 11, 2012, 09:41:06 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TimC on October 11, 2012, 09:41:45 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on October 11, 2012, 09:44:04 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TimC on October 11, 2012, 09:44:17 am
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.

Reading the Times this morning, 'beyond reasonable doubt' is exactly the phrase which USADA use. I am also a little confused by whether this raft of third-party evidence would be sufficient to prove the case to that standard in a court of law, but I have to say there is little sympathy left for LA in any quarter.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TimC on October 11, 2012, 09:45:57 am
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.

Ok, I'll do that. I hadn't heard that particular theory. Nevertheless, that investigation was purely about the potential misuse of public money, and was explicitly not about deciding whether LA was guilty of doping.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LEE on October 11, 2012, 09:48:45 am
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"
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 11, 2012, 10:00:56 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Toady on October 11, 2012, 10:23:05 am
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"?
"It's mostly about the drugs, but some of it's about the transfusions".

Snappy title, eh?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LEE on October 11, 2012, 10:33:37 am
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.

That's not my point.  I don't doubt he was doping any more.

I was questioning the usefulness of Leipheimer's testimony, it really says nothing about Lance worth a damn.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 11, 2012, 10:36:55 am
Yes it does, it adds to the accusations that Armstrong coerced people into taking drugs and also to not reveal evidence against him.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Bledlow on October 11, 2012, 10:58:49 am
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.
Beer & chilli peanuts for me. The peanuts are much better for throwing than popcorn.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Octave on October 11, 2012, 11:08:46 am
LIVESTRONG
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on October 11, 2012, 11:12:55 am
Stronger living through chemistry.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 11, 2012, 12:32:31 pm
I bet Phil Ligget isn't answering his phone today.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 11, 2012, 12:40:14 pm
I bet Phil Ligget isn't answering his phone today.

I bet a lot of people aren't answering their phones today.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: fuzzy (retd.) AAGE on October 11, 2012, 01:05:04 pm
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"?
"It's mostly about the drugs, but some of it's about the transfusions".

Snappy title, eh?

he has already used the correct title.

'Its not about the bike' is spot on, just needs a bit of a rewrite.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 11, 2012, 01:15:27 pm
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Thor on October 11, 2012, 01:23:25 pm
Lance Armstrong launches ‘Livestrong’ yellow rubber tourniquet (http://newsthump.com/2012/10/11/lance-armstrong-launches-livestrong-yellow-rubber-tourniquet/)  :D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Mrs Pingu on October 11, 2012, 01:28:03 pm
I'm somewhat shocked by the part where the report says that a doping tester was left waiting for 20 mins and he ignored requests to stay within an area that permitted observation. Why was that not an immediate fail? Bloody pointless administering the tests at all in that case.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Andrew on October 11, 2012, 01:29:09 pm
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?

My take - the former that has inevitably led to the latter.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 11, 2012, 01:44:04 pm
Stronger living through chemistry.

DuPont's Slogan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Living_Through_Chemistry
Lance won the Tour DuPont in 1995 and 1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_DuPont
Lycra was originally a DuPont trade name.
http://www2.dupont.com/Phoenix_Heritage/en_US/1962_b_detail.html
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 11, 2012, 01:45:27 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165

Quote
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."

Quote
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.

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 11, 2012, 01:50:00 pm
Michael Barry was a doper who later rode for Sky, and shadowed Wiggins in his 2010 Tour de France.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9600836/Lance-Armstrongs-former-team-mate-Michael-Barry-we-felt-pressure-to-take-performance-enhancing-drugs.html
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 11, 2012, 01:53:23 pm
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?

The USADA are, unsurprisingly, primarily concerned with the behaviour of US athletes and teams. They picked up the baton after the US federal court dropped its investigation. (Given the extent and depth of their findings, I wonder if the federal case might be re-opened.)

Other teams and the UCI are outside their remit (though clearly their revelations constitute quite a broadside against the UCI). However, I've read this morning that the Belgian authorities are planning their own investigation into Bruyneel.

It really should be up to the UCI to be investigating this stuff, but their complicity kind of precludes it. Instead they'd rather go after the likes of Kimmage for daring to speak out.

McQuaid and Verbruggen really are despicable cowards.

d.
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 11, 2012, 01:56:37 pm
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.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 11, 2012, 02:05:14 pm
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/belgian-federation-forwards-bruyneel-charges-to-federal-prosecutor

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-stunned-by-usada-disclosures

From what I've read elsewhere, Sean Yates was being put under pressure on the radio earlier today. What with Geert Leinders being let go (just ahead of a court case involving Michael Rasmussen and his ertswhile employers, the Rabobank team ;) ), Michael Barry confessing, and Michael Rogers being named in one of the affadavits, it's not looking too good on the PR front for Team Sky. The problem for Dave Brailsford is that the ethical employment policy touted in 2010 has painted the team into a corner. With hindsight,  they might have been better off adopting the model used by Jonathan Vaughters at Garmin - take on people who may have had a dodgy past, but only on condition of full disclosure, and a cast-iron commitment to staying clean thereafter, and if that requires watching the riders and support staff like hawks, so be it...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 11, 2012, 02:09:37 pm
I'm still unsure how far USADA want this to go though. I suppose their plan is that convicting the sport's biggest name will encourage plus d'autres than going after each still participating rider individually and hopefully they're right because otherwise why put so much effort into once case who's retired? Well, that and the ringleader aspect.

Whose jurisdiction do Ferrari, Dr Marti, etc fall under?

As for the UCI they can't come out of this any way other than smelling of shit, but it's hard to see much changing there - these bodies, UCI, FIFA, etc, seem incestuous, changing their directors doesn't seem to alter how they function.

Of course we can but hope that USADA have started something which will spread beyond cycling to other sports which undoubtedly have their own problems.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 11, 2012, 02:09:55 pm
I'm most concerned that the data from what would seem to have been a very interesting and prolonged experiment is preserved. The most positive aspect of drawing a line under the doping period is that previously clandestine data can enter the public domain.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 11, 2012, 02:10:58 pm
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.

d.
I can't see that being struck off the Olympics would matter as much to cycling as to, say, athletics.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 11, 2012, 04:48:52 pm
Regarding the furore over Alex Dowsett's comments, as reported on the BBC, it's interesting to note that the Beeb's report has now been edited:

Quote
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."

If you read Dowsett's Twitter feed (http://twitter.com/alexdowsett), he says that he wasn't entire clear with his earlier remarks and then goes on to say that "what Lance has done is completely unacceptable."

If I was a more cynical person, I'd say that the BBC were indulging a spot of shit-stirring, because of who sponsors the team Dowsett rides for.  :demon:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 11, 2012, 05:57:40 pm

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rafletcher on October 12, 2012, 09:02:35 am

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.

Most of the time it doesn't seem like it.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 12, 2012, 10:15:50 am
He's the biggie, and of all the cases that have concluded, he is the only one maintaining a complete denial.

From my point of view, in as much as I give a toss, the big names need to fall.... no matter how distant the offence.  Look what happened to all his main rivals..why it never happened to him is the big question. Everybody knew.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 12, 2012, 10:25:07 am
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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 12, 2012, 12:04:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: perpetual dan on October 12, 2012, 12:29:51 pm
I 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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Toady on October 12, 2012, 01:16:14 pm
I 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.
Small piece by Ned Boulting in the Metro this morning.  Fairly lightweight and doesn't say much - a bit like the Metro really
http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/914789-i-always-knew-lance-armstrong-would-one-day-fall-from-grace-ned-boulting

(Actually, that's a bit harsh on the Metro, they have better science coverage than many broadsheets)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 12, 2012, 02:33:22 pm
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.

Leaving aside what happens to Bruyneel, it's worth noting that one of the team's sponsors is heading up the creek without a paddle  - Radio Shack appear to be struggling financially, and have lost two CEOs this year...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/business/james-gooch-radioshacks-chief-executive-steps-down.html?_r=0

EDIT: It's been suggested that Bruyneel opted for arbitration only so that it would delay the point at which Team RSNT stopped paying him and gave him the heave-ho. The Bruyneel question may be answered well before next season starts if Luxembourg media RTL are to be believed:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-bruyneel-could-be-sacked-today
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 12, 2012, 03:50:11 pm
Justin(e) was right, possibly sooner than expected...

https://twitter.com/TheRaceRadio/status/256766686793965569
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 12, 2012, 04:23:05 pm
Confirmed in Lux media: http://www.wort.lu/de/view/jetzt-offiziell-radioshack-nissan-trek-trennt-sich-von-johan-bruyneel-50782cf3e4b0069dd6579303

In the meantime, David Millar has called for Verbruggen to go: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/david-millar-calls-on-verbruggen-to-step-down-from-uci

Former Motorola rider Brian Smith - now manager of Endura Racing Team - believes he was dropped from the squad because he refused to dope (Daily Mail link, but as it's not an op-ed from any of the regular scribblers, I see no need to apologise  ;)):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2216492/Lance-Armstrong-latest-Brian-Smith-told-cyclist-hed-drugs-sacked.html#ixzz295WvcMJ9

I note that Roger Hammond has said that Armstrong never mentioned doping, or suggested that he dope when he rode for Discovery, though he was riding more of a Classics-based race calendar, where the need for O2-vector doping was less pronounced. Or maybe the team didn't think he was good enough to ride a Grand Tour, ergo there was no need to sound him out. :demon:

Which led me to wonder about another British erstwhile team-mate of Armstrong, Jamie Burrow - there's a telling comment in the first of the two Pez Cycling interviews...

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10710
http://pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=7559
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=8811&status=True&catname=Latest%20News
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hatler on October 12, 2012, 05:04:27 pm
The boil has been burst.

It's going to be very messy for some time to come. Pus everywhere. I hope we've all got lids on our popcorn.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 12, 2012, 05:35:09 pm
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/radioshack-nissan-cut-ties-with-bruyneel

Quote
“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.”

A mutual decision... really? :demon: ;D :demon:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: pcolbeck on October 12, 2012, 05:42:53 pm
I wonder if the UCI will drop their legal action against Paul Kimmage ?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 12, 2012, 05:51:46 pm
I wonder if the UCI will drop their legal action against Paul Kimmage ?

If they had any sense, they would. However, this is the UCI we're talking about...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 12, 2012, 06:03:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Toady on October 12, 2012, 09:00:50 pm
The boil has been burst.

It's going to be very messy for some time to come. Pus everywhere. I hope we've all got lids on our popcorn.
Eugh. 

Nice mixed metaphor.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 12, 2012, 09:30:14 pm
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.

Judging by Twitter chat (http://twitter.com/TheRaceRadio/status/256773977962340353) and the latest Inner Ring post (http://inrng.com/2012/10/bruyneel-radioshack/), The Hog could well be quite entangled in the RSNT structure, which could be awkward for the team if the renewal of their UCI licence is conditional on his being properly expunged from the organisation. Assuming that neither The Hog nor Armstrong decide that with nothing to lose, they throw the UCI under a bus...

Regarding the latter point, there's a piece on The Inner Ring that looks at how the ordure flying off the fan could spatter over a much wider area than just the former USPS/Discovery team: http://inrng.com/2012/10/usada-case-future/
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: ran doner on October 12, 2012, 10:23:26 pm
Having not actually read any of the official considered decision from usada ...

I find myself wondering why all the sanctions against riders stop in 2006. 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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 12, 2012, 10:31:56 pm
The Armstrong case is about Armstrong. The witnesses who have snitched on him are from USPS/Discovery days, and their admitted doping is from when they were riding with him. That set-up folded after his last TdF win in 05. As far as I can see none of them are admitting to doping in their subsequent teams.

They are being sanctioned for what they have admitted to.

On top of this, USADA is casting nasturtiums on his 09/10 comeback, but iirc nobody from the Astana/shack teams are acting as witnesses to anything done during those two years.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 12, 2012, 10:43:20 pm
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.

When an EPO test was introduced, the riders switched from subcutaneous injection to intravenous injection of "microdoses" of EPO. They also utilised re-infusion of previously-extracted blood - a doping method that was in use in the 1980s, prior to the advent of EPO.

The doping was certainly not reined in after 2005/6, as Operation Puerto showed.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 12, 2012, 10:49:06 pm
Slightly  ironically, after the EPO test was developed and the bio-passport introduced EPO has been used as a masking agent to cover up the imbalances, between old and new blood cells, created by transfusions.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: DrMekon on October 12, 2012, 10:56:50 pm
I see Rob Hayles failed test in 2008 is popping up again.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: woollypigs on October 13, 2012, 01:22:18 am
Years ago I talked to an cyclist who raced in the UK on the amateur scene, mostly to keep fit. He reported that the young lads who were hoping to be spotted, by the big teams, were taking drugs.

I also read somewhere that in a normal pro-cyclist back in the day they got x money and team doctors, flights, new bikes and all the other thins in their pay packet. But a little bit was hold back for a "medical" fund.

Then along with all the cyclist over the years who has been done for doping. I have just become used to and accepted the idea of cycling at top level meant drugs.

So in one way I'm not shocked at all that, just how easy it sounded it was to dope and how lax LA and the agency doing the testing about picking up tests. Not just lying about taking th drugs but the other lies about who he was working with and when, etc etc etc.

Now we need to clean it up and we start with the top, not bottom up as it sounds like will happen.

When the Olympics was on I read an article about doping and one falla said. I paraphrase: Keep the medals and blood for eight years and then test and hand out medal if there is any to pass out. Since the drugs are so far ahead of the test.

Anywhoo, that was my two cent and I agree with everything said here.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: pcolbeck on October 13, 2012, 11:29:00 am
Anyone else seen this article on the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19912623

They show the TdF winners back to 1980 and have them either "tainted by doping" or not. It's a bit disingenuous as Laurent Fignon for example admitted to taken speed a few times in his early career but that's it, it wasn't exactly on the scale of EPO or blood transfusions and certainly didn't help him win the TdF.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 13, 2012, 02:11:03 pm
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.

There's an article on the BBC website about Scott Mercier that's worth a read as well. Given doping products by a USPS team doctor, he refused to take them, realised he couldn't keep up with the riders who did and walked away from cycling.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Auntie Helen on October 13, 2012, 02:15:31 pm
I don't think I knew about Rob Hayles failing a test either. Anyone wanna summarise?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: jogler on October 13, 2012, 02:17:00 pm
AIUI Les West returned from "probation" in Belgium in his youth because he wouldn't conform to the drug convention of his contemporaries.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Gus on October 13, 2012, 02:20:46 pm
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.


Fignon failed tests twice...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 13, 2012, 03:04:24 pm
I don't think I knew about Rob Hayles failing a test either. Anyone wanna summarise?

He didn't fail a test. He did however return a high haemocrit reading and was suspended from racing for the statutory two weeks.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on October 13, 2012, 06:21:17 pm
Lance Armstrong has flown into New York to defend himself against the doping allegations.

It would have been more convincing if he'd used a plane.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Auntie Helen on October 13, 2012, 06:22:00 pm
Nicked from CycleChat:

(http://i47.tinypic.com/do9fde.jpg)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Mrs Pingu on October 13, 2012, 06:33:42 pm
Heh :)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 13, 2012, 10:04:06 pm
;D

It would be even better if it said "Tourspotting" at the bottom.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on October 13, 2012, 10:11:34 pm
Hmm

Cheatspotting?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 13, 2012, 10:56:13 pm
Cheatspotting? In pro cycling?

Might as well start handing out speeding tickets at Formula 1 races  ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Pingu on October 13, 2012, 11:08:00 pm
Transfusing
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 14, 2012, 12:19:31 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Feline on October 14, 2012, 12:23:15 am
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.

Sean Yates has tested positive hasn't he?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 14, 2012, 12:25:10 am
But he says he never saw anything! Interested to know who these eyewitnesses are though...

It's also spread to Orica-Green Edge.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 14, 2012, 12:27:05 am
From a former British pro..
Quote
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 ..
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 14, 2012, 06:38:50 am
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.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Adrian on October 14, 2012, 12:04:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 14, 2012, 01:23:58 pm
I think that one thing that has been over looked in the discussion so far is that this is far from a victimless crime.

First there are those who have been cheated out of their dues - fellow cyclists who did not get the credit (or money) they deserved.
Of course we (the supporters) have also been cheated.
And perhaps most importantly - there are many families who have lost young men in their prime to "unexplained" deaths due to their cycling careers.  When Epo first hit the scene, riders would have to wake up in the middle of the night to exercise to ensure that the coagulation factors in their blood did not kill them.  This was not always successful with the results being many 'unexplained' deaths.

Over their corpses, the UCI twiddled their thumbs.  And the likes of Armstrong and Bruyneel produced more pressure for each young rider to experiment with pharmaceutical enhancements.  Shame on them all.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 14, 2012, 02:43:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: road-runner on October 14, 2012, 03:42:54 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 14, 2012, 03:59:58 pm
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.

I don't those two statements are at all comparable. Armstrong talked about never failing a test because it was (partially) true, and he was playing upon the common misconception that dope tests are infallible. Besides, he has said 'I never doped'.

Many of the people named in the USADA document concerning USPS are still movers and shakers in the pro cycling world. Its about a general clear out.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: fuzzy (retd.) AAGE on October 14, 2012, 04:04:29 pm
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.

I think we need to wait and see how Brailsford deals with the revelations.

Declaring that the team will not use riders or staff with doping in their history isn't a problem if the perpertrators historical doping practices were unknown.

Now they are known, we need to see what he does. If he gets rid then the team Sky undertaking is still sound in my book.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 14, 2012, 04:20:38 pm
And Simon Lillistone (former husband of Emma O'Reilly and organiser of the cycling at the olympics) is also implicated.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 14, 2012, 04:41:25 pm
How is he implicated? A few years ago I used to wonder what happened to Emma O'Reilly - she appeared in a few magazine articles about the role of a soigneur, seemed an interesting behind-the-scenes character. Then she seemed to disappear off the radar, now we know it was probably because she was leant on by Lance's heavies.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 14, 2012, 04:53:57 pm
He was in the car when they did some of the drug runs for Lance
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on October 14, 2012, 05:09:38 pm
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.

Merckx got pipped for doping at least twice. I wouldn't put any money on Indurain being clean and Guimard tended to pump cortisone into his riders.

Armstrong doped more (and doped his team more) than anybody ever has in cycling and was heavily involved with UCI corruption. Get the biggest offender with the most evidence (Armstrong) before hooking the next biggest fish.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 14, 2012, 05:49:18 pm
Indurain had a positive for salbutamol, but managed to get away with it, c/o of the UCI and IOC:

Quote from: Wikipedia
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]

Given Indurain was riding in the early part of the Gen EPO years, and was apparently working with Dr. Conconi from 1987 onwards, you'd have to assume that he may well have been using some form of oxygen-vector doping, but it's interesting how he's not copped as much, if any, heat in the way that many of his contemporaries have.

An article in Procycling UK, February 2008 said:

Quote from: Wikipedia
[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.

[21] http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/drugs-in-sport-indurain-allowed-to-use-banned-drug-1379584.html
[22] http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/a-giant-in-the-saddle-profile-miguel-indurain-1588209.html
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hedgebanger on October 14, 2012, 07:50:06 pm
On a lighter note
A friend of mine's girlfriend has put her LA books in the bin ('lost all respect for the cheater' ). If anyone is thinking of doing the same with their Trek bikes let me know. Can't have you  clogging up our rubbish tips with old carbon fibre frames.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 14, 2012, 08:48:34 pm
People might start bring out their old USPS kit and wearing it on club runs in an ironic way.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: andygates on October 14, 2012, 08:59:40 pm
Ah, salbutamol, salbutamol.  You'd be amazed at the number of blue puffers you see at a triathlon transition.   :demon:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on October 14, 2012, 09:29:42 pm
Lots of asthmatics have been advised to swim by their doctors...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 14, 2012, 09:35:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 14, 2012, 09:47:55 pm
Steve Redgrave's a celebrity asthmatic of course. British rowing was reinvigorated by the former East German coach Jürgen Gröbler.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Regulator on October 14, 2012, 10:01:14 pm
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.


Asthma is a lot more common than 20 years ago.  IIRC, it's almost doubled in the last 20 years in the UK, particularly in urban areas.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on October 14, 2012, 10:06:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 14, 2012, 10:12:36 pm
I had an inkling that it was more common, but the conversation implied that GPs have become a lot more lax about prescribing them. I'd expect the kind of sporty, active kids that go bike racing every week would be on the healthier end of the spectrum, so I wonder how many of the overweight/Playstation types are on them.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clifftaylor on October 15, 2012, 07:57:40 am
Ah, salbutamol, salbutamol.  You'd be amazed at the number of blue puffers you see at a triathlon transition.   :demon:

Having felt not quite right on the bike for a while, I saw the asthma nurse  recently, did the max blow test, and was offered salbutamol. The benfits (certainly when on the bike) are not minor.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: jane on October 15, 2012, 08:25:10 am
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).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Gaston Lagaffe on October 15, 2012, 09:39:49 am
People might start bring out their old USPS kit and wearing it on club runs in an ironic way.

What about all those Livestrong bands. Can you wear one in an ironic way?

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 15, 2012, 10:28:42 am
Yep, but it has to be halfway up your upper arm ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on October 15, 2012, 10:34:26 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ian H on October 15, 2012, 10:41:29 am
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: PaulF on October 15, 2012, 10:45:49 am
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)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 15, 2012, 10:48:42 am
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/
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ian H on October 15, 2012, 10:49:55 am
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)

Okay. You win.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rainmaker on October 15, 2012, 10:51:46 am
Tonight (Monday) 7 p.m. on BBC radio 5, a programme about LA and the doping regime.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 15, 2012, 11:17:07 am
You'd seem to be able to use an asthma inhaler without troubling WADA according to the UCI.
Quote
. 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.




http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI2/layout.asp?MenuId=MTU2ODY&LangId=1
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 15, 2012, 01:08:54 pm
Tonight (Monday) 7 p.m. on BBC radio 5, a programme about LA and the doping regime.

There appears to be an interview with Emma O'Reilly in this.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 15, 2012, 01:21:10 pm
Asthma inhalers are now avalable 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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rafletcher on October 15, 2012, 01:29:17 pm
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

And others are offering too, though not at £7.  Boots, Tesco, Sainsbury, Lloyds etc are all doing flu jabs.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Salvatore on October 15, 2012, 03:56:51 pm
A 45-minute documentary which has just been broadcast on ABC (the Australian ABC). 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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 15, 2012, 04:14:34 pm
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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Andrew on October 15, 2012, 04:38:28 pm
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

I personally hadn't heard of Verbrugan's remark, as conveyed by Dick Pound...

Quote
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

 :o :o :o

...otherwise, no, nothing new to me. BUT it was something else again to hear and see the people say the things I'd only previously read. 

For those that are less familiar with it all, or the average person who might only know the name Armstrong as a TdF winning cancer survivor, I think it'd be a devastating program.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 15, 2012, 04:58:37 pm
Here's an interesting piece from JV, written in 1999:

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/jonathan-vaughters-crossing-the-line/

Subtle...  ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 15, 2012, 05:17:35 pm
Not very subtle though!

Really good piece. Wonder how it was received at the time.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 15, 2012, 05:36:46 pm
Here's an interesting piece from JV, written in 1999:

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/jonathan-vaughters-crossing-the-line/

Subtle...  ;)

I read it at the time, JV's column was one of the main reasons I bought Cycle Sport, and I've followed his career ever since. He once wrote a whole piece about the special shoes he'd had made to save 200 grams, he's been a proponent of marginal gains for a long time.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Regulator on October 15, 2012, 07:20:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on October 15, 2012, 07:31:50 pm
<fnark>

http://www.happyplace.com/18476/bookstore-reclassifies-lance-armstrong-titles-in-light-of-doping-report
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: kcass on October 15, 2012, 07:34:27 pm
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

And after earlier accusing USADA of using hearsay he says this -  'I had an email from an eminent scientist from the US yesterday. An SMS actually. It said if Lance Armstrong had taken the drugs outlined by USADA he’d have been dead ten years ago. He’s an eminent scientist and a very intelligent man. I don’t know his name, the SMS came from a secondary person.'

Laughable really.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Seineseeker on October 15, 2012, 07:53:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 15, 2012, 08:10:32 pm
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.

It looks like you're right there, I've probably connected him with inhalers because he pioneered an inhaler-based diabetes treatment, and he's been featured in articles linking medical exemptions with endurance sports which refer to Paula Radcliffe's asthma.
You don't need to be asthmatic to take a fair amount of salbutomol any more. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-approves-2010-list-of-prohibited-substances It will be interesting to see if that reduces the number of doctor's notes.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Regulator on October 15, 2012, 08:42:36 pm
<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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: fuzzy (retd.) AAGE on October 16, 2012, 12:02:38 pm
<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

You need to publicise it more Reg......
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 16, 2012, 03:12:55 pm
Steve Redgrave ... has ulcerative coitis,  but he's not asthmatic. 

No what you wrote, but what I read.  Ohh err.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Feline on October 16, 2012, 03:36:02 pm
I've tried having a puff of my inhaler at the bottom of big climbs to see if it would make me epic. Sadly not, although being able to breathe was an advantage over my default wheezing state.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on October 16, 2012, 04:08:31 pm
I've been tested for exercise induced asthma. I don't have it. In fact, immediately post intense exercise, my breathing is slightly improved.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 16, 2012, 04:34:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 16, 2012, 05:04:50 pm
I don't have asthma but I'll come clean - I have experimented with the effects of using an asthma inhaler. Only "out of competition" though. Tbh, I didn't like it - made me feel really weird and light-headed, and made my heart race.

I'm tempted to try a puff or two prior to exercising, just for the sake of experimenting. But I'm not even slightly tempted to try it in any organised event, not even a non-competitive one such as Parkrun. It would feel too wrong. As for EPO, I can't imagine the circumstances in which I'd be tempted to use it. I suppose the pressure on me to perform is slightly different to the pressure on a pro sportsman though.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Salvatore on October 16, 2012, 05:20:18 pm
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.

Not that he wasn't juiced up - he rode for Gewiss-Ballan, whose team doctor ws Dr Ferrari, and
Quote
On January 14, 1995 Ivan Gotti recorded a level of 40.7% while on August 9, 1995 he recorded 57%.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on October 16, 2012, 05:27:11 pm
My HCT is 42.3. So I don't use EPO either, it seems.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: eck on October 16, 2012, 05:29:17 pm
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:-)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 16, 2012, 05:54:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 16, 2012, 06:16:34 pm
The funniest outcome from the whole Lance saga would be if someone who thought they doped turned out to have been given a placebo.

The tale has been repeated many times when Lance sent a couple of domestiques back to the car to get him (presumably amongst other things) a cortisone pill. There were none in the car, so Bruyneel ground down an aspirin, wrapped it in foil and passed it on.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 16, 2012, 06:23:58 pm
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.

A small scale study in 2004 indicated a 1% to 2% gain from Salbutamol use in healthy athletes.
https://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-2004-815716
Use of inhalers became widespread after that, the current WADA guidelines allow use up to a threshold without a doctor's note. So we've got a level playing field if there is an advantage from Salbutamol, which WADA doesn't think there is.
There was a lot of speculation about what Armstrong's medical exemptions were. But as we now have the testimony of his team that they all doped, it's not an issue.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 17, 2012, 12:48:25 am
In comparison with the scale of performance gain available courtesy of EPO or blood bags, I can't help thinking that 1-2% is neither here nor there. Mind you, if usage up to a certain threshold doesn't require a TUE, that's an invitation to healthy athletes to take the piss. Personally, I'd prefer to see any use of salbutamol by an athlete require a TUE if they're competing in an event under WADA rules. And I'm not too sure about supermarket pharmacies selling inhalers either, even though it could be handy if you mis-timed dealing with the repeat prescription and you ran out before you the new scrip back from your GP...

Regarding Armstrong and medical exemptions, Armstrong himself denied having any TUEs at the press conference in Tarbes during the 1999 TdF, round about the time that a French paper had got a tip that he had returned a positive for steroids.

Quote
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.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/magazine/05/23/lance.armstrong/index.html#ixzz29TP3Vy9t

Speaking of which, never mind the alleged personal donation from Lance to the UCI "for a Sysmex machine"/to cover up the 2001 Tour de Suisse positive (depending on one's POV), the latest juicy allegation is that Nike paid the UCI $500,000 to cover up the cortisone positive:

Quote
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.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-did-nike-pay-dollar-500000-to-verbruggen-to-cover-up-armstrong-positive

Interestingly, check this report from 2005:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2005/09/news/former-german-cycling-president-blasts-ucis-handling-of-armstrong-case_8889

Quote
“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.”
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 17, 2012, 12:59:45 am
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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 17, 2012, 01:04:21 am
And Laura Weislo takes issue with Tim Herman's comments about "fairness" and "fair-minded Americans" in a stinging piece on Cycling News:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-lance-armstrong-fairness-fallacy

It's fair to say she's pretty pissed-off...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 17, 2012, 09:23:01 am
That's Kathy LeMond, Greg's wife, I presume - so is he (Greg) enmeshed in this too? Presumably so.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 17, 2012, 09:24:31 am
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...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hatler on October 17, 2012, 09:28:07 am
I think I am fairly uncontroversially able to predict that one group that will be undoubted winners in all of this will be the lawyers.

Just think of all those libel awards that need undoing.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 17, 2012, 09:30:42 am
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...
Tests at the final control for tea and cake...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Salvatore on October 17, 2012, 09:43:08 am
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...

Isn't it?

From the PBP regulations:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 17, 2012, 09:46:55 am
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

Thanks for that link Spesh, it'll strike a chord with PBP veterans. I've gone to Brest and back four times, and I've used a lot of Ibuleve, Ibuprofen and Caffeine Gum in three of those journeys. Last time I didn't go beyond espressos and Coke, but I did have a soigneur at every controle, and the back of a car to lie down in. I was filming so I needed the battery back-up, and I paid back some of the time I saved with roadside shots.
I can't honestly say that I did any of the 1200+ rides unaided, there's so much in the background making it easier.
I can think of some 400 and 600 Permanents that I did on my own which had a certain purity to them, and which I can draw on the memory of to sustain me, but Perms can be ridden in good weather.
So much is down to aesthetics. I still remember the Landis lone break, he was on performance enhancing drugs, and I enjoyed the performance. It's a shame that Floyd can't look back at it with unmixed pride, but it was a good show at the time.
Taylor's point is an interesting one, who is the show for, the fans or the riders. With Wiggins we've moved into cycling that has conscious elements of Rock Star culture, a world where drugs inform performance, but Brad is living clean.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 17, 2012, 10:29:37 am
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on October 17, 2012, 10:32:59 am
Blimey!  Is this the same Lance Armstrong who was buried facing the sea at Scarborough, then, or have I got that mixed up?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 17, 2012, 10:42:42 am
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?

Are you sure you haven't mixed up US Postal with the documentary about the tangled lives of Fleetwood Mac that was on BBC4 the other week?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvuaNjrzZvw
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ian H on October 17, 2012, 10:52:20 am
...I needed the battery back-up...


Now that is really cheating.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 17, 2012, 11:14:11 am
...I needed the battery back-up...


Now that is really cheating.

No, I'm Spartacus.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/johnmacleary/100008958/fabian-cancellaras-engine-questioned-in-claim-that-swiss-motored-to-classics-wins/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFbCS4a14J4
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on October 17, 2012, 11:20:02 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Toady on October 17, 2012, 11:48:18 am
Have I wandered into the audaxers' Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 17, 2012, 12:05:52 pm
Have I wandered into the audaxers' Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

I remember seeing lots of Livestrong bracelets on Audax rides. So there were plenty of folk who gained strength from the idea of Lance, so in a sense you are right.
My talisman is a GAN bottle I got off Eros Poli's bike when I helped a mechanic put it on a team car at the end of a stage of the Tour of Britain in Blackpool in 1998. I touch that bottle and I think of scenes like this, which for a big rouleur are more inspiring than any showy climbing.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K-Xzox-9IUc/TXeYFmTkbcI/AAAAAAAAPSY/Q5HZtajy0mY/s1600/eros%2Bgan.jpg)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on October 17, 2012, 12:31:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ian H on October 17, 2012, 12:38:11 pm
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.

I've never used caffeine tablets, nor gone for the abstinence/binge coffee procedure. I have occasionally taken painkillers, but only for specific problems (meaning when someone sensible would have stopped - eg. achilles inflammation or a severely twisted ankle).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 17, 2012, 01:06:12 pm
I was trying to confirm that it was 1998 when I picked up Poli's bike. It's a GAN bottle so that dates it . I found a linked article about Boardman at the same time.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/25/sports/25iht-bike.t_0.html?pagewanted=1
He was going through a bad patch of form at the time. It was eventually diagnosed as low testosterone, which was causing osteoporis as well. He applied for a therapeutic exemption from the UCI and was denied, he retired so as not to compromise his health. I remember that there were asides about Armstong's status at the time. I think I've already linked to an article about Chris's osteporosis upthread, but it is interesting, and shows that Boardman played by the book. I know the general attitude to the Daily Mail on here, but articles like this are well written and accessible.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/diets/article-1227777/CHRIS-BOARDMAN-I-cycling-32-I-bones-old-woman.html
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: zigzag on October 17, 2012, 01:10:14 pm
most of us used performance enhancing substances - isotonic drinks, caffeinated/taurine-ated drinks and gels, painkillers.. "we're all in it together"?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 17, 2012, 01:19:09 pm
most of us used performance enhancing substances - isotonic drinks, caffeinated/taurine-ated drinks and gels, painkillers.. "we're all in it together"?

It depends if you set store by 'winning' an Audax. There are people out there who cheat to get a PBP finishers medal. There's no prize money, and I'm not aware of a PBP betting market, so there's only unearned kudos to worry about.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 17, 2012, 01:26:47 pm
News breaking that he has stepped down from the LAF.

Finally it starts to be sinking in - he is a bit on the nose.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 17, 2012, 01:29:40 pm
Is that so he can clear space in his diary to take over as president of the UCI?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 17, 2012, 01:38:32 pm
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:

Quote
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."

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:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 17, 2012, 01:48:36 pm
This just in...

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13079/Nike-severs-ties-with-Armstrong-as-USADA-investigation-fallout-continues.aspx

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9614878/Lance-Armstrong-dropped-by-sponsors-Nike-following-insurmountable-evidence-in-USADA-report-that-he-doped.html

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NIKE_ARMSTRONG?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-17-08-41-52

So maybe Trek and Oakley will review their links to Armstrong now?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 17, 2012, 01:51:20 pm
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:

Quote
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."

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:
The presidency of the IOC is up next year...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 17, 2012, 01:54:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on October 17, 2012, 02:00:22 pm
Justin(e), I have the same sentiments.  Once I've got over the quick shot of schadenfreude, I don't like to see anybody's discomfort.  But without justice it is the wrong people who suffer all the time and there's not even schadenfreude to console us.

I don't wish him any harm, I just want it dealt with.  This poppy was too tall, it seems.  He's still achieved more for cancer-sufferers than I ever will but that doesn't make him right, of course.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on October 17, 2012, 02:01:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TimC on October 17, 2012, 02:08:30 pm
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.

The shame is he probably was one of history's greatest athletes - he was of a group who were all doping, but nevertheless he was the best of them. We will never know how good he could have been without drugs, but I suspect he would have been the best in any level playing field. Better than any other cyclist ever? Quite possibly, but we'll never know.

As for Livestrong, it seems to do good work and it is hopefully now bigger than Lance Armstrong and can survive without him at the helm. If LA does a Dave Millar, it could even increase its influence. I can't see that happening, but I would love to!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: bobb on October 17, 2012, 02:21:06 pm
If LA does a Dave Millar, it could even increase its influence. I can't see that happening, but I would love to!

I was wondering this earlier. He's fucked either way, but he'd be a little bit less fucked if he just held his hands up. Maybe do it on TV. Perhaps cry a bit....
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hubner on October 17, 2012, 02:27:29 pm
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.

Or he was just better at doping than his rivals, ( you can't really compare riders from different eras). He was better at organising and running his doping regime, had the best doctors, took more risks and doped more than others, took care of officials etc, responded better to PEDs, etc. Maybe he had better drugs that others didn't even know about .
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 17, 2012, 02:31:39 pm
Sorry guys, but the idea of a "level playing field" among doped cyclists is a myth.

Quote
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.

Quote
... 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.

Quote
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.

http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing-field-doping-myth/

See also the Bicycling magazine interview with JV, where he goes into more detail. The numbers he uses are approximations, but he underlines how different riders will get differing benefits from using EPO:

http://www.bicycling.com/garmin-insider/featured-stories/jonathan-vaughters-talks-doping-reform?page=0,3
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on October 17, 2012, 02:39:03 pm
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.

The 'level playing field' argument keeps cropping up here and there. Have a look at Jonathan Vaughter's article  - it's easy enough to find - on why he thinks it *isn't*.

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.

Whether or not a non-doping LA would have been exceptional amongst a field of non-doping riders is difficult to say - I certainly wouldn't take it as given (and there's an interview/statement somewhere which suggests he wasn't, pre-doping). However, it does sound like he excelled in the application of PED in terms of a more sophisticated regime - which *isn't* then a level playing field.

(ah, beaten to it..)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: slope on October 17, 2012, 02:44:51 pm
Another power, wealth, invincible corruption. Shame. Is LA Religious?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on October 17, 2012, 02:52:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hubner on October 17, 2012, 02:55:14 pm
Quote
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.

Good point. I would guess Armstrong committed himself 100% with doping and went as far as it takes with new and unknown drugs to win. Whereas others maybe doped a bit here and there just trying to get an improvement.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hubner on October 17, 2012, 02:56:29 pm
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.

But the rules say you're allowed to have different coaches, but doping is not allowed
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 17, 2012, 02:58:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hubner on October 17, 2012, 03:01:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 17, 2012, 03:05:22 pm
Tyler Hamilton was asked in an interview how many Tours Armstrong would have won if everybody had been riding clean, and he reckoned that the likely number was one, two at a pinch.

There was little to suggest from Armstrong's Motorola career that he'd be a multiple grand Tour winner, and going by testimony in the SCA case, Motorola and the other American trade teams that crossed the Atlantic to race in Europe only raced clean until they worked out by they were getting a spanking from the continental riders.

USADA investigation affadavits from Frankie Andreau and Stephen Swart, backing up what was reported in the LA Times in 2006 (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/09/sports/sp-armstrong9):

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Andreu+Frankie+Affidavit.pdf Points 23-26 inclusive.

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Swart%2c+Stephen%2c+Affidavit.pdf Points 6-11 inclusive.

Pre-cancer, the 1995 TdF was the only one he finished (placed 36th overall, with one stage win, which may have been partially gifted by the peloton to give him a chance to honour Casartelli), out of four starts.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 17, 2012, 03:10:05 pm
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.

It'll not be won by someone paid 2 million Euros, with a hyperbaric chamber at home, an undemanding schedule and regular altitude training camps then?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: fuzzy (retd.) AAGE on October 17, 2012, 03:10:23 pm
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.

Pre cancer Armstrong may not have done anything clean TdF wise. Post cancer Armstrong cannot be compared to his pre cancer capabilty.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 17, 2012, 03:13:57 pm
You've also got to look at the conditions during his Tours, he won the Worlds in crap weather, and that was always his forte, in the same way that Indurain was only ever good when it was hot.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: cuddy duck on October 17, 2012, 03:20:37 pm
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.
He seemed pretty stocky and broad shouldered during his TdF triumphs, relative to the transparent thinness of, say, Hamilton, Rasmussen and even Wiggins this time around. Certainly chunkier than the specialist climbers he used to fly past in his drug addled pomp.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 17, 2012, 03:21:27 pm
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?"
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on October 17, 2012, 03:41:22 pm
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
 - however, there's also some criticism:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sports/11iht-11cycling.16080289.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 - and an Ashenden interview with a bit more detail (a little way down):
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 17, 2012, 04:56:59 pm
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

What a good article.  It seems strange that there was such strong science - that backed up these findings - in the public domain before USADA let all hell brake loose.

Why was I so blind to the obvious?  I guess I wanted to believe just as much as many others. 

Note to self to be a little bit more skeptical in the future, and listen to more voices in the debate.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hedgebanger on October 17, 2012, 05:11:26 pm
I've not tried to work out what his level of performance would have been with or without dopping. Ok I've enjoyed his TDF wins. At times they were a bit like a cowboy series were the 'star/ hero would prevail in the end. (there was always a 'Lance moment' where he put his rivals to the sword)
WhoI'd like to know is was the marketing genius who worked the whole thing out!
You've got a reasonably good cyclist being treated for a life threatening disease ,any changes can be down to his treatment then write  a couple of brochures(books ) on the treatment, this then gets the sympathy vote because of the pain etc he'd suffered. They then work out to get him into first place on the world's biggest bike race. ''I'm on my bike !''
Ask the testing body to be leanient on his tests (Here's a few dollars for your fav charity ) Plus the publicity of him winning ( cancer survivor etc ) will increase TV revenue and profile for the UCI. Then there's all the Trek bikes sold as a result (Plus Shimano kit ) the list  goes on. 
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on October 17, 2012, 05:19:53 pm
WhoI'd like to know is was the marketing genius who worked the whole thing out!

I'm just waiting for the OJ Simpson stylee 'If I had doped, this is how I'd have done it', coming to bookshops everywhere ;)

TBH, if he *did* come clean about the whole lot, he'd probably sell 'em by the bucketload !
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 17, 2012, 05:45:28 pm
TBH, if he *did* come clean about the whole lot, he'd probably sell 'em by the bucketload !

It's been said elsewhere, but there is something about the personality of Ben Johnson that allows us to forgive the naive savant.

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.

It will be interesting to watch what happens when his paid lackeys (lawyers etc) and sycophants start to desert him once the money starts to disappear.  He has to pay back a lot of people.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on October 17, 2012, 05:56:21 pm
I have to say that this endgame is playing out even better than I'd hoped for.  The UCI next.. I'm sending out for more popcorn!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on October 17, 2012, 06:06:25 pm
If LA raced on a level playing field, it was because he made it so - everyone had to take drugs.

He's stolen ten years of pro cycling from history and I can't feel sorry for him.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hedgebanger on October 17, 2012, 06:10:09 pm
No he'll go for the sympathy vote.
''Look what we were doing was testing drugs for post cancer treatment. The team had to take them, so we could do valid comparisons.'' Poss LA defence statement ?
'Ah shucks, good ol Lance was only trying to help people.'
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: John Henry on October 17, 2012, 06:19:55 pm

He's stolen ten years of pro cycling from history and I can't feel sorry for him.

This. And it doesn't stop with that - he's ensured that there's a shadow over the sport which will mean that all successful riders for a long time will have doubt cast over their achievements.

It's what he's done, it's the way he's done it, it's the number of people he's hurt by his deception and bullying (including those well beyond the world of cycling). Fucker.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on October 17, 2012, 06:24:13 pm
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.

I think I found this indirectly from http://inrng.com/2012/09/book-review-secret-race/
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/road-biking/My-Life-With-Lance-Armstrong.html
- can't help thinking he's the sort of character that he never will just admit it...

of course, purely for balance, this is the LA response:
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Lance-Armstrong-Responds-to-Mike-Anderson.html

...but knowing what we know now, anything he says sounds like a big crock of shit...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 17, 2012, 07:05:40 pm
If LA raced on a level playing field, it was because he made it so - everyone had to take drugs.

At Motorola, LA (and others) took the decision to dope when they realised that the reason they were regularly getting thrashed was because the other teams were juiced up the eyeballs. At that time, it could be just about argued that they were trying to level the playing field in order to get a chance.

However, at USPS/Discovery, Armstrong wasn't interested in a level playing field, he was determined to tilt it very much in his favour. 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, Armstrong was probably a good two years ahead in the doping arms race. It's probably why people say that Armstrong would still have been as successful if everyone was riding clean, not realising that in reality, he was the best in the TdF for 7 years on the bounce because he was the best at doping.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: IanDG on October 17, 2012, 07:19:34 pm
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.

I too remember many arguments where I was criticised for being a doubter that he won 7 tours 'clean'. Very pleased to see things finally fall apart in the wash (tho' it survived more washes than most)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 17, 2012, 07:22:06 pm
Apropos of nothing in particular.

http://www.olympic.org/news/nike-to-become-ioc-supplier/179406

Quote
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.

This, on the day that Nike terminates Armstrong's contract... coincidence?  :demon:

EDIT:

Armstrong is having a bad day:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13082/RadioShack-ends-personal-sponsorship-of-Armstrong-Oakley-reiterates-it-awaits-UCI-decision.aspx

Mind you, as I have mentioned, RadioShack are in the financial doo-doo...  ;)

Now Oakley's behaviour could be the interesting one, because going by the 4 corners documentary, it's alleged that Oakley suborned Stephanie McIlvain to perjure herself at the SCA hearing. I've also seen the suggestion that Oakley forced their insurers to pay for Armstrong's cancer treatment, arguing that he was an employee, not merely someone whom they sponsored.

EDIT 2:

Trek distancing themselves from Armstrong would be significant, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for an apology from them to Greg LeMond for their role in destroying the LeMond bicycle brand.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 17, 2012, 07:31:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on October 17, 2012, 07:47:14 pm

Still, he sounds like an utterly nasty bastard, as opposed to just either thick and/or greedy like many of the other players.


Indeed, he is a vindictive bully. See the stories of Livingston, Simeone, Lemond, The Andreus,  Mike Anderson (http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/road-biking/My-Life-With-Lance-Armstrong.html?page) and many more who had the potential to undermine the myth and have suffered in varying degrees.  I know it's all connected, but leave aside the charity on the one side and the drugs on the other, and you're still left with a controlling nasty piece of work.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Jakob on October 17, 2012, 07:53:25 pm
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.

Actually, I've just read the part about the Festina affair and he claims that some people (Cofidis) still doped in '98, but '99 most of them had developed a courier system that took the drugs out of the teams hands. (Or at least, USPS had)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: IanDG on October 17, 2012, 07:53:46 pm
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.

+1

Drugs were rife, so the only way to win was to have a drug culture in the team. I've always thought Armstrong was an utterly nasty bastard (but then champions need a nasty side to their character, don't they?), and yes I hope the UCI go down and cycle sport comes through all the better for this.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: IanDG on October 17, 2012, 07:57:27 pm
Obree's continental career never started because he wouldn't sign up to FdJ's medical programme
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 17, 2012, 08:02:06 pm
What worries me about this, is that if it remains "all about Lance", then it has largely been a waste of time.

In the same way that some other people who were unlucky enough to be caught got sent out into the cold, so could Lance.

Like I said, I really want the UCI to go down.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: IanDG on October 17, 2012, 08:34:59 pm
Again, completely agree the UCI has to be 'sorted' on the back of this otherwise it'a complete waste of time.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 17, 2012, 08:36:57 pm
Yes. But who has a) the power to do that b) the authority to replace or renew them? WADA?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 17, 2012, 09:02:47 pm
Aaaaaand another one's gone! http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/anheuser-busch-joins-nike-in-distancing-from-lance-armstrong
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hubner on October 17, 2012, 09:34:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hedgebanger on October 17, 2012, 09:41:17 pm
Again, completely agree the UCI has to be 'sorted' on the back of this otherwise it'a complete waste of time.

Also agree, but surely the only way that's going to happen is if LA and Bruyneel are taken to court with the UCI as witnesses then they might get shown up for the corrupt bunch they are. (Or in the case of testing just bloody inept.)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Jaded on October 17, 2012, 09:42:13 pm
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.

and forever sullying their brand.

Cutting links is critical.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 17, 2012, 09:46:21 pm
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?


Bit of a strange declaration.  Given that Sky said they would not employ anyone connected with doping, essentially they are just asking liars to restate their lies. The end result is the same.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 17, 2012, 10:21:34 pm
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?

Given that in some quarters of the internet discussing cycling matters, there is an atmosphere that may be reminiscent of the McCarthy Red Scare, or the Cultural Revolution, I can't see that this exercise will be that effective in deflecting a lot of the ordure that is now flying Team Sky's way.  :-\

Someone once said that whatever hits the fan will not be evenly distributed, and it seems they weren't wrong.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 17, 2012, 10:40:39 pm
Giro jump ship: http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/17/lance-armstrong-bike-helmet-company-giro/

Also gets a very cursory mention within a Wall Street Journal report on the flight of Armstrong's sponsors:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444868204578062313532317222.html

And Trek! Trek Company Statement (http://e.trekbikes.com/public/?q=preview_message&fn=Link&t=1&ssid=357&id=i4rmf025n1uvagotuytdy9518t7x0&id2=e8sqa981ldgj91q1u6s969ng0syqz&subscriber_id=bvgpuohnataebqxrjefyadakjxaybbk&messageversion_id=blhzmcahblqceklsgedwabvikkrpbnk&delivery_id=aczlwuykghrbvldhaibvdxmpugohbgh&tid=3.AWU.Ba36EQ.CSi9.QV1v..kpy9.b..l.BJH1.a.UH9YZQ.UH9YZQ.CtOGSg)

Though like Nike, they're still supporting Livestrong...  :-\

And there's more (http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/news/nike-ends-relationship-with-armstrong-continues-livestrong-collaboration_261699)...

Quote
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.”

How do you like them fucking apples, Lance?  ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 18, 2012, 04:49:48 am
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444868204578062313532317222.html

WSJ estimate that he earnt between $15 & $18million last year.  Not bad.

I also enjoyed the article on the bike mechanic (http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/road-biking/My-Life-With-Lance-Armstrong.html) spilling the beans.

Have you noticed how every article still has in it somewhere, "And Lance denies any doping" to give "balance".  Sometimes I think that journalists try too hard.
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 18, 2012, 08:42:56 am
Verbruggen has apparently been quoted in De Telegraaf as saying there's no evidence against Lance.
(For those who can read Dutch: http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/13089646/__Geen_bewijs_tegen_Armstrong__.html )

Un-fucking-believable.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hatler on October 18, 2012, 09:24:47 am
Does he define what constitutes 'evidence' in that article ?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: arvid on October 18, 2012, 09:44:43 am
Not in the free online article.
"Lance has never tested positive. Not even in USADA tests. So there is no trace of evidence."
"People who know the doping test procedure know there is nothing to arrange. The story of LeMonds wife is so nonsensical that it's not worth an official statement."
"There are a lot of stories and accusations. But people familiar with the procedures know there is nothing to arrange. I have been past the 'tired'-stadium for a while now."
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 18, 2012, 10:16:03 am
In 1999 Lance wasn't a particularly hot property before the Tour. He was working cheap for US Postal, having lost a lucrative contract with Cofidis during his cancer. USPS were a 'wild card' entry at the Tour, and Bobby Julich was the US hope. USPS were so unfancied that they had no sponsorship from Shimano. As it became obvious Lance would win, the first time for a Shimano equipped bike, Shimano had to be nudged into securing branding rights. That was done by Lance using a Campagnolo aero bottle, which he continued to use in the final time trial, but with the logo covered in black tape. The bike was actually a Litespeed.

(http://www.campyonly.com/images/lance/lance_2.jpg)

http://www.campyonly.com/lancebottle.html

Lance's treatment by the cycling establishment at that time motivated him, he was always a battler. Much of the Lance story evolves from the vacuum following the disastrous 1998 Tour, he filled the Patron shaped hole in the Peloton.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 18, 2012, 10:17:28 am
Talk about placing a target on your own head.  The guy is asking to be shot down.

(http://t4ak.roblox.com/c9a25d3d985ab4cbf5a5c72df99a4a98)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 18, 2012, 10:35:29 am
He's going to spend the next decade of his life in court, isn't he?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on October 18, 2012, 11:46:11 am
Bruyneel's got the hump ;)

http://road.cc/content/news/69178-stunned-johan-bruyneel-slams-usada-publishing-evidence-ahead-arbitration-hearing
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 18, 2012, 11:53:55 am
Bruyneel's got the hump ;)

http://road.cc/content/news/69178-stunned-johan-bruyneel-slams-usada-publishing-evidence-ahead-arbitration-hearing

I'm one of the many.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 18, 2012, 12:34:09 pm
There's been a notable silence from Bobby Julich, the fancied US rider from 1999, who now works for Sky, there might be a reason for that.
http://www.roadbikeaction.com/Latest-News/content/69/6063/Racy-Language-The-Shadows-of-Doper-Doubt.html

Julich was a coming man at the compromised Cofidis team, but crashed out in 1999. He was picked up by the 'clean' Credit Agricole and never featured much after that.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 18, 2012, 12:43:46 pm
I'm one of the many.

Quote
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.

Bit of a no-win situation for the USADA - they were being put under pressure (by the UCI, among others) to publish the case against Lance, and they could hardly leave out Bruyneel's name from the document.

Anyway, it's a red herring - the argument might hold water if Bruyneel's case was going to court with a verdict provided by a jury of members of the public, but it isn't, it's going before the CAS (constituted as a panel of three independent experts), who are experienced at dealing with these matters and surely won't allow public opinion to sway them.

And I'm sure Bruyneel knows this and is just clutching at straws.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 18, 2012, 12:57:26 pm
I'm glad the info has been published. Makes it harder for Team Armstrong and the UCI to bury it under a mountain of lies.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Toady on October 18, 2012, 01:05:45 pm
This is a bit old (like ... er ... a whole week old) but I've been mulling it over. 

Roger Hammond on the suspensions given to those who gave evidence: "To me it says if you cheat and lie about it for several years, and then drop somebody else in it, you'll be alright. They need to be given the same ban as Lance. They cheated, they took that risk."

Now, I can see his point about the suspensions, even if I'm not sure I fully agree, but it's his language that's a bit concerning - "drop somebody else in it".  That's a bit perjorative - he may as well refer to them as "grassing somebody up", rather than "telling the truth".

Isn't there a whiff of Omerta about that?  Or am I reading too much into his choice of words. 

Nobody likes a grass, know wot I mean?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on October 18, 2012, 01:10:19 pm
He asked interviewed during the Vuelta on ITV, as he was the studio pundit, about what he saw or knew. He came across as very shifty.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 18, 2012, 01:12:46 pm
It's a funny time for us GAN/Credit Agricole fans. I rekindled my interest in cycling thanks to Boardman, that was about the time that the old structure of separate amateur and pro branches of the UCI was abandoned.
My heroes were the classy time triallists at CA, as the rest of the peloton were dopers. I wasn't interested in winners, as they are usually pretty nasty people, Indurain being an exception. So I don't feel betrayed by Lance. Wiggins is a throwback to the Boardman period, he even spent some time in the Credit Agricole colours, I rode in a club TT with him at that time.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 18, 2012, 01:25:38 pm
There's been a notable silence from Bobby Julich ...

Also Cadel Evans.  I cannot think why he has kept his own council.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 18, 2012, 01:39:40 pm
I'm interested in the interaction between the UCI and the IOC.

Quote
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.
 
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Cycliste_Internationale

I think that the collapse of the Eastern Bloc combined the traditions of doping in the pro-peloton revolving around soigneurs, with the systematic doping of the 'Amateur' tradition, mainly the former Soviet Empire, but also Italy. It's taken 20 years to sort out.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 18, 2012, 01:58:21 pm
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.

That doesn't mean there are no reasons not to dope: doping is wrong because a) the rules are the rules b) it can be bad for you, even fatal. If Armstrong was a worse case of doping than others it's because he pressured others into doping too, and because his case exposes the corruption (or commercial realism?) in the UCI.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 18, 2012, 02:09:05 pm
There's been a notable silence from Bobby Julich ...

Also Cadel Evans.  I cannot think why he has kept his own council.

<Clinic mode>

Evans has been linked with Dr. Ferrari, and he was managed by Tony Rominger. He's ridden for Mapei , and his current team, BMC is run by Chris Ochowitz. ;) :demon:

</Clinic mode>

Though in fairness to Evans, the Ferrari association was that he met with Ferrari through Rominger in the summer of 2000, to test if he was capable of good things on the road. Apparently, that was the only time they have worked together. His reputation for defensive riding and being a wheel-sucker could come from him hanging on for dear life with the juiced riders, but not having the extra capacity to launch attacks. And he has usually looked absolutely done in at the end of mountain-top finish tour stages...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 18, 2012, 02:35:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on October 18, 2012, 02:50:11 pm
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.

Aye.
In any case, there's already some degree of self-selection in a bunch of pro cyclists, and whilst there'll be some sort of physiology variation, that'll probably show up in the type of rider they are - eg climber, sprinter, gc-contender, domestique, etc, and within each they may be relatively similar. Plus stages are often won on tactics, not simply on fitness.

It's also worth remembering that the UCI regulations wrt the machinery used, are intended to keep the playing field less lumpy than it would otherwise be.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 18, 2012, 03:24:02 pm

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on October 18, 2012, 03:26:02 pm
 :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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 18, 2012, 03:34:17 pm
: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's just got really interesting, perhaps we should open up a separate false accounting thread on this board, we've got lots of financial expertise on this forum after all.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on October 18, 2012, 03:37:15 pm
Ah, dual contracts.

http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/doncaster-dooms-spl/
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 18, 2012, 03:48:47 pm
I always did wonder how doping was paid for, I assumed prize money played a big role.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hatler on October 18, 2012, 04:01:16 pm
OK, so, I'm over 50, but given that it appears that virtually every rider ever to have pulled on a pro-team jersey and been paid for it is about to have their legs cut out from under them, should I be out there offering my services as a domestique ?

:-)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 18, 2012, 04:04:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on October 18, 2012, 04:08:23 pm

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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 18, 2012, 04:24:04 pm

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?

Listen - I am sorry, mea culpa.  I was sure that was the right word,   :-\ I suppose that just plain audit does the same job.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 18, 2012, 05:05:05 pm
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.

At the very least, doctors implicated in doping athletes should be struck off, according to Prentice Steffen, who was replaced as USPS team doctor because he refused to facilitate doping:

Quote
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."
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 18, 2012, 05:10:14 pm
Strike off the accountants as well, that's what I say.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 18, 2012, 05:43:36 pm
David Millar for UCI president anyone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19956995
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 18, 2012, 08:09:21 pm

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 18, 2012, 08:31:24 pm
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.
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:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 18, 2012, 08:36:59 pm

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.

I'm just pointing out that the story has gone beyond the 'Burn the Witch' phase, and onto a concern about Kangaroo courts even on cycling websites. The CAS is one thing, any possible criminal proceedings are another. I don't know who hasn't heard too much about this case already, possibly there are undiscovered tribes in the Amazon. They'll probably find them wearing USPS shirts.
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 18, 2012, 09:16:36 pm
Bruyneel is publicly making noises about kangaroo courts purely to influence public opinion (oh the irony). He will get a fair hearing.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on October 18, 2012, 09:22:27 pm
It'll be interesting to see if anyone actually sues LA now.  I can see him declaring himself bankrupt in a few years' time (having squirrelled the big money away somewhere).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Bledlow on October 18, 2012, 09:27:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 18, 2012, 10:08:52 pm
Oakley have put out a statement on Twitter, duly storyfied below. Each line links to the relevant Tweet. Make of it what you will:

Quote
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)

http://twitter.com/oakley

Either Armstrong's contract lawyer was smarter than Oakley's, or it's Stephanie McIlvain's role in the SCA hearing (and alleged threats to Betsy Andreu) that's got what passes for their corporate leadership in a bind.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 18, 2012, 10:35:24 pm
Don't Cannondale have a hybrid called the Bad Boy, isn't this the chemical generation?
I'm the kind of tedious old reactionary who's put off by tattoos and piercings, but I know I shouldn't display my feelings.
What my real views about doping might be are equally suppressed. I've no idea what Oakleys's customers think about Lance, I assume someone in marketing has done some research, I ceased to expect the world to conform to my moral templates a long time ago.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 18, 2012, 11:02:54 pm
"This generation"? Which generation are you talking about? LA is 41 (which I'd guess is about average for YACFers) so his generation is hardly the latest.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 18, 2012, 11:32:12 pm
I'd chart the rise of the Chemical Generation as beginning with the rise of ecstasy in the late 80s , although the literary movement began in the early 90s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_generation

I started doing long distance bike rides in the mid 90s, and you'd get the occasional comment in 24 hour garages about what you must be on. Lance would have been 17 or 18 when this came out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEdiOBz4zeM
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Regulator on October 19, 2012, 07:29:39 am
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


That's not a study - it's a hagiography...  ;D ;D
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 19, 2012, 08:00:55 am
I ceased to expect the world to conform to my moral templates a long time ago.

Although we may disagree on some superficial aspects of the story, I suspect that fundamentally we have a lot in common. Like this, for example.

d.


Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on October 19, 2012, 09:23:45 am
There has been a  bank withdrawal.  (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rabobank-to-end-its-sponsorship-of-professional-cycling-teams) 

( ETA - discussed here http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=64462.0)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 19, 2012, 10:24:12 am
Weasels.  >:(
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: fuzzy (retd.) AAGE on October 19, 2012, 10:28:45 am
Annoying that they have pulled out as a result of this fiasco but, they have been in the sport for a long time as sponsors go so perhaps weasels is a bit strong.

I think I will aim a well intentioned FUCKERS! at the folk that have instigated this episode and brought Rabobanks decision about however.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 19, 2012, 10:34:33 am
Nope, they're definitely weasels.

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=64462.msg1338571#msg1338571
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 19, 2012, 10:36:50 am
Sparks had it spot on in August with the conclusion of his judgement on pages 28 to 30  of this judgement.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fdocuments%2Farmstrong.pdf&ei=JB2BUNDzL6et0QWm-4GoBA&usg=AFQjCNE8uW60wjtYkDXrn1fYf2HgjMZ2uQ

Rabobank's leaving doesn't mean the team will disappear, Cavendish had his best years after Deutsche Telecom had withdrawn in similar circumstances. Red Bull aren't in road cycling, now there's an air of edgy transgression surrounding it, they might be tempted.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on October 19, 2012, 11:11:24 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 19, 2012, 11:23:07 am
When we were leaving for the LEL meeting at York last Saturday at about 8am, we spotted our near neighbour out for a ride in the 1 degree C morning air. He won the Milk Race in 1976, and he rode the Tour in 1977 in support of Dietrich Thurau on the Ti Raleigh team. He was the same height as 'Didi' and could give him his bike as needed.
He didn't finish the Tour, falling victim to a mass disqualification on Alpe d'Huez. Thurau did finish as the best young rider, having been in Yellow for 14 days. In 2007 Dietrich wrote in Die Welt about doping in that period, as 2007 was when Telekom pulled out following Ulrich's disgrace. It's handy vocab practice for discussing this sort of thing with German cycling mates.
http://www.welt.de/sport/article890306/Wir-haben-doch-frueher-alle-gedopt.html
I wondered what my neighbour was thinking following this summer, he'd ridden in the 1976 Olympics. I think it's time we stopped Lance casting a shadow over Bradley just because we share a common language with the US and the story writes itself.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on October 19, 2012, 11:39:52 am
Bill Nickson?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 19, 2012, 11:56:34 am
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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: IanDG on October 19, 2012, 12:21:13 pm
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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on October 19, 2012, 04:16:05 pm
http://road.cc/content/news/69307-uci-president-pat-mcquaid-announce-decision-armstrong-case-monday

Ratification, or challenge....?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on October 19, 2012, 04:34:50 pm

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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 19, 2012, 04:36:07 pm

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


I was just round my Dad's, the story was that Post didn't rate British riders. Opinion on the net seems to vary. Ti Raleigh were a British sponsored team so a clearout of Brits was bound to sit badly with Raleigh. Post was the man who brought a more professional attitude to management apparently.
http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2011/1/17/peter-post-1933-2011.html


Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 19, 2012, 04:38:48 pm

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?

It's always surprising to see how low people sat then.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: slope on October 19, 2012, 05:04:18 pm


(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 thought it was Jimmy Savile gloves off and ready
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: slope on October 19, 2012, 05:07:10 pm
SORRY - that's not FUNNY :hand:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 19, 2012, 05:18:21 pm
Savile never rode the Milk Race, he rode the 1951 Tour of Britain, which was a BLRC promotion. Jimmy styled himself Oscar 'The Duke' Savile, and was a sort of proto Cipollini without the talent.
http://www.aubinandwills.com/en-gb/editorial/summer-2011/those-magnificent-men
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 19, 2012, 07:00:09 pm
Monday could be interesting...

Quote
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.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-announce-decision-on-usadas-armstrong-findings-on-monday
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: trumpet on October 19, 2012, 07:27:29 pm
Monday could be interesting...

Quote
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.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-announce-decision-on-usadas-armstrong-findings-on-monday


Maybe 'a cheque' has cleared  ?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: IanDG on October 19, 2012, 07:38:50 pm

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?

Joe Waugh - I think finished 4th and won the KOM
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mzjo on October 19, 2012, 09:11:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on October 19, 2012, 09:37:27 pm
Blimey so it is!  Bicycle Repairman's one time business partner I believe.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on October 19, 2012, 10:16:03 pm
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:

Quote
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]

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 20, 2012, 01:04:55 am
Curiouser and curiouser - and if true, rather disturbing... http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 20, 2012, 07:57:25 am
Curiouser and curiouser - and if true, rather disturbing... http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283

I suppose he'd have found it easy to fake cancer if he was a shape-shifting reptile. That's probably why he had to keep ahead of the other riders and disappear into his bus, his ability to maintain the persona of Lance was compromised.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 20, 2012, 09:24:19 am
Curiouser and curiouser - and if true, rather disturbing... http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283

Another account of the same ride from PEZ (http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=10889&status=True&catname=Latest%20News).  Attitude seems to be confirmed, but not the payment discrepancy.

I was a little disappointed to see that he got a standing ovation from 1700 people yesterday (http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/armstrong-skirts-doping-scandal-in-public-appearance-20121020-27y2f.html).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mzjo on October 20, 2012, 11:06:46 am
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:

Quote
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]

Well, I think they kept very quiet about it over here! (Probably the UMP couldn't risk losing face).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 20, 2012, 05:35:53 pm
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13104/SKINS-chairman-Fuller-calls-on-McQuaid-to-act-decisively-over-doping-scandal-or-resign.aspx
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 21, 2012, 06:41:55 am
The thing that really pisses my off: The UCI is blaming ME for the doping problems, instead of accepting the responsibility.

Quote
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'.

From ABC 4 corners program (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/11/3608613.htm)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on October 21, 2012, 10:35:18 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TheLurker on October 22, 2012, 12:23:17 pm
UCI ratifies USADA decision/sanctions.  Hop over to Cycling News for more info.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 22, 2012, 12:30:17 pm
Not as if they had much choice - can you imagine the $hit-storm if they had appealed to the CAS? ;D

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-confirms-lance-armstrongs-life-ban

Hopefully, more details of the ongoing Q&A session will be published soon...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Karla on October 22, 2012, 12:44:22 pm
You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals, let's do it like they do in the Discovery Channel. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Salvatore on October 22, 2012, 01:12:49 pm

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".
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 22, 2012, 01:23:35 pm

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".

Figures... if McQuaid was going to fall on his sword, it wouldn't be personally announced in a press conference - the UCI would try to slip something like that out as unobtrusively as possible. They got the key decision right, but the rest of the press conference was a bit meh.

It will be funny if the UCI opts to re-assign the TdF wins from that period, given the doubts about how clean the top 20 in each race were, never mind the podium, and Christian Prudhomme has already indicated that he'd prefer to leave the results blank.

Now let's see if Oakley finally throw Armstrong under the bus tonight.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on October 22, 2012, 01:26:41 pm
Interestingly, Bradley now stands third in 2009 with Schleck and Clentador above him..
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: padbeat on October 22, 2012, 03:34:15 pm
Here's you're No 23 bus (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/oakley-severs-relationship-with-armstrong), Mr Armstrong.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ewan Houzami on October 22, 2012, 04:08:37 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/

Quick! Scroll down and giggle at The Onion style headline before the subs spot the error.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 22, 2012, 04:12:37 pm
 ;D Don't they mean Glaxo?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 22, 2012, 04:16:07 pm
Surely Amgen - Glaxo don't make EPO.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Jules on October 22, 2012, 04:17:51 pm
Perhaps it was the paints division - utter whitewash!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 22, 2012, 05:55:07 pm
Could all those who want a refund from Lance Armstrong please form an orderly queue, starting here?  :demon:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/prudhomme-this-era-must-be-remembered-as-an-era-without-winners

Quote
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.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617

Quote
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)."
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hubner on October 22, 2012, 06:25:10 pm
Are Trek, Giro, Nike etc going to ask for their money back as well?

And what all those books he wrote?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 22, 2012, 06:37:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on October 22, 2012, 06:41:18 pm
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.

It's actually a bit more entertaining than that. SCA tried to withhold the original payout amid drug grumblings, so LA took them to court and won.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on October 22, 2012, 06:43:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on October 22, 2012, 07:03:38 pm
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:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: marcusjb on October 22, 2012, 07:40:31 pm
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.

$125-150 million is an awful lot to squirrel away.

That said, he is about to embark on a decade of paying lawyers fees. Should get ride of that money fairly quickly. Or he could just 'fess up and be done with it.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 22, 2012, 08:10:17 pm
Do you reckon he could retain the lawyers on a no-win no fee basis?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Jaded on October 22, 2012, 08:16:19 pm
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:

He'll have placed his brand ownership in Zurich.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 22, 2012, 08:17:52 pm
I wonder how much the film rights are worth? 'The Flying Scotsman' has nothing on this.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mattc on October 22, 2012, 08:36:39 pm
BBC Radio Headline:
" ... has been stripped of all his TdeF titles and banned from cycling for life."

that seems a little harsh.

[De-typoed - thanks ESL!]
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 22, 2012, 08:51:18 pm
BBC Radio Headline:
" ... has been stripped of all his TdeF titles and banned from cycling from life."

that seems a little harsh.
I heard it as 'for life', I'd have a chat on on Audax if he fancies a go.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 22, 2012, 09:41:05 pm
I'm retiring from racing myself now - I've finally reached my ambition of equalling Lance Armstrong's number of Tour de France titles.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Sergeant Pluck on October 22, 2012, 10:52:05 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617)

Fairly normal behaviour for an insurance company, I guess, but I feel uncomfortable about all this clawing back. I see Lance as a victim of his circumstances, hypersensitive, controlling, other stuff, but not malevolent. These sponsors should just live with it. What will be served by making him indebted for the rest of his life?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on October 22, 2012, 11:02:55 pm
LA sued them for the money and committed perjury to win. I don't think it's really OK to let him off with that.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Feline on October 22, 2012, 11:04:38 pm
Is fraudulently 'winning' prize money much different from putting in a fraudulent insurance claim anyway?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Sergeant Pluck on October 22, 2012, 11:15:09 pm
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.

The sponsors took a risk with their money. I think in at least some of their cases, they should just absorb their loss.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Adrian on October 22, 2012, 11:18:38 pm
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.

The sponsors took a risk with their money. I think in at least some of their cases, they should just absorb their loss.
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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: road-runner on October 22, 2012, 11:38:32 pm
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).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 23, 2012, 12:02:22 am
I'm only just realising the effect this on the great history of the Tour - it's left a gap bigger than that caused by WWII.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 23, 2012, 07:18:54 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rafletcher on October 23, 2012, 08:12:02 am
They paid the bonuses for the publicity garnered at the time. They DID get the publicity. So the bonuses were merited at the time.  I've not heard of any previous sponsor trying to claim back monies paid as a result of bad behaviour - not a doping offence of course, but Tiger Woods comes to mind.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mr magnolia on October 23, 2012, 08:30:53 am
Hey, even mrs m is getting caught up in the horror show!  This is wierd entertainment.

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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mzjo on October 23, 2012, 08:36:33 am
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?)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on October 23, 2012, 08:48:49 am
FP's performance yesterday was all about making it all about Lance.  He dodged the difficult issues of what happens to prize money and so on. 

He was clearly flustered when asked about the donations from LA that coincided with the reclassification of a drug test failure as an acceptable prescribed drug issue but failed to deal with the question in any meaningful way.

Verbruggen, who is clearly still active at the top of the UCI, was nowhere to be seen, and despite FP 's efforts to point out how things have improved since 2005 when he took over, he didn't want to talk about the UCI's role in doping prior to that, and conveniently glossed over the scandals that have come to light on his watch.

The UCI need to acknowledge that the majority of cycling fans, and much of the industry, views it as a dinosaur of an organisation, happy to sit on a gravy train of globalisation yet unwilling to rid itself of the air of corruption and complacency that has shredded its reputation.

FP will fall on his sword, it's just a matter of when.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 23, 2012, 09:19:02 am
The French will think that Lance's troubles largely derive from being based in Spain. Their main satirical show is forever poking fun at the Spaniards, this is subtitled in German, but we're all multilingual here aren't we?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNOuZofu82g
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: RJ on October 23, 2012, 10:20:46 am
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??
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 23, 2012, 10:33:27 am
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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ian H on October 23, 2012, 10:36:03 am
...Iambic pentameters, anybody??

Only if you can guarantee they're undetectable.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 23, 2012, 10:43:03 am
I've already cast a third of the USPS team.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZYUkZ-JRCo&feature=relmfu
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: CrazyEnglishTriathlete on October 23, 2012, 10:45:54 am
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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 23, 2012, 10:49:38 am
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

The blond skinny one in the Texas Tenors would make a good Greg Lemond. He's pretty tall though, so perhaps Hincapie.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Salvatore on October 23, 2012, 11:21:49 am
It has been pointed out that LA has now removed the references to his 7 TdF wins from hist Twitter profile.

Does this mean he accepts the USADA and UCI verdicts? Are we about to get a confession?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 23, 2012, 11:28:39 am
Only if it serves his purpose.

Bruyneel has opted for an arbitration hearing with USADA, which could see Armstrong subpoenad to give evidence under oath.

Will Bruyneel see it through? If so will Amstrong lie for him?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 23, 2012, 12:09:41 pm
I beginning to feel a teensy bit of sympathy for Pat McQuaid and the UCI.  :o They are corrupt and his denunciation of whistleblowers smacks of a school bully crying "not fair" when he gets sent to the head, but - what are the UCI for? They've been made, along with FIFA, the IOC, etc, into some untenable combination of promoter and judge, like Don King refereeing a boxing match. Or maybe they've made themselves into that, they're certainly participated keenly. There's also a bit of truth in the idea that fans are guilty of encouraging doping by expecting ever better performances - that most genuinely want clean sport does not contradict this, just means they and the athletes and the official bodies have all got in deeper than was imagined. Clean professional sport is probably a bit of a myth anyway, a relatively modern invention - in the early years of the Olympic movement drugs like cocaine were not even illegal. But if the Lance Armstrong case is to achieve a lasting change, I reckon that change has to be a splitting of the rule-making and enforcing bodies from the organisational side, and also in expectations of fans and athletes. And any changes in the UCI will have little effect unless other sports are changed too.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 23, 2012, 12:57:15 pm

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/
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 23, 2012, 01:01:14 pm
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?)

Doping-wise, I've no idea, but from a sports politics perspective, he did go racing in South Africa when the sports boycott was in effect.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 23, 2012, 01:10:57 pm
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.

As discussed up-thread or in a related thread, there is precedent for tolling the applicable SOL period, in the event of ongoing offences (i.e. the offence within SOL is a continuation of what started before the applicable SOL period) and/or where fraudulent means have been used to conceal offences.

As far as I can tell, WADA haven't come out with anything to indicate that they disagree with stripping all of Armstrong's post-cancer palmares, and as Travis Tygart and his cohorts are effectively the representatives of WADA in the USA, I'm not expecting them to do so. The UCI's attempt to pit WADA against USADA is just an attempt to save some face.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on October 23, 2012, 01:27:49 pm
FP will fall on his sword, it's just a matter of when.

His  term of office comes to an end next year so he could try and see it out till then, and then just stand aside.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: road-runner on October 23, 2012, 01:45:53 pm
... 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?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 23, 2012, 01:54:45 pm
It is specific to the statute of limitations, and it is why Armstrong has had titles stripped all the way back to '99.  If he hadn't re-emerged in 09/10, this case could not have happened.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 23, 2012, 02:04:25 pm
... 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?

See page 14 of USADA's charging letter to Armstrong, Bruyneel et al, plus Some Random Thursday's blog comments about the Hellbuyck case, all quoted in my post on August 27th:

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=44116.msg1300646#msg1300646
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 23, 2012, 02:15:42 pm
Some of the arse-covering that's been going on recently has been almost hilarious.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9627442/Belgian-cycling-great-Eddy-Merckx-angry-with-Lance-Armstrong-whistleblowers-for-speaking-up-too-late.html

Given his comments back in August, you'd almost think he's angry with the whistleblowers for speaking up at all. :demon:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/merckx-continues-support-of-armstrong

Quote
“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.”

And who was it who introduced Armstrong to Michele Ferrari, I wonder?  ;)

As a wise man said, it's better to stay silent and be thought of as foolish, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: road-runner on October 23, 2012, 02:40:57 pm
As a wise man said, it's better to stay silent and be thought of as foolish, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
That wise man was King Solomon (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs%2017:28&version=NKJV).
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 23, 2012, 04:07:52 pm
Indurain also thinks LA is innocent, what a surprise.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mzjo on October 23, 2012, 05:01:11 pm

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). Not knowing when to let go is a sign of a flawed personality IMHO (la Longo for example).
In all this I am reminded of the Festina case. The big difference - LA won repeatedly where Virenque still failed to make the hit. Other big difference - Festina was a police matter. Still no +ve tests though.
3rd big difference LA will never make the cycling commentator that Virenque is - doesn't have the sense of humour.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 23, 2012, 05:56:00 pm
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

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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 23, 2012, 05:58:17 pm
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:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 23, 2012, 06:43:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on October 23, 2012, 07:58:47 pm
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!
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Seineseeker on October 23, 2012, 08:17:52 pm
A gem from the roadcycling piece:

"Another factor that helped bring Armstrong down was the simple fact he is a jerk. "

What gets me is all these cyclists and others who want to defend Armstrong on the grounds that he doped as did everyone else. Well true, almost everyone did, but Armstrong was the catalyst for the doping culture. We know about Zabriskie and that's just an example of the damage he caused way beyond his personal agenda.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: RJ on October 23, 2012, 08:25:28 pm
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


Landis is Banquo AICMFP  ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ian H on October 23, 2012, 08:27:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 23, 2012, 08:33:53 pm
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.

Didn't Millar stay at Le Groupement after Obree left when he was asked to contribute to the 'Medical Fund'. I can remember Millar mocking Obree's 'unprofessional' attitude at the time.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: RJ on October 23, 2012, 08:35:43 pm
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!

Absolutely.  Smart analysis from someone who knows what they're talking about, with no punches pulled. On the moral button.
Title: Re: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: mr magnolia on October 23, 2012, 11:56:12 pm

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).

Absolutely. I remember raising my eyebrows highly when he won number six, and deciding he was just taking the piss when he did no. 7. He certainly shouldn't have come out of retirement, as that just revved it all back up again.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 24, 2012, 12:44:44 am
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.  ::-)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: padbeat on October 24, 2012, 12:58:10 am
Hummm.

Another convicted drug cheat stands up for Lance Armstrong (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-voices-support-for-lance-armstrong). With friends like these ...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Peter on October 24, 2012, 01:05:20 am
"Regarding Armstrong's doping ban, Valverde echoed the sentiment of compatriot Samuel Sanchez in what he perceived as a surfeit of direct evidence of Armstrong doping"

It may have suffered in translation but a surfeit is exactly what there seems to be Alejandro.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 24, 2012, 01:17:17 am
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.  ::-)

I was looking at some research into fairness. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/evolution-of-fairness/
Essentially the larger the range of interactions where you have to trust others, the greater the sense of fairness. That might have implications for riders from poorer rural backgrounds, where clannishness and canniness are seen as virtues. The kind of places where the idea of omerta originates, places like Spain and Southern Italy. Ideas of fairness are culturally constructed, and it's a feature of British life that's often commented on.

Quote
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. 
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).
http://geert-hofstede.com/united-kingdom.html

I'm not suggesting that the UK is especially virtuous thanks to its sense of fair play, just that other countries have it as a lower priority than in-group loyalty. This may be reflected in how Lance is judged.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 24, 2012, 11:36:16 am
I suspect it's more a class thing than a nationality thing. Pro cycling is traditionally a poorly paid, working-class sport (like football used to be). Fairness is perhaps less important a consideration to many pro cyclists of the past, and even the present in some countries, than being able to support your family. It's relatively easy for an outsider like David Millar (middle-class Brit) to take a different position.

According to the recent biography of Reg Harris (very much a working-class hero), he was entirely "continental" in his attitudes towards fairness in cycling.

Love that Robert Millar piece. Maybe all pro cycling needs to cure its ills is more Scottish riders named Millar.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 24, 2012, 11:50:03 am
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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 24, 2012, 12:40:35 pm
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

Page 143 of that report is about the stage the debate has reached. 'Sport as Spectacle and Sport as work'.

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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: her_welshness on October 24, 2012, 02:11:40 pm
From Twitter land:

Quote
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.

On a side note, Bradley Wiggins has left Twitter, reasons are uknown except there are words like 'Jimmy Carr' being associated with him.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Tewdric on October 24, 2012, 02:23:08 pm
It shouldn't be too taxing for him.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Bledlow on October 24, 2012, 02:26:19 pm
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.
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.

Better just to pay the refunds where the contracts demand it, & give the finger where they don't.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 24, 2012, 05:47:25 pm

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 infamous Albert Londres interview with two of the Pélissier brothers after they had quite the 1924 TdF, published in Les Petit Parisein under the headline “Forçats de la Route” ("Convicts of the Road") (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_P%C3%A9lissier#Les_For.C3.A7ats_de_la_route), springs to mind.

Quote from: Henri Pélissier
“The Tour de France is a Calvary. The road to Golgotha had only fourteen stations, while ours has fifteen… ”
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on October 24, 2012, 06:05:24 pm
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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220787/Bradley-Wiggins-accused-signing-abusive-Cayman-Islands-tax-avoidance-scheme-Bill-Roache.html

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Karla on October 24, 2012, 06:08:50 pm
Maybe he's Belgian for UK tax purposes  ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: onb on October 24, 2012, 07:59:38 pm
Apparently Waterstones  are now stacking its Not About the Bike  under fiction.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 24, 2012, 08:02:58 pm
I got a marketing e mail from Planet X asking if I remembered when Armstrong was a spaceman.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 24, 2012, 08:21:37 pm
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
I think it's a bit Chitty the way everyone keeps Banging on about this.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Domestique on October 24, 2012, 08:35:09 pm
Apparently Watersons  are now stacking its Not About the Bike  under fiction.

 I don't think that book has a name any longer, onb. Like Lance, it's been stripped of its title...
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Ewan Houzami on October 24, 2012, 10:29:13 pm
I got a marketing e mail from Planet X asking if I remembered when Armstrong was a spaceman.

I remember the moon landings. (Just) I also remember Planet X recently buying Jimmy Savile's old bikes at auction.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 25, 2012, 07:26:35 am
An open letter from Greg Lemond to Pat McQuaid:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/news/an-open-letter-from-greg-lemond-to-uci-president-pat-mcquaid_262523

If you read carefully, hidden in there is a slight nuance of annoyance at McQuaid
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: TheLurker on October 25, 2012, 07:54:47 am
...If you read carefully, hidden in there is a slight nuance of annoyance at McQuaid
No, I must be dim; couldn't see even the slightest hint of irritation in it. *cough*
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on October 25, 2012, 08:02:52 am
Heh.  Good old Greg.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: RJ on October 25, 2012, 09:40:14 am
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).

And this is an interesting (and human) bit of commentary:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/analysis/analysis-collateral-damage-and-the-human-cost-of-wrecking-the-playing-field_262330 (http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/analysis/analysis-collateral-damage-and-the-human-cost-of-wrecking-the-playing-field_262330)

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Hot Flatus on October 25, 2012, 09:58:29 am
Contador is a convicted and unrepentant doper, just like Armstrong. People are very quick to forgive and forget that.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on October 25, 2012, 10:02:13 am
I do wish Lemond wouldn't sit on the fence like that.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Pingu on October 25, 2012, 12:27:01 pm
Heh.  Good old Greg.

Has he got a mangina?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on October 25, 2012, 01:11:39 pm

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 
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Nuncio on October 25, 2012, 01:17:04 pm

I think we need more of this sort of thing. 

Quote
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 hope he's not misdiagnosing a recurrence of the intestinal problems which saw him quit this year's TdF.

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: RJ on October 25, 2012, 01:25:16 pm

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

Some choice stuff in there:

Quote from: Bill Stapleton
... for Lance, a level playing field was always the – the best way to win the Tour

Quote from: Michael Ashendon
Indeed, Verbruggen’s stance calls to my mind Bill Clinton’s infamous statement that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 25, 2012, 02:02:53 pm
The Empire strikes back against LeMond: http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3054/hnez8ogv_jpg.htm

Unsurprisingly, the Tweet has been deleted.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 25, 2012, 02:13:18 pm
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).
Quote
“It appears to me, that in more than a few places, they are not treating Lance with any respect at all
Seems to me he's had far more respect than he's earned.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 25, 2012, 05:06:09 pm
The Empire strikes 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?  ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 25, 2012, 05:11:55 pm
Bloody hell - this is the gift that keeps on giving.

Another one. (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-bobby-julich-doping-confession)

Check this  (http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/tour-de-france-doping-graphic)out - but I think that it needs to be updated already.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hatler on October 25, 2012, 05:15:43 pm
Bloody hell - this is the gift that keeps on giving.

Another one. (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-bobby-julich-doping-confession)
Wow !  That is real heart on the sleeve confession.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 25, 2012, 05:17:41 pm
The Empire strikes 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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 25, 2012, 05:20:32 pm
Bobby Julich's gone from Sky.
http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17546_8194069,00.html
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: pcolbeck on October 25, 2012, 05:20:48 pm
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 ?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 25, 2012, 05:22:27 pm
The Empire strikes 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.

Gee, that makes it tricky for the countersuit.  I'm thinking that Greg has one hell of a bargaining chip to play here.  With relatives like him, who needs enemies.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 25, 2012, 05:26:47 pm
Does Bobby J's confession now mean a French rider won the 1998 Tour de France?  ;D

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: henshaw11 on October 25, 2012, 05:31:08 pm
Bobby Julich's gone from Sky.
http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17546_8194069,00.html

Curious, it sounded like after the initial clean-or-nothing declarations thing, that Brailford was rethinking his approach:
http://road.cc/content/news/69509-brailsford-hints-sky-softening-stance-doping-froome-fears-departures
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 25, 2012, 05:37:38 pm
Does Bobby J's confession now mean a French rider won the 1998 Tour de France?  ;D

d.

He was rider 4 then.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Justin(e) on October 25, 2012, 05:37:42 pm
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 ?

AIUI (this being the internet, I don't need sources), it is the umbrella body that governs the sport which is recognised by the IOC.  Each national federation feeds money and votes into the system.  In Australia, there is also a problem with murky connections to the past so it is hard for Cycling Australian to point the finger and demand change.  In LeMond's article demanding McQuaid resign he (LeMond) suggests that people not pay their USA racing licence for a year as that will put pressure on the US governing body to pressure the UCI.

It is hard for teams to effect change as they rely on their licence from the UCI.  Something that appears to have a degree of discretion.   The real players in this are ASO - and the other GT organisers - and local racers who pay money. 

I give it a week before Verbruggen is removed as honorary president for life of the UCI.  McQuaid may last another year till the next round of elections, but he is a lame duck now.  That article by Ashendon could well spell the end of him.  I hope it does.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 25, 2012, 05:43:47 pm
The Empire strikes 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.

As an aide memoire, here are the Lionel Birnie Tweets from the day of the Landis "Ass-clown Gaddaffi impersonators" judgement, as storified by Neil Browne:

http://neilbrowne.com/2012/10/swiss-court-rules-against-landis/

 :demon:
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 25, 2012, 05:56:12 pm
Bloody hell - this is the gift that keeps on giving.

Another one. (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-bobby-julich-doping-confession)


With Operation Puerto finally making it to the courts in Spain, and the Italian authorities following the money trails, there's still a hell of a lot of fallout left to to come down.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the other teams and riders out there are having an uncomfortable end to the year.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 25, 2012, 06:01:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 25, 2012, 06:04:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 25, 2012, 06:07:21 pm
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
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 25, 2012, 06:11:09 pm
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.

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.

Quote
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.
 
 

http://www.roadbikeaction.com/New-Releases/content/69/6063/Racy-Language-The-Shadows-of-Doper-Doubt.html

Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Rhys W on October 25, 2012, 06:58:04 pm
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

The way the Sky thing is worded it's up to an individual's conscience as to whether they sign it. A cynic might say that this is Sky's omerta policy - they only want people on the team who will shut up about it, the people who confess can go. Sean Yates has persisted with the "I didn't see anything, I just drive the car, guv" line despite questions being asked about his failed A sample, mentoring of Lance, and association with Motoman.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on October 25, 2012, 07:03:35 pm
Keep giving the benefit of any minuscule doubt to obvious dopers. It is the right thing to do ... to maintain the status quo.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Gus on October 25, 2012, 08:31:52 pm
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nondoping-cyclists-finish-tour-de-france,2268/ (http://www.theonion.com/articles/nondoping-cyclists-finish-tour-de-france,2268/) some one seems to have lots of fun.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rafletcher on October 26, 2012, 07:32:26 am
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  ;)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: rogerzilla on October 26, 2012, 07:40:14 am
ISTR someone calculated that, if you exclude known dopers, suspected dopers and former dopers, Wiggo has won the TdF three times already.
Title: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 26, 2012, 09:05:04 am
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.

Indeed. Tbh, I didn't realise there was still any doubt about it. I don't suppose anyone is really surprised by his admission, are they? Most of the stuff coming out now is just confirming what we already know.

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on October 26, 2012, 09:28:48 am
I thought Julich was outed as a doper years ago.

Seemed pretty obvious at the time.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 26, 2012, 10:18:35 am
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  ;)

Technically I failed a test for explosives at an airport security checkpoint. I wasn't about to argue the toss regarding GCMS with the people at the desk
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Toady on October 26, 2012, 10:22:52 am
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.

So if we DQ Schleck A as brother-of-a-doper we can give him 09.
To give him 2010 you'd have to check and DQ all of the following.  It would take quite a hefty dose of Wiggomania to be arsed to do that.

2010
1   SCHLECK Andy
2   MENCHOV Denis
3   SANCHEZ Samuel
4   VAN DEN BROECK Jurgen
5   GESINK Robert
6   HESJEDAL Ryder
7   RODRIGUEZ OLIVER Joaquin
8   KREUZIGER Roman
9   HORNER Christopher
10   SANCHEZ Luis-Leon
11   PLAZA MOLINA Ruben
12   LEIPHEIMER Levi
13   KLÖDEN Andréas
14   ROCHE Nicolas
15   VINOKOUROV Alexandre
16   LÖVKVIST Thomas
17   DE WEERT Kevin
18   GADRET John
19   SASTRE Carlos
21   MORENO FERNANDEZ Daniel
22   MOREAU Christophe
23   AMERICAN GEEZER Some

24   WIGGINS Bradley (moral victory)
I don't know what happened to 20. That's from the TdF site.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: pcolbeck on October 26, 2012, 10:25:17 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Manotea on October 26, 2012, 10:38:39 am
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...)
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: pcolbeck on October 26, 2012, 10:42:15 am
Mr Armstrong's problems seem to involve a little more than a single questionable test result.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 26, 2012, 10:50:06 am
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on October 26, 2012, 10:51:39 am
I'm glad you appended the last nine words there, or I'd be questioning your sanity.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: David Martin on October 26, 2012, 11:01:11 am
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.

To be a positive test you have to have proper traceability and process, and two independently determined adverse analytical findings. Baxter tested positive. His doping was inadvertent, but removal of his medal quite proper. It was the same morally as inadvertently using out of spec skis or an underweight bike.

The Landis testosterone positive is an interesting case. Landis was doping, that much is clear but the test results were appalingly done, should never have been classed a positive and were quite possibly the result of a stitch-up. *sticks his analytical mass spec hat on* I'm not sure there is a competent scientist who would put their reputation on the Landis test results being a proper positive.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: simonp on October 26, 2012, 11:19:42 am
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.

No-one in their right mind believes the contaminated supplements theory either. It was accidental contamination caused by blood doping.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 26, 2012, 11:38:01 am
Talk to Fränk?
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: clarion on October 26, 2012, 11:39:24 am
;D
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: pcolbeck on October 26, 2012, 11:44:56 am
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. Even the regulatory authorities in most sports accept the difference and hand out very minimal punishments for such cases. There still needs to be repercussions or lots of people would do it deliberately and claim it was an "accident" but morally and in the way its treated by governing bodies its a completely different matter to deliberate doping.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 26, 2012, 11:48:32 am
Yes it is, it's inadvertent and at the most careless but it isn't the same as deliberately taking something to increase performance.

Still doesn't match my understanding of the word "legit".

d.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 26, 2012, 12:24:06 pm
I thought Julich was outed as a doper years ago.

Seemed pretty obvious at the time.

It's more about what happened after 1999, to Julich and to Vaughters. They moved on to Credit Agricole. That was the last manifestation of the old Peugeot team.

Quote
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]
 
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).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peugeot_(cycling_team)

Vaughters has been quoted as saying that CA was 'clean'. Certainly the results of Vaughters and Julich post 2000 would tend to support that.
The big question for cycling fans is whether Roger Legeay was ever involved in the doping culture. Everything else is froth.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: citoyen on October 26, 2012, 12:31:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 26, 2012, 12:34:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Exit Stage Left on October 26, 2012, 12:44:17 pm
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.

What Legeay did or didn't do is the base datum around which we have to judge everything else in this case. Many of the key characters involved in Wiggins' success have been through his teams, Vaughters, Yates, Julich and Boardman, Wiggins himself. That's why Legeay is important to us. If there isn't an honestish kernel in this whole rotten affair then we can give up.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: Toady on October 26, 2012, 01:18:30 pm
I see that the links to the years 1999-2005 have completely disappeared from the letour website

http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/us/TDF/

But the underlying pages are still there, eg

http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/us/TDF/1999/index.html
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: hubner on October 26, 2012, 01:37:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on October 26, 2012, 01:41:06 pm
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 to have an opinion on Wiggo.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: RJ on October 26, 2012, 01:51:36 pm
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.

The logical conclusion (no matter what the evidence) of that stance is that all pros dope, as it's impossible to *prove* a negative.
Title: Re: Bye Lance
Post by: spesh on October 26, 2012, 03:27:34 pm
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.

From what I recall of what Jonathan Vaughters has been saying this summer, Credit Agricole were clean, or at least, cleaner than the norm at the time. Legeay refused to bend the rules so that JV could get a cortisone injection to treat an allergic reaction to a wasp sting.

From http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/jonathan-vaughters-interview

Quote
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 th