/ So long Lance...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Darren Jackson - on 24 Aug 2012
Stripped of all 7 tour titles and banned for life.

Oh, how the mighty fall:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375
subalpine - on 24 Aug 2012
Darren Jackson - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to subalpine:

... I know, but I stuck this thread up because it's only just been confirmed on the BBC moments ago. It was speculation, prior to that?
Mr Fuller on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson: But who did win, then? Please don't tell me Ulrich and co are going to suddenly get bumped up to winners, as they were cheating every bit as much as Lance. It's a near-impossible position. Lance was the best in that era's long list of cheats, and we will never know who was the fastest clean rider.

I hope this doesn't ruin the cycling boom that's currently happening.
subalpine - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson: ah, ok- let's stick to the OP this time eh?
he was a good rider- a very good rider

have you noticed the proportion of elite athletes who emerge from major injuries or illness on top form?
here's something to be getting along with..
http://sport.maths.org/content/logic-drug-testing
Enty - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson:

How have USADA managed to strip him of his 7 Tour wins when they have f*ck all to do with them?

E
smithaldo - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty:

On the basis of USADA arguments. I officially strip liverpool of their 18 league titles.
Enty - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to smithaldo:
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> On the basis of USADA arguments. I officially strip liverpool of their 18 league titles.

Like ^^^

E
Toby_W on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty: Get reading, he signed, WADA signed, they signed.

Cheers

Toby
Jamie Abbott - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson: Ermm...

"World governing body, the International Cycling Union (UCI), is yet to say if it intends to follow USADA's lead. It had previously backed Armstrong's bid to challenge their authority."

Nothing confirmed as yet?

Cheers,
Jamie
Tim Chappell - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to smithaldo:
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> On the basis of USADA arguments. I officially strip liverpool of their 18 league titles.


Can we do this to Rangers too, please?

Oh wait, we already are :-)
Marc C - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson: ? Thought this was a thread announcing that Lance Perceval had died. I thought Lance (P) had already died but wasn't totally sure?

As for the other Lance - the title of an old Western comes to mind...Broken Lance. I never believed he was 'clean' - though nor were any of the multiple winners.

Cue tabloid headlines 'Boil of doping lanced!'
John Rushby - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty:

As usual Inner Ring seem to have it nailed.

Interesting how the comments in forums compare.

The Indie is very much fanboys peddling the 500 test stuff

Grauniad more sanguine

Telegraph blames is on blacks

Road CC seems to be erring toward being pro Lance

Inner ring seems to be agreed he had it coming and tending to be sensible

Cyclingnews is taking the usual stance of Lance is innocent Wiggins kills kittens Froome baths in the blood of virgins, as usual.
thermal_t - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Mr Fuller:
> (In reply to Darren Jackson) But who did win, then? Please don't tell me Ulrich and co are going to suddenly get bumped up to winners, as they were cheating every bit as much as Lance. It's a near-impossible position. Lance was the best in that era's long list of cheats, and we will never know who was the fastest clean rider.
>
> I hope this doesn't ruin the cycling boom that's currently happening.

^ This!

It's absolute BS to be honest, on the Wikipedia page for the 1999 TdF, it is already claiming Alex Zulle as the winner! The same Alex Zulle that was embroiled in the Festina affair, and admitted taking EPO? There's not a rider in the top 10 of most of Armstrong's tours that I would be happy handing the win to with a clean conscience. If they take his wins from him, they need to declare the tour's results void for those years. I have no doubt that Armstrong cheated, but they were all at it, consign it to history and move on!
neil0968 on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson:so he beat cancer but cannot beat the accusations that to me says guilty so long lance you cheat and after the highs for cycling during the Olympic s this is a dark day for road cycling.
Matt Rees - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to thermal_t:

Interesting graphic showing who could be nominated a winner, if it weren't for them having doping issues themselves. There aren't many options any more!

http://www.cyclingtipsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/armstrong1150px.jpg

Dave Kerr - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Matt Rees:
> (In reply to thermal_t)
>
> Interesting graphic showing who could be nominated a winner, if it weren't for them having doping issues themselves. There aren't many options any more!

Lots of folks about saying we need to draw a line and that the line should be drawn by not busting past offenders. The reasoning seems to be based on 'where do you stop'

I say bust away. Nail every one you can and then draw a line under the whole era (cera? ;-) Leave the results as they are with an asterisk beside every one who is tainted.

Then we can move on having shown that cheats never prosper.
Enty - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Toby_W:
> (In reply to Enty) Get reading, he signed, WADA signed, they signed.
>
> Cheers
>
> Toby

I have. This is ASO and The UCI we're talking about. They are going to let USADA dictate how this thing goes forward??

E
Jamie Abbott - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Mr Fuller:
> I hope this doesn't ruin the cycling boom that's currently happening.

Too late me good man: from http://singletrackworld.com - "i've just been out on my road bike,an some young kid just called me a Druggy !!"

Cheers,
Jamie
Alan Taylor - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson: If USADA are going to go on and go for Golf, Baseball,NFL and Tennis then I may start to respect them but until then this looks like an anti Armstrong witch hunt. Personally I dont think a clean Armstrong could have beaten a juicing Ulrich.
Goucho on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson: Is this a case of USADA making a high profile sacrificial lamb of Armstrong, as a way of diverting attention away from the fact that there was probably more chance of a nun on a butchers bike winning the TDF, than a clean rider?

Is Armstrong a cheat, or simply someone who played the game everyone else was playing, only better?
thermal_t - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Dave Kerr:
> (In reply to Matt Rees)
> [...]
> Lots of folks about saying we need to draw a line and that the line should be drawn by not busting past offenders. The reasoning seems to be based on 'where do you stop'
>
> I say bust away. Nail every one you can and then draw a line under the whole era (cera? ;-) Leave the results as they are with an asterisk beside every one who is tainted.
>
> Then we can move on having shown that cheats never prosper.

I agree with you, but what i'm not having is the honours being passed onto some other smug cheat from the same era. You either go after the lot...or forget about it.

"Where do you stop?" Unfortunately, this is where it stops, no-one is queuing up to go after Basso, Zulle, Heras, Ullrich, Beloki, Mayo, Moreau etc, etc, etc. It won't happen.

Other than his dubious character traits, what Armstrong did was no worse than any of the others, yet his name will be struck from the history books whilst the names of others remain, simply because they weren't famous enough to bother pursuing.
Byronius Maximus - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Goucho:
> (In reply to Darren Jackson)
>
> Is Armstrong a cheat, or simply someone who played the game everyone else was playing, only better?

Probably both, but most certainly the former.
Dave Kerr - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to thermal_t:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
> [...]
>
> I agree with you, but what i'm not having is the honours being passed onto some other smug cheat from the same era. You either go after the lot...or forget about it.
>

Those tours need to be recorded as 'no victor'
Paul035 - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty:

I agreed initially but then looking at the graphic posted above showing the let-offs and paltry bans many of the top 10 Tour riders received from their own federations, or UCI or whoever, I begin to think maybe some other body has to make a strong stance in order to send a message so that the sport doesn't descend back down that murky path. However, I am unaware of what jurisdiction the USADA have to be able to make this ruling?

I agree with the posts above stating nobody else should be named as a winner, they just have it in the records as an unhappy face with a syringe sticking out of his head.

:(
^
thermal_t - on 24 Aug 2012
In reply to Dave Kerr:
> (In reply to thermal_t)
> [...]
>
> Those tours need to be recorded as 'no victor'

Perfect!
Toby_W on 25 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty: We'll see, it should be interesting few weeks. For anyone who's interested the UCI are up to there neck in this and would no doubt like it all to go away and lance keep his wins but:

The ASO run the event, the UCI sanction the race under their rules which include who is elligible to compete. The UCI are signatories to WADA recognising that WADA decides who is banned due to doping, one of the UCI's rules is that elligibility requires you not to be banned for doping. LA accepts his ban from August 1st 1998 so therefore he was not elligible to compete in any UCI sanctioned race from the date, and therefore he wasn't elligible for the TDF. If he wasn't elligible to race he cannot have won.

If the UCI ignore this cycling may be shunned by the sporting world, kicked out of the olympics etc etc.

Welcome to the epic drama of pro cycling. There is no other sport like it.

Cheers

Toby
Morgan Woods - on 25 Aug 2012
In reply to Marc C:
>
>
> Cue tabloid headlines 'Boil of doping lanced!'

i like what you've done there :p
Enty - on 25 Aug 2012
In reply to Goucho:
>
>
> Is Armstrong a cheat, or simply someone who played the game everyone else was playing, only better?

The problem is "everyone" wasn't doing it. What about the poor bastards further down the field who chose to ride clean - we can't remember their names because they just finished 12th, 15th etc etc.
The talented young riders who had worked from the age of 12 to get a pro contract, sacrificed most of their youth, then when they break through into the ranks they are faced with doped up team mates and DS's who won't extend their contract because they can't win anything.

Armstrong had the chance to change this but he went the other way - win at all costs!

E

Enty - on 25 Aug 2012
In reply to Toby_W:

I was just getting fed up with USADA arrogantly claiming on every news site in the world that THEY have stripped Lance of his seven tour wins when at this moment they haven't.

E
ads.ukclimbing.com
Tiberius - on 25 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty:
> Armstrong had the chance to change this but he went the other way - win at all costs!

So did Mercx, and didn't; so did Tommy Simpson, and didn't; so did Anquetil, and didn't; so did Hinot, and didn't...the list goes on if you talk about riders.

It HAD to come from the team managers/owners. The people who paid those contracts. I think this is the one overriding item that comes from Millar's biography.
SFM - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson:

I got sent an article called "balls wheels doping" on Lance Armstrongs supposed never testing positive. Bit of an eye opener, well to me anyway. I guess that much of the article is probably common knowledge amongst those that follow cycling more keenly.

I'd include a link but can't access it from work.
Chris the Tall - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to SFM:
Is this the post ?

http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike

Interesting to see all the allegations in one place, particularly stuff relating to the his pre-cancer career - speculation that drugs could have caused it, and supression of test results could have hidden it.

The big question is what will the UCI do now? Surely it's too heavily implicated to sweep it under the carpet. How long can Pat McQuaid survive - a best he's a bumbling idiot, at worst totally complicit in a massive scandal.



SFM - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Aye, that's the one!

Yeah the cancer and steroid link was particularly intersting and a bit disturbing.

Does a new organisation have to be formed or can it survive by admitting it's past failings and devolve certain key functions to a new, more transparent body?
Euge - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to neil0968:
> (In reply to Darren Jackson)so he beat cancer but cannot beat the accusations that to me says guilty

I'm sorry, but that is a stupid comment...
Tiberius - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to SFM:
> ...on Lance Armstrongs supposed never testing positive. <snip> I guess that much of the article is probably common knowledge amongst those that follow cycling more keenly.

Not really, I just find it funny how people always insist on changing 'never failed a test' to 'never testing positive'. They are totally different things. Lance HAS tested positive several times. Carl Lewis DID test positive 3 times on public record. Neither has ever 'failed' a test.

At times, we're just playing with words, but sometimes semantics are important. When you go past a speed camera at 41 mph and it doesn't fire, it doesn't mean you were doing under 40mph.
John Rushby - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson:

THis is an interesting article, if only becuase it links to an even more interesting one at NY Velocity.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/kimmage-uci-needs-root-and-branch-surgery

stick with the Kimmage interview - it shows Landis in a very differant light to what has been said int he press (it shows Cyclingnews in a poor light) and also the UCI do not come out of it looking all clean and shiney.

Ok, so it is Landis, but I thik what he is saying is becoming true or may well be provien.
John Rushby - on 28 Aug 2012
elsewhere on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to John Rushby:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/26/cycling-clean-up

That story about Jonathan Vaughters shows what a nasty piece of work Lance Armstrong was.

Chris the Tall - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to John Rushby:
Very hard to know how much of what Landis says you can believe

OK you can understand his mental meltdown after being caught, and the attempt to deny everything. But even now his stance "I was doping, but not badly enough to get caught, and not doing what I was caught for, so it must all be a fix and I did the greatest ride ever and was treated unfairly"

I see Kimmage has also started throwing mud at Sky for not being vocal about Armstrong
John Rushby - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Chris the Tall:

I suspect Kimmage is feeling a little vindicated these days and brave enough to rain on Sky's parade.

I think he might have a point about the appointment of their doctor, but I do think he sees himeslf as Dopefinder Poursuivent.
subalpine - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson: does anyone think Wiggo should be awarded TDF 2009?
sleavesley on 28 Aug 2012
Tiberius - on 29 Aug 2012
In reply to subalpine:
> ...does anyone think Wiggo should be awarded TDF 2009?

I'm not sure I see the point tbh. At the time, everyone knew he was the cleanest rider of the top 5...again, what's the point? It doesn't change anything that anybody didn't already know...ok, I admit there are a few people who don't know much about cycling, but other than that...
The New NickB - on 29 Aug 2012
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to Darren Jackson) does anyone think Wiggo should be awarded TDF 2009?

Are there allegations against Andy Schleck? I know Frank got chucked off this years tour for a fail, but is there something else.
Mike Highbury - on 29 Aug 2012
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to subalpine)
> [...]
>
> Are there allegations against Andy Schleck? I know Frank got chucked off this years tour for a fail, but is there something else.

Allegations, yes of course!

It is said that the police focused its investigation on their father, Johny, seeking to catch him transporting PEDs across borders.

For completeness I Googled this allegation and sure enough JS was targeted by the French police during the 2012 Tour, see www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/17/tour-de-france-frank-schleck.
FrankBooth - on 30 Aug 2012
it doesn't really matter who else was at it, Armstrong was top dog, so bringing him down was key to sending out the zero tolerance message.

However talented, dedicated or heroic his antics may have been, the consensus within the cycling community, the governing bodies, and the media is that he cheated and must now pay the price.

Over the course of 100 years, the TdF has had it's share of turbulence - at one point, riders would sleep with their bikes to prevent other teams sabotaging them! This is just another chapter, move on, and enjoy the spectacle.
skidder on 30 Aug 2012 - 195.194.75.205 whois?
In reply to FrankBooth:

Yes Lance was almost certainly guilty. Yes he should be stripped of titles.

But I bet most of the tour riders of that era were at it - caught or not - Lance was hunted more than anyone else. So he was still the top man in a drug fuelled sport.

For me he is still an inspiration for overcoming Cancer. LIVESTRONG.
link - on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to skidder:

The reason he was hunted more than anyone else is in part due to his stature but also to the nature of the allegations.

There are some allegations to say he facilitated and even encouraged doping within the US Postal team. In my eyes this is far far worse than choosing as an individual to charge up. The bullying tactics LA has used with journalists and riders who have spoken out in the past are widely known. It is easy to imagine a young neo pro joining the team and giving in to such pressure

While LA gets all the headlines, don't forget this is much bigger than him. There were characters who, if the allegations are true, were implicit to the supposed doping program run within the team. These characters still work within pro cycling and work with and manage the young riders of today. There is also the worrying behaviour of the UCI throughout this case. Tales of corruption crop up all to frequently and it wont take much for the IOC to get fed up with cycling. While LA has chosen not to go to arbitration, I believe Johan Bruyneel has, so I guess we will still get to hear/read about the evidence USADA claims to have.

Plenty of my non-cycling friends have strong opinions on whether LA did or did not dope based on what they have read in the tabloids. As a keen cyclist and fan of the sport, I don't give a monkeys whether he did or what happens to his titles. Its the deeper implications of the whole case that are worrying and they tend to get glossed over.
Chris the Tall - on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to link:
> (In reply to skidder)
> Its the deeper implications of the whole case that are worrying and they tend to get glossed over.

Yep, the silence from the UCI is deafening and I suspect they are hoping it will all go away. I'm very sceptical about the Landis claims, but if even a fraction of them are true then the UCI is up to their necks in this. Particularly like the claim that Bruyneel ensured that Contador was tested by the only lab that could detect the drugs that Bruyneel knew he took.

I very much doubt if we'll see McQuaid presenting medals at the next Olympics
Minneconjou Sioux - on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to Chris the Tall:

I agree that the sport needs to clean up and move on. I accept (reluctantly) that Lance was a drug cheat but I'm still not sure if retrospective action is valid.

His wins were wins of the time. Can England go back and claim a world cup victory because Maradonna (sp?) cheated. What about all of the cricket results that may be in doubt due to betting scandals? The list of sporting events that were or may have been affected by "cheating" is long and extensive. I'm not sure I gain anything by their outcome being changed other than to feel empty.
fxceltic on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:
> (In reply to Chris the Tall)
>
> I agree that the sport needs to clean up and move on. I accept (reluctantly) that Lance was a drug cheat but I'm still not sure if retrospective action is valid.
>
> His wins were wins of the time. Can England go back and claim a world cup victory because Maradonna (sp?) cheated. What about all of the cricket results that may be in doubt due to betting scandals? The list of sporting events that were or may have been affected by "cheating" is long and extensive. I'm not sure I gain anything by their outcome being changed other than to feel empty.

I feel much the same way as you re the whole thing. i dislike greatly all the multiple orgasms going on on places like twitter about this stuff. I just feel a bit wounded about it all.

I would only change your post by adding the word "probably" before "was a drug cheat" since I personally have still not seen or heard any actual evidence, which makes me slightly uncomfortable about accepting everything wholesale
fxceltic on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to fxceltic: and by evidence I mean a positive test
subalpine - on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to fxceltic: the more i read about this, the more i think doping is still going on, but you need novel drugs (not yet illegal?) and money to make it happen..
Dave Kerr - on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to fxceltic) and money to make it happen..


If we're talking money then this makes for interesting reading:

http://dimspace.co.uk/la/ArmstrongBusinessConnections1707.png

Apologies if its been posted already.

Dave Kerr - on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson:

Of particular interest to me given his vocal support for Lance in the British press is the fact that Liggett is a paid speaker at Livestrong events.

tim000 - on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to fxceltic: the thing with retrospective testing is that it is a deterent against doping . you might take something that WADA dosn`t have a test for so you should be ok . but whos to say that the samples wont be tested later when there is a test.
subalpine - on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to Dave Kerr: interesting link. is there one for team GB/sky?
subalpine - on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to tim000: and who's to say the testing/anti-doping guys are not open to corruption? money talks..
nrhardy - on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to fxceltic:
> (In reply to fxceltic) and by evidence I mean a positive test

There's a big difference between testing positive and failing a drug test. He did test positive for corticosteroids, though due to a therapeutic use exemption certificate this wasn't a failed test. There's plenty of interesting reading about that TUE and it being backdated, also it's provision coming after he had explicitly stated in a press conference he hadn't any TUEs, so I'll leave you to google that.
fxceltic on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to nrhardy:
> (In reply to fxceltic)
> [...]
>
> There's a big difference between testing positive and failing a drug test. He did test positive for corticosteroids, though due to a therapeutic use exemption certificate this wasn't a failed test. There's plenty of interesting reading about that TUE and it being backdated, also it's provision coming after he had explicitly stated in a press conference he hadn't any TUEs, so I'll leave you to google that.

And your post sort of makes my point. theres plenty of "interesting reading" but it seems at least not a lot of actual hard physical evidence.
Im fully aware that he is probably guilty and of all the allegations re the failed test in 99 and the alleged covered up positive in the tour de auisse in 2001
Toby_W on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to fxceltic:

No failed test but epo was found in 6 of his stored samples. This is a cold hard fact.

I have several million quid stuck in Nigeria by the way, if you could give me your bank details I'll cut you in for a slice.

Toby
John Rushby - on 30 Aug 2012
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr) interesting link. is there one for team GB/sky?

Yup, have a look on Inner Ring

are you trying to say Sky are dirty?
fxceltic on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to Toby_W:
> (In reply to fxceltic)
>
> No failed test but epo was found in 6 of his stored samples. This is a cold hard fact.
>
> I have several million quid stuck in Nigeria by the way, if you could give me your bank details I'll cut you in for a slice.
>
> Toby

as Ive said, Im accepting of the fact that he is most likely guilty, the problem (as i understand it) with the stored samples is that rather than being a "live" test there remains the, admittedly unlikely, possibility that they have been tampered with or whatever. It would just be so much clearer cut with a positive test, then there would no wriggle room.

Instead it goes on and on and on.

My overwhelming feeling is one of disappointment, and also irritation at the crowing going on from many quarters, with lots of people now claiming never to have believed in Lance being clean even prior to his first tour win, which (to the best of my knowledge) seems unreasonable given what was known by most of us about him in particular at that point. It feels revisionist and that people are just glorying in his downfall.

I dont know what the answer is and Im not certain an awful lot is being gained by all this (unless you are Walsh or Kimmage etc, in which case its a case of vindication at last or whatever, fair play). Lines are still drawn in the sand and most people are still standing more or less where they did before this latest news.
Prior to this I was feeling that actually, we'd more or less moved on and that the sport is probably now a lot cleaner than the EPO years (probably be proved wrong in a couple of years no doubt), but now we are being drawn back into the mire.
ClimberEd - on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to Toby_W:

Link please?

Wasn't it a 'retro test'?
fxceltic on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to ClimberEd:
> (In reply to Toby_W)
>
> Link please?
>
> Wasn't it a 'retro test'?

yes, his 99 samples were allegedly found to have EPO in them, but he was subsequently cleared after a report was written stating there were problems with the processes and that the sample could not be relied upon.
There then followed counter claims that the guy who wrote the report was basically in Armstrongs employ, and Ashenden says the report is nonsense.

again, never ending claim and counter claim.
Toby_W on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to fxceltic:

I understand what you're saying. The lab however had no idea who the samples belonged to they just wanted to test the epo test on samples likey to have it in. A journo then requested Armstrong's test times & details from the UCI and matched the sample numbers. Armstrong then refused permission to test the B samples and the UCI decided it didn't count.

Regarding benifit, I don't think anyone (you, me most of todays cyclists) cares about the past really. I loved his racing and enjoyed his books, and would still enjoy them watching or reading them again now. But the message sent if sportspeople know their samples will be kept and tested in the future as new tests and details of doping methods become known and will face justice for their cheating must be a strong deterent (stronger than tests that clued up dopers can easily pass Dwayne Chambers, Marion Jones etc). It is doubly good that the doctor and team manager are also up on these charges, people seem to forget this. This will go some way to protecting young riders entering the sport. I'd like to live in a world where like the Mounties the drugs agencies always get their man or women in the end.

The only thing I find upsetting about this is the blindness of my fellow man and it saddens me that as with a lot of things legal talk and PR easily seem to convince people that 5+5 is not equal to 10.

Cheers

Toby
nrhardy - on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to fxceltic:
> (In reply to nrhardy)
> [...]
>
> And your post sort of makes my point. theres plenty of "interesting reading" but it seems at least not a lot of actual hard physical evidence.
> Im fully aware that he is probably guilty and of all the allegations re the failed test in 99 and the alleged covered up positive in the tour de auisse in 2001

My post was solely in reply to you saying 'and by evidence I mean a positive test", to which I pointed out that Armstrong has tested positive and the difference between that and failing a drug test. It doesn't, to my mind, reinforce your point, but does show how the Armstrong PR machine manages to obfuscate the truth.

If you mean a failed drug test, taken in competition, that everybody acknowledges, then no, there is no hard physical evidence. If you are looking at test result alone, then there are many instances, but they haven't been acceptable for use in prosecution of a doping charge because of failure in procedure.

I'm neither a hater or fanboy of Armstrong, but I believe that it needs pursuing as the King needs to be toppled to show that doping is not acceptable. I'd still be chasing Linford Christie if I worked for a doping agency!!
neil the weak - on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to Toby_W:
> (In reply to fxceltic)
> I loved his racing and enjoyed his books, and would still enjoy them watching or reading them again now.

I quite enjoyed them too, though they are marred now somewhat by the fact that a great deal of what's written in them is probably for want of a more subtle phrase, lies. All the set upon hero stuff, miraculous return to fitness etc. All a bit different if you factor in the PED's.

Toby_W on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to neil the weak: I do generally prefer fiction books though.

Cheers

Toby
Dave Kerr - on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to fxceltic:
> (In reply to ClimberEd)
> [...]
>
> yes, his 99 samples were allegedly found to have EPO in them, but he was subsequently cleared after a report was written stating there were problems with the processes and that the sample could not be relied upon.
>

No alledgedly about it. The samples were positive. The reason they were not used to ban him is that they were not achieved through the proper / regular channels.
Dave Kerr - on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson:

Liggett is starting to look like a bit of an idiot with his ever more ridiculous statements about LA:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-responds-to-liggetts-claims-of-bribery-in-armstrong-case

In fact I think you could turn his statement around and say that it's him who has been compromised by his financial relations with the LA machine.
Jim Lancs - on 31 Aug 2012
Ligget and his toy boy Sherwin have always been the No1 cheer leaders for LA. When Armstrong went off road to avoid Beloki laying in the road, it was the closest I've heard a couple of grown men get to actually orgasming while on the radio.

If you ever did the 'Phil and Friends Ride' in the Peak District, Ligget would be there wearing his full USP kit and riding a bike given to him by Armstrong and talking endlessly about 'when I was with Lance, Lance said . . . "

So objective commentator on the latest developments? I don't think so.

Toby_W on 31 Aug 2012
fxceltic on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to Toby_W:
> (In reply to fxceltic)
>
> But the message sent if sportspeople know their samples will be kept and tested in the future as new tests and details of doping methods become known and will face justice for their cheating must be a strong deterent (stronger than tests that clued up dopers can easily pass Dwayne Chambers, Marion Jones etc). It is doubly good that the doctor and team manager are also up on these charges, people seem to forget this. This will go some way to protecting young riders entering the sport. I'd like to live in a world where like the Mounties the drugs agencies always get their man or women in the end.
>

this I agree with. If anything comes of it all I hope the UCI/ McQuad/ Verbruggen etc get brought down as part of a massive cover up.
At least that way it would be easier to understand why there were never any usable, accepted, positive tests.
Toby_W on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to fxceltic:

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/lance-armstrong-case-dr-michael.html

FYI bit on re-testing the 1999 tests. Scroll down to it.

Cheers

Toby
jockster - on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson:
Excellent discussion on Lance A situation on velocast.cc
http://velocastcc.squarespace.com/race-radio/category/talk

Cheers, Si
fxceltic on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to Toby_W:
> (In reply to fxceltic)
>
> http://seamusoriley.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/lance-armstrong-case-dr-michael.html
>
> FYI bit on re-testing the 1999 tests. Scroll down to it.
>
> Cheers
>
> Toby

Ive read that interview several times in the past. As I have said several times on this thread, Im basically convinced he did dope, things like that interview contribute to that as part of everything that has come out.

I am hopeful now that the USADA evidence will be presented in full at some time in the near future and that everyone can move on from where we are now.
Jim Lancs - on 31 Aug 2012
<<I am hopeful now that the USADA evidence will be presented in full at some time in the near future and that everyone can move on from where we are now.>>

I don't think that will ever happen as LA has short circuited the process, by refusing to contest the allegations.

As I understand it, for the UCI and others to endorse the the automatic USADA ban on LA, they just have to have proof that the process was followed properly. It doesn't matter what the evidence is as 'failing to contest' is an admission of guilt, in the same way that refusing to give a sample to the drug testers is an admission of guilt. Any evidence is now immaterial to the process.

I believe this is why LA has chosen this route. It stops the allegations ever becoming public so he can position himself as 'the victim' and allow people to take sides without being influenced by whatever evidence there may or may not be.
fxceltic on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to Jim Lancs: maybe, I had heard that USADA will release the information once they have finished with those that are contesting the charges (Bruyneel et al).

I cant see any reason why they wouldnt, theres nothing Armstrong can do to stop them is there?
tony on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to Jim Lancs:
> <<I am hopeful now that the USADA evidence will be presented in full at some time in the near future and that everyone can move on from where we are now.>>
>
> I don't think that will ever happen as LA has short circuited the process, by refusing to contest the allegations.
>
Not according to this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990
fxceltic on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to Jim Lancs)
> [...]
> Not according to this:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990

that is good news if it happens
Dave Kerr - on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to Jim Lancs:
> <<I am hopeful now that the USADA evidence will be presented in full at some time in the near future and that everyone can move on from where we are now.>>
>
> I don't think that will ever happen as LA has short circuited the process, by refusing to contest the allegations.

USADA have said from the start that they would release the evidence 'when the time was right'.

I have a suspicion that will be after the UCI has seen it and had a chance to respond (or not respond).

I am far from being a conspiracy theorist but the more I see of this the more I think it goes pretty high up.
Jim Lancs - on 31 Aug 2012
Well only time will tell. But I bet any decision to release information will be challenged.

It will certainly have to wait until everyone involved has exhausted all legal avenues.
Anytime soon?
Dave Kerr - on 31 Aug 2012
In reply to Jim Lancs:
> Well only time will tell. But I bet any decision to release information will be challenged.
>

It probably will be contested, despite the fact that he says he's done fighting.

I think by deciding not to fight he's given up the right to reply to any release of info about the charges but I doubt Lance sees it that way.
pat m - on 01 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty:
> > Armstrong had the chance to change this but he went the other way - win at all costs!
>
Glad to see that you have finally seen the light

JJL - on 01 Sep 2012
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to Darren Jackson) http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=517487

Which is fine, but misses the point that the sensitivity and specificity of LC/GC-MS isn't 95%, but damn near 100%
Brendan - on 01 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Goucho)
> [...]
>
> The problem is "everyone" wasn't doing it. What about the poor bastards further down the field who chose to ride clean - we can't remember their names because they just finished 12th, 15th etc etc.
> The talented young riders who had worked from the age of 12 to get a pro contract, sacrificed most of their youth, then when they break through into the ranks they are faced with doped up team mates and DS's who won't extend their contract because they can't win anything.
>
> Armstrong had the chance to change this but he went the other way - win at all costs!
>
> E

That's a really important point. There's an interview in Jeremy Whittle's Bad Blood with a British guy who was successful domestically but couldn't keep up in the TdF. He said he regretted staying clean because he could have had a good career otherwise.

So many clean cyclists missed out because of doping, which LA seems to have helped perpetuate.




tim264 on 03 Sep 2012 - 95.151.234.224 whois?
In reply to Darren Jackson: What is the poit - one of his wins the top 25 are all impicated. The guy is/was a legend, inspiration to millions, helped put road biking on the map, made TdF and has raised millions for charity. In an era when virtually all teams doped as policy (all riders protest innocence until caught and in all likelyhood 99% doped if not 100.)
This is the same agency that clears their twice caught sprinter to run at london 2012. The whole thing is driven by the 'trolls' who were caught out by having to pay the bonuses negotioated as part of his post cancer contract when his basic pay was minimal to take account of the fact that he was not expected to be able to achieve any sort of success thus they never expected to pay the millions he earned by winning.
Most ex team mates have an axe to grind - few parted on good terms. He lived in France, was tested pretty well 600 times. On the basis of the ruling every pro cyclist going back 15 years should be investigated.
Lets hope UCI grow some and tell usada where to ram it
allez lance
subalpine - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to tim264: they'll be banning oxygen ascents on everest next..
nrhardy - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to tim264: You are Lance Armstrong and I claim my 5.
Toby_W on 03 Sep 2012
link - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to tim264:

Is your real name Phil Liggett?
Byronius Maximus - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to tim264:
> (In reply to Darren Jackson)
> Most ex team mates have an axe to grind - few parted on good terms.

Don't you think there's a good reason for that?

>He lived in France, was tested pretty well 600 times.

Have you really fallen for that one?

>On the basis of the ruling every pro cyclist going back 15 years should be investigated.

Not really. Armstrong is the most prolific of all the riders of that era so getting him sends out a message.

> Lets hope UCI grow some and tell usada where to ram it

The UCI should have grown some years ago and told Armstrong and his cronies where to ram it.
Jimbo W on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to tim264) they'll be banning oxygen ascents on everest next..

what a good idea
John Rushby - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to tim264:

Tested 600 times my view-

Question to David Millar -"did you dope?"
Answer "yes"

Question "Did you ever test positive?"

Answer "no"

Armstrong, it increasingly appears, was central to organised, systematic dioping, that cost clean riders their living, it brought the sport into disrepute, he was controlling and a bully and anyone who crossed him be they riders, journalists or whatver were lucky to keep thier jobs.

It's karma

and it is possible to get cancer and still be a right tw*t.

I do agree that the likes of Justin Gaitlin leave a lot to be desired, but equally USADA and WADA have gone for some pretty high profile scalps..
RBK - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to tim264: I like that Armstrong's PR people are now quoting 'nearly 600' tests after it's been 500 for years, all of the evidence and records available suggest it was actually around 240. I suppose they don't have a lot left to work with.
Toby_W on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to RBK: Yes,

It's more like 243 times the 357 times were self tests to make sure he passed the 243.

What's the Mark Twain quote?

"It Is Easier To Fool People Than To Convince People That They Have Been Fooled"

Cheers

Toby

Chris the Tall - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to John Rushby:
> and it is possible to get cancer and still be a right tw*t.
>
And it's possible to get cancer because of the steroids you are taking

It is also possible for drugs tests to reveal testicular cancer due to the testosterone ratios being out of range. Unless you were doing something to mask such results.

As to the UCI kicking USADA into touch - if they could, they would, but have already failed. Surely USADA deserve some credit for not doing what the Spanish and German authorities did over Puerto and Frieburg.

tim264 on 03 Sep 2012 - 95.151.234.224 whois?
In reply to Byronius Maximus: Actually he wasn't the most prolific, he targeted the tour and as such competed relatively infrequently on the circuit compared to most of the pros - everything was geared to that single event. Due to his performance in that single race in what at the time was a minority sport he became the best known rider to the wider world as he was american (continental europe had plenty of household names, most of whom doped), the tour becoming more widely watched due to his sucess at this single event. . The point is that in that era the majority of riders were doing the same thing as a team policy. Armstrong has been pursued primarily due to the win bonus scheme - one of the top prosecutors had been hired in the states in the case that was abandoned earlier in the year. Agreed the guy was an a**hole which is why he polarises people and most of his ex team mates have gone against him (though no one seems to want to point the finger at nice 'big george hincapie' levi etc). Common sense would say draw a line and don't go back 10 - 15 years. No one is after carl lewis are they (anyone remeber the interview he gave dissing athletes using HGH - the by product of which was buck teeth - whilst wearing shiny braces to correct his own hgh induced buck teeth?)
The current blood passport and testing regime should be enough to 'send a message'. It is pointless going back that far and if you do where do you stop - Tommy Simpson.
Puerto involved numerous teams so it wasn't just us postal.
Agreed i am a fan of lance for his dedicated and ruthless determination and it was largely cos of him i took up racing
tim264 on 03 Sep 2012 - 95.151.234.224 whois?
In reply to John Rushby:

'Armstrong, it increasingly appears, was central to organised, systematic dioping, that cost clean riders their living, it brought the sport into disrepute, he was controlling and a bully and anyone who crossed him be they riders, journalists or whatver were lucky to keep thier jobs.'

Probably true, but the point is that it was systematic in all pro teams - the only clean riders being those not caught. If you asked david millar did you dope before he was caught it probably would have gone
- have you doped?
- no, i race clean......

Anyway, just off for a tripple expresso before my turbo session (before that's banned), can't afford the epo
steveej - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson: IMO, there's nothing wrong with doping. It just another thing to do on the list of doing whatever it takes to succeed.

The spanish, french, italians and all the rest of the continentals are not interested. Its a cultural thing. Out there its all about participation. Getting off your arse and doing it.

A pure test of human performance would mean everyone eating the same food and everyone racing the same bikes. But its not purely about human performance. its about everything else that goes into it. The 'Team contribution'.

The UK culture seems all to much about commentating, having a say, vocalising an opinion - the essence of the armchair critic.

Armstrong was a doper like all of his competitors- There is nothing wrong with that. He was prepared to do whatever it takes to succeed! which is far more than what the general public are ever capable of. He is prepared to take the necessary risks to succeed.

Much like climbing, taking diamox, oxygen fixed lines, porters, uplift, guidebooks, weather forcasts.
steveej - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to steveej: in essence, people at the top of the game are rarely there by chance. They are there through hard work and commitment and being prepared to do whatever it takes, and that is the backbone of their success.

There is a route in Pembroke called ''Equipoise''. An obscure steroid you would never have heard of unless you were in the game. Says it all really, but there is nothing wrong with it.
woolsack - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to steveej:
> (In reply to Darren Jackson) IMO, there's nothing wrong with doping. It just another thing to do on the list of doing whatever it takes to succeed.
>

Nothing wrong with setting your alarm to wake you in the middle of the night so that you can get up and do fifty situps to get your heart rate up just to make sure the thick syrup you have in your arteries can still make its way to your heart by the morning. Nice.
JJL - on 03 Sep 2012
Paul Twomey - on 04 Sep 2012
John Rushby - on 04 Sep 2012
In reply to steveej:

A rather conflated argument.

Doping is cheating. I know that sounds naif, but I would like to think we can operate in a society where you succed thorugh your own efforts. For a clean rider it must be like sitting your finals, knowing that the lecturers, the examiners and 75% of the examinees are complicit in cheating, so you get a second, they get a first and that nice job with the big salary.

Add to that, the impact of doping on the body. Putting all that shit into your body aint good. I am not talking some Leah Betts moral outrage but too many riders suffered the consequence of PEDs either by side effects or dosage abuse.

You can't equate the subterfuge, illegaility, moral dissonance, deleterious impact on the body and "win at all costs" mentality with using a guide book or looking at a weather forecast.

Do it all costs - you're not the one who chipped Hairless Heart are you?
mark s - on 04 Sep 2012
In reply to steveej:
> (In reply to steveej) in essence, people at the top of the game are rarely there by chance. They are there through hard work and commitment and being prepared to do whatever it takes, and that is the backbone of their success.
>
> There is a route in Pembroke called ''Equipoise''. An obscure steroid you would never have heard of unless you were in the game. Says it all really, but there is nothing wrong with it.

ive taken equipoise,was good stuff.
Martin W on 05 Sep 2012
In reply to steveej:

> A pure test of human performance would mean everyone eating the same food

Dubious. (Would you have different classes for veggies and non-veggies?)

> and everyone racing the same bikes.

Not a completely daft idea. Don't they do something like this in the equestrian section of the modern pentathlon: you ride the horse you're given?

> But its not purely about human performance. its about everything else that goes into it. The 'Team contribution'.

Similar to quite a few other sports eg most obviously motor racing. Nowt wrong with that so long as it's recognised that it is a valid part of the competition.

> Armstrong was a doper like all of his competitors- There is nothing wrong with that.

Apart from it being against the rules?

> He was prepared to do whatever it takes to succeed!

That's a mind-bogglingly stupid assertion. All sports have rules to govern the limits of "whatever it takes". Those rules include things like limits on what you can do to the bike (minimum weights and so forth) and what the athletes can do to themselves.

Without regulations in a competitive endeavour you don't have a sport, just a fight. If you just want to make sure that you get across the line before everyone else by whatever means possible, why not just push everyone else off the road? But don't be surprised if they try to do the same to you. If you just want to get round France as quickly as possible on a bike, fit an engine to the thing and have done with it. Ah, but those things against the rules. You might "succeed" but you wouldn't win the competition, because you'd be disqualified.

> Much like climbing, taking diamox, oxygen fixed lines, porters, uplift, guidebooks, weather forcasts.

There are no rules in in that kind of climbing, only ethics - no-one climbs real routes to win prizes. In competitive climbing, guess what: there are rules, and you have to compete within them in order to win.
John Rushby - on 05 Sep 2012
ClimberEd - on 05 Sep 2012
John Rushby - on 05 Sep 2012
In reply to ClimberEd:

Thanks for the links.

just been to see if the Tyler book is out in the UK, apparently not.

so I bought the Stephen Roche one instead (having read both EM ones in the last 2 weeks)
TimB - on 05 Sep 2012
In reply to John Rushby:

Kindle users can apparently already get electronic versions.

The word is that the UK version has a few changes due to stricter libel laws.
fxceltic on 05 Sep 2012
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to ClimberEd)
>
> Thanks for the links.
>
> just been to see if the Tyler book is out in the UK, apparently not.
>
> so I bought the Stephen Roche one instead (having read both EM ones in the last 2 weeks)

Im just reading the Roche one at the moment, its pretty good and the first part, at least, focusses on '87. Reading back about the La Plagne stage was great, took me right back to my mates kitchen in dublin, listening on the radio to that stage, sent shivers down my spine reading it.
yorkshireman - on 05 Sep 2012
In reply to TimB:
> (In reply to John Rushby)

> The word is that the UK version has a few changes due to stricter libel laws.

Does that mean we'll get a more sanitised version? In that case I'm ordering it from Amazon.com
Mike Highbury - on 05 Sep 2012
In reply to ClimberEd:
> (In reply to John Rushby)
>
> Interesting blog post here
>
> http://www.pelotonmagazine.com/Wilcockson/content/21/1799/Wilcockson-The-Armstrong-Case
>
Christ, that's quite the most dreadful sentimental tosh.

fxceltic on 05 Sep 2012
In reply to Mike Highbury:
> (In reply to ClimberEd)
> [...]
> Christ, that's quite the most dreadful sentimental tosh.

more interestingly, on his last point, could LA have won all 7 tours on a "level playing field" ie everyone competing without doping?

ClimberEd - on 05 Sep 2012
In reply to fxceltic:

That's what I find interesting. We'll never know.....
dissonance - on 05 Sep 2012
In reply to fxceltic:

> more interestingly, on his last point, could LA have won all 7 tours on a "level playing field" ie everyone competing without doping?

guess it would depend on how equal the doping was. if it was equal among the top riders then i guess in theory it would carry across. Depends though whether those who didnt dope would catch up.
As ClimberEd says, will never know though and he seems to have played a big part in wrecking the chance of starting a clean tour when he came back from his illness.
Minneconjou Sioux - on 05 Sep 2012
In reply to dissonance:

But if you read this new book it says that the doping wasn't on a level playing field and that LA got a much higher level of treatment.
ads.ukclimbing.com
elsewhere on 05 Sep 2012
In reply to fxceltic:
> more interestingly, on his last point, could LA have won all 7 tours on a "level playing field" ie everyone competing without doping?

I doubt un-doped riders had a chance. That doesn't make doped riders innocent of doping though.


fxceltic on 07 Sep 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson: upcoming phil liggett dance floor hit

http://velorooms.com/files/liggetmix.mp3
TimB - on 07 Sep 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson:

For anyone who hasn't yet taken sides, entrenched their position and decided it doesn't matter, here's a good summary of why it does matter:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

I can also recommend the performance/power analysis posts on tis blog as well. Bit more interesting than the usual "they're obviously doping" observations.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.