Bye Lance

[spesh]

Ace. Kimmage counter suing the UCI 

Bravo. Brave souls like him need to keep pressing the buttons.  Where do we donate again?

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

Speaking of which it appears that the editor-in-chief of the cycling satire web site, Cyclismas, is taking legal action against one Aaron Brown, (better known as @UCI_Overlord on Twitter) due to a fair bit of the defence fund being unaccounted for.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/538180/questions-over-paul-kimmage-defence-fund.html

On one level, it's unfortunate, but on another, it's strangely amusing. 

[woollypigs]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2330694/Lance-Armstrong-says-Danilo-Di-Luca-stupid-failing-drugs-test.html

[Biff]

When Lance said 'kiss my ass......' it wasn't just to other riders or the UCI. Slightly rude, hence:

http://tinyurl.com/p2bcq9b

[Biff]

Another take:

http://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/lance-3-0-lay-down-your-cudgels-please/

[mr magnolia]

Interesting.
Maybe he should be a, er, postman? And just keep out of my life?

[woollypigs]

http://www.espn.co.uk/cycling/sport/story/209560.html#

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/may/28/nike-livestrong-lance-armstrong

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2013/05/27/for-armstrong-forgiveness-is-not-saying-sorry/2364137/

[RichForrest]

Next!

http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/news/15264/8787644/

[LEE]

Next!

http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/news/15264/8787644/

The denial phase.

Fortunately it's not up to him to decide whether or not he was cheating........the cheating c**t.

[clarion]

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling doping is going on in here!

[andygates]

Interesting distinction, though, between "breaking the rules" and "cheating". 

[Hot Flatus]

Doping s'not cheating, silly!


It's cheating at doping that's cheating

[LEE]

I can only assume that his argument of "I was only doing it to create a level playing field" means that all the team doctors and riders got together and administered the exact same amount of "dope" to each rider, thereby not gaining a competitive advantage.


Am I being naive or is it possible that Jan's doctor tried to do a better job of doping than his competitors, actually seeking to gain a competitive advantage.  Surely not.

[Hot Flatus]

Well, in that era, to have a chance of being competitive, you had to dope

[hazeii]

Strangely, watching Russia Today I saw a story that Jan Ullrich has now admitted doping (so the wikipedia entry on who won the '97 TdF will need editing).

After which, I did actually LOL at the Wikipedia article List of doping cases in cycling, specifically at the header that reads "This list is incomplete...".

[Veloman]

Strangely, watching Russia Today I saw a story that Jan Ullrich has now admitted doping (so the wikipedia entry on who won the '97 TdF will need editing).

Only to reflect the UCI will probably treat it the same way as they treated the admission of Bjarne Riis for his win in 1996.  And who came 2nd in 1996? Ah, that'll be Ullrich!

[citoyen]

I can only assume that his argument of "I was only doing it to create a level playing field" means that all the team doctors and riders got together and administered the exact same amount of "dope" to each rider, thereby not gaining a competitive advantage.


Am I being naive or is it possible that Jan's doctor tried to do a better job of doping than his competitors, actually seeking to gain a competitive advantage.  Surely not.

http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing-field-doping-myth/

[LEE]

Well, in that era, to have a chance of being competitive, you had to dope

I know, but Jan's dreadful (denial phase) argument logically implied he was only attempting to dope exactly the same amount as his rivals.  He wanted it to be "fair".  That means he never took more, or better, "dope" than his rivals..just the precise amount needed for racing to be perfectly fair.

Or..as we all know...he did his utmost to take more, or better, "dope", in order to gain any advantage he could, to make the playing field as sloping as possible, in his favour.

Everyone knows they cheated..it would be nice if they all manned-up and said "yes, I cheated".  It doesn't need a "...because...", we know why, it was for money and fame.

[Hot Flatus]

I don't know. Maybe he doesn't want to be held up as a pariah for those who don't realise thàt doping is/was near universal.

At least, at the time, he just went, didn't try to lie his way out and didn't blame anybody else. His timing is a bit shit though, coming as it does during the national championships and the prelude to the TdF. In Germany it will overshadow any achievements by German riders.

[citoyen]

I know, but Jan's dreadful (denial phase) argument logically implied he was only attempting to dope exactly the same amount as his rivals.  He wanted it to be "fair".  That means he never took more, or better, "dope" than his rivals..just the precise amount needed for racing to be perfectly fair.

That's not really what he means. He's saying it's not cheating if everyone does it. A bit like speeding - he sees himself as no different to someone driving at 80 on the motorway even though what he's doing is more like driving at 90 in a 30 limit.

And because everyone was doing it, he thinks he had no option (except he always had the option that Bassons and Kimmage took of not wanting to be part of the charade). Plus what Flatus says about not wanting to be held up as a pariah.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I can only assume that his argument of "I was only doing it to create a level playing field" means that all the team doctors and riders got together and administered the exact same amount of "dope" to each rider, thereby not gaining a competitive advantage.


Am I being naive or is it possible that Jan's doctor tried to do a better job of doping than his competitors, actually seeking to gain a competitive advantage.  Surely not.

http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing-field-doping-myth/

As he says

Don’t look to sport for an equal universe.

[woollypigs]

Sorry your name is not on the list so you can't come in : http://www.news.com.au/sport/lance-armstrong-left-off-invite-list-for-tour-de-france-function-hosting-every-man-who-finished-race/story-fnh34s7u-1226670910752

And then he is telling us that you can't win the tour without drugs : http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cycling/lance-armstrong-you-cant-win-tour-de-france-title-without-taking-drugs-8678185.html

[Hot Flatus]

I've read the original interview in French. It has been misreported.

He was answering as to whether it could be won in his era without drugs, the answer to which is no.

[Biff]

I've read the original interview in French. It has been misreported.

He was answering as to whether it could be won in his era without drugs, the answer to which is no.

Some rather shoddy reporting out there. Though I can't stand the man, kudos to him for going online to correct Le Monde's error rather than throwing cycling under the bus for revenge.

[Exit Stage Left]

It's a problem for ASO. How do you celebrate the 100th Tour de France without pointing out that a considerable percentage were won by cheats?
I'd take it as a valuable moral lesson. Cheats prosper, so distrust the prosperous.

[Hot Flatus]

I'm not sure that the ASO care from a moral perspective. They certainly do from a reputational one. It is about to get very messy......on the day of the Queen stage of the Tour, the French Senate will release the names of about 40 riders from the "98 Tour who's samples have been retrospectively tested and found positive.

Hell, even Robert Millar is about to own up