This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
He was at it, they were all it. Is Lance guilty of doping, or just guilty of being the best of doing it? I have not read the whole report, but it seems some people squealed like piggies to save there neck's. Six month bans, why not life? I may have missed something, it's a whirlwind of news, and a busy life. Please inform me!
In reply to Andrew Smith:
He seems to have been very very good at pedalling
> He was at it, Please inform me!
He seems to have been very very good at pedalling
In reply to Andrew Smith: if they all did it ban the lot of em!!
In reply to woolsack: I have taken drugs in my life. My arm was not twisted up my back. So were they are not implicit?
In reply to Andrew Smith:
You have.
They weren't all doing it.
Here's a quote from a Facebook friend of mine - his name is Graham Webb. He was amateur road race champion in 1967.
When Tom died on the Ventoux they said "now it will all change" but has it? No it just gets worse! I don't know what others have said in the past and I'm not interested as for over 40 years I've been saying "If you can't earn an honest living from cycling then get out otherwise your just a cheating coward to yourself and your family". That's why I got out in 1969 aged just 25. I told my sport director to stick his bike up his arse, and not a single regret. Why didn't your hero Lance have the guts to do the same? My mother's dying words to me were "you could have made it son" well mom thanks to Lance and all those other “heroes” I'm proud I didn't "make it"!
Racing career and dreams ruined because he couldn't compete with the dopers.
E
> I may have missed something,
You have.
They weren't all doing it.
Here's a quote from a Facebook friend of mine - his name is Graham Webb. He was amateur road race champion in 1967.
When Tom died on the Ventoux they said "now it will all change" but has it? No it just gets worse! I don't know what others have said in the past and I'm not interested as for over 40 years I've been saying "If you can't earn an honest living from cycling then get out otherwise your just a cheating coward to yourself and your family". That's why I got out in 1969 aged just 25. I told my sport director to stick his bike up his arse, and not a single regret. Why didn't your hero Lance have the guts to do the same? My mother's dying words to me were "you could have made it son" well mom thanks to Lance and all those other “heroes” I'm proud I didn't "make it"!
Racing career and dreams ruined because he couldn't compete with the dopers.
E
In reply to Enty:
Wow, pretty moving words from someone who obviously knows what they are talking about.
Wow, pretty moving words from someone who obviously knows what they are talking about.
In reply to bouldery bits:
oh no he isn`t
> (In reply to Andrew Smith)
>
>
> Armstrong is the ultimate pantomime villain.
>
>
> Armstrong is the ultimate pantomime villain.
oh no he isn`t
In reply to Andrew Smith:
Read Dave Millar's book "Racing in the Dark" - then you will understand how alone these young men are when they venture into the pro-cycling world. When he needed help to avoid going to the dark side there was no one there.
As Enty will testify there is a "Bankysesque" spray can job on the slopes of Ventoux not far from Tom's memorial dated sometime around the early noughties and it just says something along the lines of "..and they still haven't learnt"
La Sham
Read Dave Millar's book "Racing in the Dark" - then you will understand how alone these young men are when they venture into the pro-cycling world. When he needed help to avoid going to the dark side there was no one there.
As Enty will testify there is a "Bankysesque" spray can job on the slopes of Ventoux not far from Tom's memorial dated sometime around the early noughties and it just says something along the lines of "..and they still haven't learnt"
La Sham
In reply to Andrew Smith:
According to the USADA, he is also guilty of lying repeatedly - so far without retraction or apology - and of intimidating those who tried to expose him into keeping quiet. USADA believe that he lied under oath and should be done for perjury. They provided evidence of intimidation which included persecuting other riders who tried to ride clean and expose the doping, and using using the courts (with the help of the enormous financial resources he had at his disposal) to shut people up.
It's not just about Lance taking drugs. That's why it's worth offering plea bargains to those prepared to testify against the more grievous offender. Happens all the time.
> Is Lance guilty of doping, or just guilty of being the best of doing it?
According to the USADA, he is also guilty of lying repeatedly - so far without retraction or apology - and of intimidating those who tried to expose him into keeping quiet. USADA believe that he lied under oath and should be done for perjury. They provided evidence of intimidation which included persecuting other riders who tried to ride clean and expose the doping, and using using the courts (with the help of the enormous financial resources he had at his disposal) to shut people up.
It's not just about Lance taking drugs. That's why it's worth offering plea bargains to those prepared to testify against the more grievous offender. Happens all the time.
In reply to Andrew Smith:
Lance is a hell of an athlete, a cheat and a nasty piece of excrement for the way he treated Simeone, Le Mond and others who told the truth or crossed him.
Lance is a hell of an athlete, a cheat and a nasty piece of excrement for the way he treated Simeone, Le Mond and others who told the truth or crossed him.
In reply to Andrew Smith:
Here's another reason why Lance should be taken to the cleaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19930514
Poor sod!!
E
Here's another reason why Lance should be taken to the cleaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19930514
Poor sod!!
E
In reply to La Shamster: if miller was so anti-doping, he would have named and shamed everyone else involved......
In reply to Enty:
Thanks for that Enty, hadn't seen this story. Mercier is indeed a Man among mice. - Would be good it the UCI/US CF offered him a decent position and a remit to start weeding out the rot as a sign of reconciliation
> (In reply to Andrew Smith)
>
> Here's another reason why Lance should be taken to the cleaners.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19930514
>
> Poor sod!!
>
> E
>
> Here's another reason why Lance should be taken to the cleaners.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19930514
>
> Poor sod!!
>
> E
Thanks for that Enty, hadn't seen this story. Mercier is indeed a Man among mice. - Would be good it the UCI/US CF offered him a decent position and a remit to start weeding out the rot as a sign of reconciliation
In reply to Enty:
That's a fantastic story, a total shame like, but it's great to see that there were some that stood by their morals.
Makes the behaviour of the rest of them even more disappointing.
> (In reply to Andrew Smith)
>
> Here's another reason why Lance should be taken to the cleaners.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19930514
>
> Poor sod!!
>
> E
>
> Here's another reason why Lance should be taken to the cleaners.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19930514
>
> Poor sod!!
>
> E
That's a fantastic story, a total shame like, but it's great to see that there were some that stood by their morals.
Makes the behaviour of the rest of them even more disappointing.
In reply to Andrew Smith:
Mercier's wife called him. "She said 'imagine you're sitting down with your son and daughter, explaining hey, daddy's a liar and a cheat'. I don't have to do that."
E
Mercier's wife called him. "She said 'imagine you're sitting down with your son and daughter, explaining hey, daddy's a liar and a cheat'. I don't have to do that."
E
In reply to Andrew Smith: I certainly wouldn't do it but find the issue is still clouded except on the lack of ability to be abel to declare the practice of cheating.. I think Lance should have admitted it of course at the very least in public especially, but don't know how extreme his problems were. My theory is that abuse is related to danger, which is sometimes related to addiction, but all the talk of caffeine by the British team during the Olympics this year reminds me how performance enhancing substances and banned performance enhancing substances are also moral and behavioral. Our shelves are still stacked full of non food products which are basically for us energy consuming and processing beings to choose and use by preference habit and will.
Animals are fed steroids, we eat animals, the line is partially obscured. We try to enrich our blood with antioxidants and healthy food but don't directly use needles and nor do I understand how that works but it is based on the same system, our body. Honesty is required, but what started him down the path may have been a blurred understanding. Perhaps to declare all food, substances and practices for performance athletes is a must, then everything is to be explained better by the officials who allow fairness in sport themselves too. Needles scare me but it seems illogical to assume they offer definite performance improvement and therefore may have always seemed like an experiment and worth hiding because knowing you were to be told it was illegal didn't equate to believing it actually was always going to be the number one cheating practice.
It's awful if it is completely true, that doping is better than sugar and minerals digested orally, but it's a learning curve only available to us since the arrival of consumer practices that allowed the purchase of needles. Hence then the studies and trials have been carried on both underground and official as always, some tricky and somehow able to get away with it without a proper badge. Dishonest, but forced underground perhaps by a lack of final and declared knowledge and certainty at whether Frankenstein would arrive or merely performance would go up, performance here being a major incentive, drive, lust and pleasure. Is Lance a history man who may have been absorbed, but instead has outlasted the trials of other substances. His practices have not offered a longterm valuable improvement and will remain dangerous and in sport will now be able to be monitored more easily.
um, the last sentence? I don't know but would he definitely be caught now so is that why he is only banned now? Because of the person involved, the performance improvement is always based upon them, is always by a margin based on their use and belief and effort, still is based on training, when does an athlete know they are outside the parameters of longterm sportmanship?
For me too much meat is a concern, i've seen vegetarians swear they'll live on pills before they see an animal on their plate and would be or are disappointed I now eat meat. Alot of what we do is a bit of an experiment and I know there's alot of steroids about and blood sugar affecting supplements about that are a bit of an experiment for the consumer. He may have grown into a proper villain and may be best treated as victim of his decisions too who could describe now the sub text of results for our medical knowledge to benefit. That and a fine and the affected titles.
Animals are fed steroids, we eat animals, the line is partially obscured. We try to enrich our blood with antioxidants and healthy food but don't directly use needles and nor do I understand how that works but it is based on the same system, our body. Honesty is required, but what started him down the path may have been a blurred understanding. Perhaps to declare all food, substances and practices for performance athletes is a must, then everything is to be explained better by the officials who allow fairness in sport themselves too. Needles scare me but it seems illogical to assume they offer definite performance improvement and therefore may have always seemed like an experiment and worth hiding because knowing you were to be told it was illegal didn't equate to believing it actually was always going to be the number one cheating practice.
It's awful if it is completely true, that doping is better than sugar and minerals digested orally, but it's a learning curve only available to us since the arrival of consumer practices that allowed the purchase of needles. Hence then the studies and trials have been carried on both underground and official as always, some tricky and somehow able to get away with it without a proper badge. Dishonest, but forced underground perhaps by a lack of final and declared knowledge and certainty at whether Frankenstein would arrive or merely performance would go up, performance here being a major incentive, drive, lust and pleasure. Is Lance a history man who may have been absorbed, but instead has outlasted the trials of other substances. His practices have not offered a longterm valuable improvement and will remain dangerous and in sport will now be able to be monitored more easily.
um, the last sentence? I don't know but would he definitely be caught now so is that why he is only banned now? Because of the person involved, the performance improvement is always based upon them, is always by a margin based on their use and belief and effort, still is based on training, when does an athlete know they are outside the parameters of longterm sportmanship?
For me too much meat is a concern, i've seen vegetarians swear they'll live on pills before they see an animal on their plate and would be or are disappointed I now eat meat. Alot of what we do is a bit of an experiment and I know there's alot of steroids about and blood sugar affecting supplements about that are a bit of an experiment for the consumer. He may have grown into a proper villain and may be best treated as victim of his decisions too who could describe now the sub text of results for our medical knowledge to benefit. That and a fine and the affected titles.
1
In reply to 2halfs: lance is a lying cheating c**t. what amazes me is the amount of pro-cyclists, some of whom are british and i used to admire, who seem surprised by the facts that have been announced. the evidence has been out there for years about him, and the majority of the rest top performers from the peleton during that era.
i guess he's not giving a toss as he's worth 150mill or so and he's so arrogant and self important that he'll just go about business as usual.
i'm currently using pages from his books as firelighters!
i guess he's not giving a toss as he's worth 150mill or so and he's so arrogant and self important that he'll just go about business as usual.
i'm currently using pages from his books as firelighters!
1
In reply to nowler:
depends if some lawsuits come his way. Various organisations who have lost law suits to him (Sunday times and SCA) are going to be having meetings with their lawyers about whether it is worth a rematch.
Entys post sums up the sadness of the entire thing though. God knows how many talented riders gave up since they werent willing to play what will this chemical cocktail do.
> i guess he's not giving a toss as he's worth 150mill or so and he's so arrogant and self important that he'll just go about business as usual.
depends if some lawsuits come his way. Various organisations who have lost law suits to him (Sunday times and SCA) are going to be having meetings with their lawyers about whether it is worth a rematch.
Entys post sums up the sadness of the entire thing though. God knows how many talented riders gave up since they werent willing to play what will this chemical cocktail do.
In reply to dissonance:
I think it is difficult to quantify the sadness of the whole thing. I have long since given up clinging to the hope that Lance was clean and I now accept that the USADA investigation was necessary.
But I am still completely gutted that the greatest story in the history of sport has turned out to be a fraud.
And I wouldn't bet against LA ending up in prison for this.
> (In reply to nowler)
>
> [...]
>
>> Entys post sums up the sadness of the entire thing though. >
> [...]
>
I think it is difficult to quantify the sadness of the whole thing. I have long since given up clinging to the hope that Lance was clean and I now accept that the USADA investigation was necessary.
But I am still completely gutted that the greatest story in the history of sport has turned out to be a fraud.
And I wouldn't bet against LA ending up in prison for this.
In reply to Removed User: yip, I totally agree. More talent has probably given up than has stayed in the sport during that period.
I'd love to see Armstrong in jail, along with everyone else from the postal team.....
I'd love to see Armstrong in jail, along with everyone else from the postal team.....
In reply to Removed User: Prison is a possibility.. which I think is why Lance is saying nothing.. I'm very pragmatic about doping. I don't like how Lance is being made the scape goat, at some point he was that young impressionable rider. They were all at it.
And I know he's arrogant, bully etc. Most great athletes are.
I hoped he was clean, I've never hidden the fact I liked him as a rider, like him for what he has done with Livestrong and his impact on Texas itself. I don't think Livestrong will be too damaged by this.
And I know he's arrogant, bully etc. Most great athletes are.
I hoped he was clean, I've never hidden the fact I liked him as a rider, like him for what he has done with Livestrong and his impact on Texas itself. I don't think Livestrong will be too damaged by this.
In reply to dissonance:
Aye, it makes me wonder what someone like Chris Boardman could have done if the playing field was levelled and he'd had a bit more luck with his health.
> (In reply to nowler)
>
>
>
> Entys post sums up the sadness of the entire thing though. God knows how many talented riders gave up since they werent willing to play what will this chemical cocktail do.
> Entys post sums up the sadness of the entire thing though. God knows how many talented riders gave up since they werent willing to play what will this chemical cocktail do.
Aye, it makes me wonder what someone like Chris Boardman could have done if the playing field was levelled and he'd had a bit more luck with his health.
In reply to Mooncat: we can't assume anyone was clean..
In reply to Andrew Smith:
Guilty is guilty. All involved should get the same ban.
I think they (the squealers) "doth protest too much".........
Guilty is guilty. All involved should get the same ban.
I think they (the squealers) "doth protest too much".........
In reply to IainRUK:
If there is one thing USADA's info and the other confessions make clear it is that LA is not a victim but a ring leader. We can't blame the whole doping culture on him but he was a major influence in maintaining that culture and encouraging others to dope.
As for Livestrong, did you read the piece in The Times about the thousands of cut up bands appearing outside their offices?
> (In reply to Minneconjou Sioux) I don't like how Lance is being made the scape goat, at some point he was that young impressionable rider.
>
> I don't think Livestrong will be too damaged by this.
>
> I don't think Livestrong will be too damaged by this.
If there is one thing USADA's info and the other confessions make clear it is that LA is not a victim but a ring leader. We can't blame the whole doping culture on him but he was a major influence in maintaining that culture and encouraging others to dope.
As for Livestrong, did you read the piece in The Times about the thousands of cut up bands appearing outside their offices?
<<If there is one thing USADA's info and the other confessions make clear it is that LA is not a victim but a ring leader. We can't blame the whole doping culture on him but he was a major influence in maintaining that culture and encouraging others to dope.>>
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
In reply to Andrew Smith:
most of the team mates who have testified have either already retired, got caught doping and so were banned, or have (and this is the most important bit) NEVER tested positive.
The likes of Hincapie, Leipheimer etc could just have retired this year and said nothing - in the case of Hincapie the ban he has now received is irrelevant as he has retired.
Theres been nothing in it for them, in terms of testifying, however they all appear to have decided that its the right thing to do.
> He was at it, they were all it. Is Lance guilty of doping, or just guilty of being the best of doing it? I have not read the whole report, but it seems some people squealed like piggies to save there neck's. Six month bans, why not life? I may have missed something, it's a whirlwind of news, and a busy life. Please inform me!
most of the team mates who have testified have either already retired, got caught doping and so were banned, or have (and this is the most important bit) NEVER tested positive.
The likes of Hincapie, Leipheimer etc could just have retired this year and said nothing - in the case of Hincapie the ban he has now received is irrelevant as he has retired.
Theres been nothing in it for them, in terms of testifying, however they all appear to have decided that its the right thing to do.
In reply to IainRUK:
have you actually read anything around it? Just look up his relationship with Greg LeMond for example
He had a chance to help change things but instead entrenched it.
> I don't like how Lance is being made the scape goat, at some point he was that young impressionable rider.
have you actually read anything around it? Just look up his relationship with Greg LeMond for example
He had a chance to help change things but instead entrenched it.
In reply to dissonance:
Amongst all the other shitty things he has done the treatment of Betsy Andreu and Emma O Reilly is f***** disgusting
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> [...]
>
> have you actually read anything around it? Just look up his relationship with Greg LeMond for example
> He had a chance to help change things but instead entrenched it.
>
> [...]
>
> have you actually read anything around it? Just look up his relationship with Greg LeMond for example
> He had a chance to help change things but instead entrenched it.
Amongst all the other shitty things he has done the treatment of Betsy Andreu and Emma O Reilly is f***** disgusting
In reply to fxceltic:
The other key thing for those still questioning the testimony is all the riders who have been mentioned (without coming forward) who have put their hands up and said, yep, it's all true and stepped down from team positions.
Cheers
Toby
The other key thing for those still questioning the testimony is all the riders who have been mentioned (without coming forward) who have put their hands up and said, yep, it's all true and stepped down from team positions.
Cheers
Toby
In reply to Toby_W: exactly. This is the element that convinces me its all 100% true.
In reply to Christheclimber:
What nonsense. You wouldn't give the same prison sentence for theft as you would for murder so of course we (society) recognise that there can be degrees of offence.
Read Dave Zabriskie's story and tell me if you still feel the same (I actually think that DZ's story is worse than Mercier's because of his family background).
> (In reply to Andrew Smith)
>
> Guilty is guilty. All involved should get the same ban.
> I think they (the squealers) "doth protest too much".........
>
> Guilty is guilty. All involved should get the same ban.
> I think they (the squealers) "doth protest too much".........
What nonsense. You wouldn't give the same prison sentence for theft as you would for murder so of course we (society) recognise that there can be degrees of offence.
Read Dave Zabriskie's story and tell me if you still feel the same (I actually think that DZ's story is worse than Mercier's because of his family background).
In reply to woolsack:
yup, that was just the one which sprung to mind offhand.
He certainly isnt, as IainRUK being made a scapegoat just having his actions catch up with him.
> Amongst all the other shitty things he has done the treatment of Betsy Andreu and Emma O Reilly is f***** disgusting
yup, that was just the one which sprung to mind offhand.
He certainly isnt, as IainRUK being made a scapegoat just having his actions catch up with him.
In reply to nowler:
If you read Millar's book, you will see that as-near-as-dammit accuses Armstrong of doping, or at least gets as close as possible without creating a lawsuit.
Over drinks at some promo event several years ago, and after he had come back from his ban, Millar accosted Armstrong and very publicly implored him to take a stronger anti-doping stance, basically saying "you're so big, you're the best, if you made a massive thing about how you've always raced clean, it would be a massive help both to younger riders, and also the image of the sport".
Armstrong stonewalled him, and Millar essentially invites us to draw our own conclusions.
I should also point out that Bradley Wiggins has taken the exact sort of stance that Millar was hoping for from Armstrong:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs
> if miller was so anti-doping, he would have named and shamed everyone else involved......
If you read Millar's book, you will see that as-near-as-dammit accuses Armstrong of doping, or at least gets as close as possible without creating a lawsuit.
Over drinks at some promo event several years ago, and after he had come back from his ban, Millar accosted Armstrong and very publicly implored him to take a stronger anti-doping stance, basically saying "you're so big, you're the best, if you made a massive thing about how you've always raced clean, it would be a massive help both to younger riders, and also the image of the sport".
Armstrong stonewalled him, and Millar essentially invites us to draw our own conclusions.
I should also point out that Bradley Wiggins has taken the exact sort of stance that Millar was hoping for from Armstrong:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs
In reply to IainRUK:
I don't think anybody disagrees with this. What has really left a bitter taste in people's mouths, and the reason that the press is mauling him so thoroughly, is the legal efforts he made, against both companies and individuals, in order to attempt to cover up his drug taking. Talk about having your cake and eating it.
Not only did he ruin people's lives (thus losing public support) but his legal posturing has also pissed off a lot of newspapers, publishers and sponsors, many of which have deep pockets and an appetite for revenge.
> I don't like how Lance is being made the scape goat, at some point he was that young impressionable rider. They were all at it.
I don't think anybody disagrees with this. What has really left a bitter taste in people's mouths, and the reason that the press is mauling him so thoroughly, is the legal efforts he made, against both companies and individuals, in order to attempt to cover up his drug taking. Talk about having your cake and eating it.
Not only did he ruin people's lives (thus losing public support) but his legal posturing has also pissed off a lot of newspapers, publishers and sponsors, many of which have deep pockets and an appetite for revenge.
In reply to Alun:
I disagree with the notion that he is being made a scapegoat and find it hard to believe that he was ever an innocent young rider.
I agree with the rest of your post and can't help but feel that if he hadn't been such an agressive tw*t he might have got away with it.
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> I don't think anybody disagrees with this.
> [...]
>
> I don't think anybody disagrees with this.
I disagree with the notion that he is being made a scapegoat and find it hard to believe that he was ever an innocent young rider.
I agree with the rest of your post and can't help but feel that if he hadn't been such an agressive tw*t he might have got away with it.
In reply to DaveHK:
Yes I wonder. Had he not sued the living daylights out of everybody, the doubts would have only got stronger (q.v. Contador) but he may not have provoked such a thorough investigation from USADA, and thus may have 'got away with it'.
> can't help but feel that if he hadn't been such an agressive tw*t he might have got away with it
Yes I wonder. Had he not sued the living daylights out of everybody, the doubts would have only got stronger (q.v. Contador) but he may not have provoked such a thorough investigation from USADA, and thus may have 'got away with it'.
In reply to Alun:
I think there was a lot of week / complicit journalism during the Lance period. It seems amazing to me that given the scale of the doping, not more journalists exposed it. This is an interesting interview with Paul Kimmage in 2007, at least he persisted in bringing out the truth.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/348323/the-big-interview-paul-ki...
I think there was a lot of week / complicit journalism during the Lance period. It seems amazing to me that given the scale of the doping, not more journalists exposed it. This is an interesting interview with Paul Kimmage in 2007, at least he persisted in bringing out the truth.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/348323/the-big-interview-paul-ki...
In reply to Andrew Smith: armstrong should just now admit to it.he will just makes things worse by dragging it out.
In reply to JMGLondon:
Its easy to say that now but at the time all the journos had to go on was rumour and initially (and quite naturally) most people wanted to belive that things had got better. There were also plenty of critical voices from early on which did not get the creedence they deserved in hindsight.
Whilst lots of the press were engaged in a Lance love in its wrong to start pointing fingers at them now. Apart from Ligget of course who deserves all the flak he gets.
> (In reply to Alun)
> I think there was a lot of week / complicit journalism during the Lance period. It seems amazing to me that given the scale of the doping, not more journalists exposed it.
> I think there was a lot of week / complicit journalism during the Lance period. It seems amazing to me that given the scale of the doping, not more journalists exposed it.
Its easy to say that now but at the time all the journos had to go on was rumour and initially (and quite naturally) most people wanted to belive that things had got better. There were also plenty of critical voices from early on which did not get the creedence they deserved in hindsight.
Whilst lots of the press were engaged in a Lance love in its wrong to start pointing fingers at them now. Apart from Ligget of course who deserves all the flak he gets.
In reply to DaveHK:
Sure, I totally agree that it's easier to point the finger with hindsight. I just think that, at its best, sports journalism helps keep sport clean and accountable. In this case, some journo's failed rather spectacularly. (I should add that their failure is little compared to that of the UCI!)
Sure, I totally agree that it's easier to point the finger with hindsight. I just think that, at its best, sports journalism helps keep sport clean and accountable. In this case, some journo's failed rather spectacularly. (I should add that their failure is little compared to that of the UCI!)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9608824...
Radio 5 live tonight.
Radio 5 live tonight.
In reply to Christheclimber:
I agree, all the other 7 time multi millionaire winners of the Tour de France should be treated like he's being treated
> (In reply to Andrew Smith)
>
> Guilty is guilty. All involved should get the same ban.
>
>
> Guilty is guilty. All involved should get the same ban.
>
I agree, all the other 7 time multi millionaire winners of the Tour de France should be treated like he's being treated
In reply to JMGLondon:
just a quick word to say David Walsh was also as much onto this as Kimmage.
> (In reply to Alun)
> I think there was a lot of week / complicit journalism during the Lance period. It seems amazing to me that given the scale of the doping, not more journalists exposed it. This is an interesting interview with Paul Kimmage in 2007, at least he persisted in bringing out the truth.
>
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/348323/the-big-interview-paul-ki...
> I think there was a lot of week / complicit journalism during the Lance period. It seems amazing to me that given the scale of the doping, not more journalists exposed it. This is an interesting interview with Paul Kimmage in 2007, at least he persisted in bringing out the truth.
>
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/348323/the-big-interview-paul-ki...
just a quick word to say David Walsh was also as much onto this as Kimmage.
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
Just a heads up to say this is starting now.
E
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9608824...
>
> Radio 5 live tonight.
>
> Radio 5 live tonight.
Just a heads up to say this is starting now.
E
In reply to Enty:
Bump! It is a 2 hour programme
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
> [...]
>
> Just a heads up to say this is starting now.
>
> E
> [...]
>
> Just a heads up to say this is starting now.
>
> E
Bump! It is a 2 hour programme
In reply to Alun: I agree with the ruining people's lives, but I'd add that he also stole people's futures. There were clean riders out there who didn't get contracts, opportunities or wins that would have change their path. He and the other cheats stole that.
With this in mind I would say go for him under Americas version of the proceeds of crime.
All his money is attributed to his success, which was based around fraud, ergo seize his assets. And give the money to sports funding in the cycling community.
With this in mind I would say go for him under Americas version of the proceeds of crime.
All his money is attributed to his success, which was based around fraud, ergo seize his assets. And give the money to sports funding in the cycling community.
In reply to Enty:
A good couple of hours and very exposing to some of the practices and events that happened....plenty of questions to be answered still, especially for the UCI!
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
> [...]
>
> Just a heads up to say this is starting now.
>
> E
> [...]
>
> Just a heads up to say this is starting now.
>
> E
A good couple of hours and very exposing to some of the practices and events that happened....plenty of questions to be answered still, especially for the UCI!
In reply to Alun: I have read Millar's book. I'll still stick to my view. I much preferred Kimmage's book and his view on Millar.
Maybe someone could start a liestrong charity to raise money to right many of lance's wrongs and help the peoples careers he's ruined. I've never owned a live strong band but I'd buy a liestrong one......
Maybe someone could start a liestrong charity to raise money to right many of lance's wrongs and help the peoples careers he's ruined. I've never owned a live strong band but I'd buy a liestrong one......
In reply to Andrew Smith:
Enty has always supported LA on this forum, and laughed at Lemond.
Why, Enty? Why the fvck would you do that?
Enty has always supported LA on this forum, and laughed at Lemond.
Why, Enty? Why the fvck would you do that?
In reply to mark s:
Not sure his lawyers would agree. If he admits it, he admits perjury. Keeping schtum at least buys time whilst the prosecutors and everyone he's previously successfully sued consider their positions.
> (In reply to Andrew Smith) armstrong should just now admit to it.he will just makes things worse by dragging it out.
Not sure his lawyers would agree. If he admits it, he admits perjury. Keeping schtum at least buys time whilst the prosecutors and everyone he's previously successfully sued consider their positions.
In reply to Talius Brute: I once wrote "Agree, I'm amazed at the blinkered view of some people obsessed with the TdF. If I want to watch a procession of drug addicts I hang out in Cold Harbour Lane" on a TdF thread on here and annoyed quite a few . Think some humble pie has been eaten
In reply to Talius Brute:
Eh?
E
> (In reply to Andrew Smith)
>
> Enty has always supported LA on this forum, and laughed at Lemond.
>
> Why, Enty? Why the fvck would you do that?
>
> Enty has always supported LA on this forum, and laughed at Lemond.
>
> Why, Enty? Why the fvck would you do that?
Eh?
E
In reply to Talius Brute:
I was certainly an Armstrong fan 10 years ago and since then when it wasn't all cut and dried I might have supported him. My theory was that he was a freak of nature after his cancer therapy.
Lemond was a PITA sometimes - do we believe he was clean?
When Armstrong showed his ugly side and started bullying Lemond that's when things started to change for me.
As for always supporting Armstrong? Don't know where you get that from. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
E
> (In reply to Andrew Smith)
>
> Enty has always supported LA on this forum, and laughed at Lemond.
>
> Why, Enty? Why the fvck would you do that?
>
> Enty has always supported LA on this forum, and laughed at Lemond.
>
> Why, Enty? Why the fvck would you do that?
I was certainly an Armstrong fan 10 years ago and since then when it wasn't all cut and dried I might have supported him. My theory was that he was a freak of nature after his cancer therapy.
Lemond was a PITA sometimes - do we believe he was clean?
When Armstrong showed his ugly side and started bullying Lemond that's when things started to change for me.
As for always supporting Armstrong? Don't know where you get that from. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
E
In reply to nowler:
I have also read both, and have loads of respect for both of them. I don't understand Kimmage's views on Millar though.
At the end of the day, they both doped; one quit in disgust and broke the omerta, while the other came back to cycling on an anti-doping high-horse. Both have been vindicated to a certain extent by this years events (Kimmage by Armstrong's fall, and Millar by a stage win in this years tour).
So as I said, I respect them both. But Kimmage seems to have a chip on his shoulder re. Millar, which prevents him from respect the effort that the latter is making to try to change the sport.
> I have read Millar's book. I'll still stick to my view. I much preferred Kimmage's book and his view on Millar.
I have also read both, and have loads of respect for both of them. I don't understand Kimmage's views on Millar though.
At the end of the day, they both doped; one quit in disgust and broke the omerta, while the other came back to cycling on an anti-doping high-horse. Both have been vindicated to a certain extent by this years events (Kimmage by Armstrong's fall, and Millar by a stage win in this years tour).
So as I said, I respect them both. But Kimmage seems to have a chip on his shoulder re. Millar, which prevents him from respect the effort that the latter is making to try to change the sport.
In reply to Alun: That Kimmage interview was before Millar and Kimmage 'made up'
I think you'll find they get on fine now
I think you'll find they get on fine now
In reply to woolsack:
I thought so but doubted myself on reading nowler's comments.
> I think you'll find they get on fine now
I thought so but doubted myself on reading nowler's comments.
In reply to woolsack:
But Kimmage isn't popular on the circuit for various reasons - one of which is he's a pain in the arse and does nothing but bang on about doping. From what I gather he's not held in any high regard by other journalists in the cycling press pack - he's not a particularly skilled writer, is hopeless at writing to a deadline and rarely writes anything good on the racing itself.
But Kimmage isn't popular on the circuit for various reasons - one of which is he's a pain in the arse and does nothing but bang on about doping. From what I gather he's not held in any high regard by other journalists in the cycling press pack - he's not a particularly skilled writer, is hopeless at writing to a deadline and rarely writes anything good on the racing itself.
In reply to Henry Iddon:
And of course the great irony is his whole career has been based on doping - if there had never been any doping he wouldn't have carved out a name for himself !
And of course the great irony is his whole career has been based on doping - if there had never been any doping he wouldn't have carved out a name for himself !
In reply to Henry Iddon:
Sounds like LA!
> (In reply to Henry Iddon)
>
> And of course the great irony is his whole career has been based on doping - if there had never been any doping he wouldn't have carved out a name for himself !
>
> And of course the great irony is his whole career has been based on doping - if there had never been any doping he wouldn't have carved out a name for himself !
Sounds like LA!
In reply to Henry Iddon:
For which, he has been vindicated, no?
Perhaps because people like Armstrong led them to think that way (see that press conference from 2007(?) where Armstrong publicly ridicules Kimmage, and the press pack all have a jolly old laugh).
I have no idea about what you say about deadlines or stuff is true, but he (Kimmage) was one of the few reporters who never did accept the Armstrong lie.
> one of which is he's a pain in the arse and does nothing but bang on about doping.
For which, he has been vindicated, no?
> From what I gather he's not held in any high regard by other journalists in the cycling press pack
Perhaps because people like Armstrong led them to think that way (see that press conference from 2007(?) where Armstrong publicly ridicules Kimmage, and the press pack all have a jolly old laugh).
I have no idea about what you say about deadlines or stuff is true, but he (Kimmage) was one of the few reporters who never did accept the Armstrong lie.
In reply to Alun:
Doping is the only story he ever talks about - I know for a fact he's not welcome by a lot of ProTour Teams on press trips as he just doesn't stop asking questions about it. I mean literally - all day - on and on and on.
Remember most journalists have a mortgage to pay and kids to feed just like everyone else. Without positive proof its very difficult be 100% behind a story against the might of someone like Pharmastrong. While most regular cycling writers throughout Europe had there suspicions it is difficult for a freelancer with limited resources to embark on a lengthy investigation when your not certain of exactly your looking for. Therefore most writers will report positive dope tests, write comment articles etc but not go 'hell for leather' against a team or individual because they still need access to the teams for race interviews / features etc.
Doping is the only story he ever talks about - I know for a fact he's not welcome by a lot of ProTour Teams on press trips as he just doesn't stop asking questions about it. I mean literally - all day - on and on and on.
Remember most journalists have a mortgage to pay and kids to feed just like everyone else. Without positive proof its very difficult be 100% behind a story against the might of someone like Pharmastrong. While most regular cycling writers throughout Europe had there suspicions it is difficult for a freelancer with limited resources to embark on a lengthy investigation when your not certain of exactly your looking for. Therefore most writers will report positive dope tests, write comment articles etc but not go 'hell for leather' against a team or individual because they still need access to the teams for race interviews / features etc.
In reply to Henry Iddon:
>Therefore most writers will report positive dope tests, write comment articles etc but not go 'hell for leather' against a team or individual because they still need access to the teams for race interviews / features etc.
Exactly. And Kimmage didn't.
That's probably why he's never got anything to say about the racing - because the teams won't talk to him 'cos he asks questions they don't want to hear. Journalism needs people like that, and as you say they're never popular with don't-rock-the-boat mortgage-payers.
jcm
>Therefore most writers will report positive dope tests, write comment articles etc but not go 'hell for leather' against a team or individual because they still need access to the teams for race interviews / features etc.
Exactly. And Kimmage didn't.
That's probably why he's never got anything to say about the racing - because the teams won't talk to him 'cos he asks questions they don't want to hear. Journalism needs people like that, and as you say they're never popular with don't-rock-the-boat mortgage-payers.
jcm
In reply to Henry Iddon:
Being not-popular does not equal being wrong, as we are learning by the spate of resignations in the last few days.
That's no excuse - so does Paul Kimmage!
> Doping is the only story he ever talks about - I know for a fact he's not welcome by a lot of ProTour Teams on press trips as he just doesn't stop asking questions about it. I mean literally - all day - on and on and on.
Being not-popular does not equal being wrong, as we are learning by the spate of resignations in the last few days.
> Remember most journalists have a mortgage to pay and kids to feed just like everyone else.
That's no excuse - so does Paul Kimmage!
In reply to Alun:
yup maybe when it becomes clear it is being dealt with then he will find something else to talk about.
Its not like it should be difficult for the teams to answer his questions and send him on his way.
Be good for confidence in the sport if they did.
yup maybe when it becomes clear it is being dealt with then he will find something else to talk about.
Its not like it should be difficult for the teams to answer his questions and send him on his way.
Be good for confidence in the sport if they did.
In reply to nowler:
I too preferred Kimmages book. I thought Millers book was confused and poorly written and that he came out of it as self absorbed and not particularly smart. I did love the part when he said that Slipstream consoled themselves with the thought that Wiggo would never end up on the tour podium!
If as many have said it is one of the best sports biographies ever then it must be up against pretty poor competition.
> (In reply to Alun) I have read Millar's book. I'll still stick to my view. I much preferred Kimmage's book and his view on Miller
I too preferred Kimmages book. I thought Millers book was confused and poorly written and that he came out of it as self absorbed and not particularly smart. I did love the part when he said that Slipstream consoled themselves with the thought that Wiggo would never end up on the tour podium!
If as many have said it is one of the best sports biographies ever then it must be up against pretty poor competition.
In reply to Andrew Smith: Levi Leipheimer has been sacked by Omega Pharma. I wonder how many more this will bring down?
In reply to IainRUK:
I agree with your point that Lance has been made the scape goat here, and USADA are out to destroy him because of his profile... his scalp is a real win for them.
I think the statistic that out of the top 21 riders of that era that only one wasn't on drugs says a lot.
So do people think it is more likely that "win at all cost" climbers are more or less likely to take drugs than cyclists in teams were there are doctors providing and assisting with drug taking regimes?
Whilst I would not be surprised if some top climbers do take drugs I think at the time banned drugs were mainstream in professional cycling so singling out Lance because he was the most prolific cyclist of his time as a particularly nasty drugs cheat is wrong. Maybe blame UCI for presiding over this drugs fuelled profession?
Iain, I hope you are right that this wont affect Livestrong adversely but I think it will need at the very least to go through some rebranding and separation from Lance whose reputation is in tatters.
Cheers,
I agree with your point that Lance has been made the scape goat here, and USADA are out to destroy him because of his profile... his scalp is a real win for them.
I think the statistic that out of the top 21 riders of that era that only one wasn't on drugs says a lot.
So do people think it is more likely that "win at all cost" climbers are more or less likely to take drugs than cyclists in teams were there are doctors providing and assisting with drug taking regimes?
Whilst I would not be surprised if some top climbers do take drugs I think at the time banned drugs were mainstream in professional cycling so singling out Lance because he was the most prolific cyclist of his time as a particularly nasty drugs cheat is wrong. Maybe blame UCI for presiding over this drugs fuelled profession?
Iain, I hope you are right that this wont affect Livestrong adversely but I think it will need at the very least to go through some rebranding and separation from Lance whose reputation is in tatters.
Cheers,
In reply to Alun:
Kimmage has done a great job bringing issues to the fore, but I also see a 'bull in a china shop' approach - hence UCI taking him to court. There will be history between him and Big Pat McQuaid of that I'm certain.
While laudable there can also be 'collateral' damage with these stories and winding up the the powers that be never helps nor does killing the sponsors and scaring them away. Whats needed now is a sophisticated mover and shaker who can ease all the egos while moving things forward to clean the sport out.
Kimmage has done a great job bringing issues to the fore, but I also see a 'bull in a china shop' approach - hence UCI taking him to court. There will be history between him and Big Pat McQuaid of that I'm certain.
While laudable there can also be 'collateral' damage with these stories and winding up the the powers that be never helps nor does killing the sponsors and scaring them away. Whats needed now is a sophisticated mover and shaker who can ease all the egos while moving things forward to clean the sport out.
In reply to DaveHK:
I think that the idea that Millar should have pointed more fingers directly is a bit misguided. Firstly, he's on the record saying that he never actually saw Armstrong doping so he'd just be repeating hearsay. We now know the hearsay to be true, but at the time I think it wouldn't have been a responsible thing to do, especially with the USADA case bubbling away in the background. Secondly, I doubt that Millar's word on the subject would have had much effect anyway, and would be too easy to write off as the rantings of a bitter ex-doper.
As much as I admire Kimmage, I think his expectations on what individuals would and could do against the enormous doping culture were (are?) a bit unrealistic. I do hope he hands the UCI their rectums on a silver platter in court though.
For anyone not yet overloaded with this story, there's a great documentary from Aussie TV here:
youtube.com/watch?v=Q03sc8Aoyk0&
Not much new in there if you've heard the 5live stuff but still some interesting bits and bobs. There's a bit where Dick Pound from WADA talks about a conversation he had with Hein Verbuggen that made me do a double-take.
I think that the idea that Millar should have pointed more fingers directly is a bit misguided. Firstly, he's on the record saying that he never actually saw Armstrong doping so he'd just be repeating hearsay. We now know the hearsay to be true, but at the time I think it wouldn't have been a responsible thing to do, especially with the USADA case bubbling away in the background. Secondly, I doubt that Millar's word on the subject would have had much effect anyway, and would be too easy to write off as the rantings of a bitter ex-doper.
As much as I admire Kimmage, I think his expectations on what individuals would and could do against the enormous doping culture were (are?) a bit unrealistic. I do hope he hands the UCI their rectums on a silver platter in court though.
For anyone not yet overloaded with this story, there's a great documentary from Aussie TV here:
youtube.com/watch?v=Q03sc8Aoyk0&
Not much new in there if you've heard the 5live stuff but still some interesting bits and bobs. There's a bit where Dick Pound from WADA talks about a conversation he had with Hein Verbuggen that made me do a double-take.
In reply to Andrew Smith:
Did Nike know what was going on, I did hear rumours years ago but.....
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/nike-left-footprint-lance-scandal-...
Did Nike know what was going on, I did hear rumours years ago but.....
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/nike-left-footprint-lance-scandal-...
In reply to Henry Iddon:
perhaps there should be. The UCI isnt looking too good at the moment, time will tell whether any of his accusations are true, after all its not unknown for organisations to use libel/defamation cases to shut up inconvenient people.
no what is needed is to get it all in the open and see what is left. The subtle approach was tried a few years back. Didnt work to well with the tour of renewal (who won that again?).
> Kimmage has done a great job bringing issues to the fore, but I also see a 'bull in a china shop' approach - hence UCI taking him to court. There will be history between him and Big Pat McQuaid of that I'm certain.
perhaps there should be. The UCI isnt looking too good at the moment, time will tell whether any of his accusations are true, after all its not unknown for organisations to use libel/defamation cases to shut up inconvenient people.
> Whats needed now is a sophisticated mover and shaker who can ease all the egos while moving things forward to clean the sport out.
no what is needed is to get it all in the open and see what is left. The subtle approach was tried a few years back. Didnt work to well with the tour of renewal (who won that again?).
In reply to Alan Taylor:
Matt White has been sacked by cycling Australia after admitting doping whilst on the Armstrong team.
ALC
Matt White has been sacked by cycling Australia after admitting doping whilst on the Armstrong team.
ALC
I find the comments that LA is being singled out interesting, as to me, he's the man on trial in this instance and is being charged and reported about accordingly. Others that have been charged are being reported on, but according to their relative fame. A lot of people know LA, so the general press will report it, but Johan Bruyneel isn't know outside cycling, so only the cycling press report.
Others found guilty have been charged, banned, discredited by their respective national body, (with the exception of Spain), so this case is no different from what I can see. The reporting and revenge is related to the fame of the rider and LA is the most famous.
As to doping still being present....well whilst Contador is still winning things then cycling is going to struggle to justify it's clean.
Others found guilty have been charged, banned, discredited by their respective national body, (with the exception of Spain), so this case is no different from what I can see. The reporting and revenge is related to the fame of the rider and LA is the most famous.
As to doping still being present....well whilst Contador is still winning things then cycling is going to struggle to justify it's clean.
In reply to dissonance:
You can still be firm on the issue but it still involves bringing all the parties together - managing their egos - and moving forward. That requires a great political mover.
Do you think the Good Friday Agreement would have occurred if someone had stormed into Ireland and insisted the 10 relevant organisation got in a room for a weekend and hammer something out. No it involved massaging egos gently gently and personal interactions allowing everyone to look good.
The ProTour Teams are run by people who've been involved for years - so invariably tainted, the UCI is in a mess, big money is involved, powerful people have huge egos and deals get done in dark rooms. Making everyone look like a winner aint easy.
You can still be firm on the issue but it still involves bringing all the parties together - managing their egos - and moving forward. That requires a great political mover.
Do you think the Good Friday Agreement would have occurred if someone had stormed into Ireland and insisted the 10 relevant organisation got in a room for a weekend and hammer something out. No it involved massaging egos gently gently and personal interactions allowing everyone to look good.
The ProTour Teams are run by people who've been involved for years - so invariably tainted, the UCI is in a mess, big money is involved, powerful people have huge egos and deals get done in dark rooms. Making everyone look like a winner aint easy.
In reply to Andrew Smith: Breaking news - Nike just announces it ends pact with Lance Armstrong
In reply to Henry Iddon:
and is completely irrelevant to what a journalists job should be. I am failing to see what you are trying to argue here.
i would say impossible in this case. There has to be reform and replacement if road cycling is going to stand a chance of recovering.
> You can still be firm on the issue but it still involves bringing all the parties together - managing their egos - and moving forward. That requires a great political mover.
and is completely irrelevant to what a journalists job should be. I am failing to see what you are trying to argue here.
> The ProTour Teams are run by people who've been involved for years - so invariably tainted, the UCI is in a mess, big money is involved, powerful people have huge egos and deals get done in dark rooms. Making everyone look like a winner aint easy.
i would say impossible in this case. There has to be reform and replacement if road cycling is going to stand a chance of recovering.
In reply to Henry Iddon:
The 5live prog the other night discussed the idea of Christophe Basson running for head of the UCI, be he dismissed the idea. Millar seemed a bit more interested though. Either way Quaid has got to go, the sooner the better, but it will be a joke if he stands for re-election next year, a calamity if he gets in.
> The ProTour Teams are run by people who've been involved for years - so invariably tainted, the UCI is in a mess, big money is involved, powerful people have huge egos and deals get done in dark rooms. Making everyone look like a winner aint easy.
The 5live prog the other night discussed the idea of Christophe Basson running for head of the UCI, be he dismissed the idea. Millar seemed a bit more interested though. Either way Quaid has got to go, the sooner the better, but it will be a joke if he stands for re-election next year, a calamity if he gets in.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Who would you prefer, McQuaid or Makarov???
> (In reply to Henry Iddon)
>
> [...]
>
> The 5live prog the other night discussed the idea of Christophe Basson running for head of the UCI, be he dismissed the idea. Millar seemed a bit more interested though. Either way Quaid has got to go, the sooner the better, but it will be a joke if he stands for re-election next year, a calamity if he gets in.
>
> [...]
>
> The 5live prog the other night discussed the idea of Christophe Basson running for head of the UCI, be he dismissed the idea. Millar seemed a bit more interested though. Either way Quaid has got to go, the sooner the better, but it will be a joke if he stands for re-election next year, a calamity if he gets in.
Who would you prefer, McQuaid or Makarov???
In reply to dissonance:
I'm saying that fixing the problem isn't just a case of a few bright ideas being put straight into action.
Neither did I say it was a journalists responsibility.
If McQuaid steps down and all the clowns at the UCI are moved out they'll try and do it it in such away as to limit the damage to their personal reputations - maybe be I'm wrong and it is all very simple as you suggest and they have no ego or personalities or interests to protect.
Millar made the point on the 5Live program that I'm trying to make when he said he isn't an adept politician and that is whats needed.
I'm saying that fixing the problem isn't just a case of a few bright ideas being put straight into action.
Neither did I say it was a journalists responsibility.
If McQuaid steps down and all the clowns at the UCI are moved out they'll try and do it it in such away as to limit the damage to their personal reputations - maybe be I'm wrong and it is all very simple as you suggest and they have no ego or personalities or interests to protect.
Millar made the point on the 5Live program that I'm trying to make when he said he isn't an adept politician and that is whats needed.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
McQuaid has done some pretty bizarre things while the boss it has to be said, but he has also overseen some big changes - making the sport more 'global' ( rightly or wrongly - thats another issue) bio passport etc.
Its easy to blame him for the problems but most of it took place under HV's watch, in a strange way he could come out of this looking good. A big if obviously - but he holds all the power and could set in motion all the things needed to sort things out - in that sense he'd have a fabulous legacy. And note Millar didn't criticise him on the 5live prog.
McQuaid has done some pretty bizarre things while the boss it has to be said, but he has also overseen some big changes - making the sport more 'global' ( rightly or wrongly - thats another issue) bio passport etc.
Its easy to blame him for the problems but most of it took place under HV's watch, in a strange way he could come out of this looking good. A big if obviously - but he holds all the power and could set in motion all the things needed to sort things out - in that sense he'd have a fabulous legacy. And note Millar didn't criticise him on the 5live prog.
In reply to Henry Iddon:
I thought one of the other things that Millar said showed a great deal of astuteness - that the aim of any sports administrator is to get re-elected. I agree with you when you say that any changes at the UCI will be shaped by the personnel involved doing their utmost to preserve whatever reputations they have left.
From the way he sounded, I reckon Millar could be persuaded.
>
> If McQuaid steps down and all the clowns at the UCI are moved out they'll try and do it it in such away as to limit the damage to their personal reputations - maybe be I'm wrong and it is all very simple as you suggest and they have no ego or personalities or interests to protect.
>
> Millar made the point on the 5Live program that I'm trying to make when he said he isn't an adept politician and that is whats needed.
> If McQuaid steps down and all the clowns at the UCI are moved out they'll try and do it it in such away as to limit the damage to their personal reputations - maybe be I'm wrong and it is all very simple as you suggest and they have no ego or personalities or interests to protect.
>
> Millar made the point on the 5Live program that I'm trying to make when he said he isn't an adept politician and that is whats needed.
I thought one of the other things that Millar said showed a great deal of astuteness - that the aim of any sports administrator is to get re-elected. I agree with you when you say that any changes at the UCI will be shaped by the personnel involved doing their utmost to preserve whatever reputations they have left.
From the way he sounded, I reckon Millar could be persuaded.
In reply to Andrew Smith: Nike's out
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19978608
...and he has resigned from Livestrong
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19978608
...and he has resigned from Livestrong
In reply to tony:
Yup he's on the athlete commission at WADA so knows how things work. I'm sure he'll play some role when he retires from racing.
Yup he's on the athlete commission at WADA so knows how things work. I'm sure he'll play some role when he retires from racing.
In reply to woolsack: He's still on the board of livestrong.
In reply to Andrew Smith: Radioshack has withdrawn personal sponsorship from Armstrong now, Oakley still sponsors him but it can't be long
In reply to Alan Taylor:
Some pretty strong condemnation of Nike just now on PM from David Walsh (Sunday Times Sports Editor) for their cynical attempt to support Armstrong through thick and thin for many years and even covering up for him. Money talks.
He reminded us in particular of the 2001 Nike/Armstrong advert:
"This is my body and I can do whatever I want to it. I can push it, and study it, tweak it, listen to it. Everybody wants to know what I’m on. What am I on? I’m on my bike, busting my ass six hours a day. What are you on?"
Nike knew exactly what they were/he was up to.
Some pretty strong condemnation of Nike just now on PM from David Walsh (Sunday Times Sports Editor) for their cynical attempt to support Armstrong through thick and thin for many years and even covering up for him. Money talks.
He reminded us in particular of the 2001 Nike/Armstrong advert:
"This is my body and I can do whatever I want to it. I can push it, and study it, tweak it, listen to it. Everybody wants to know what I’m on. What am I on? I’m on my bike, busting my ass six hours a day. What are you on?"
Nike knew exactly what they were/he was up to.
In reply to Alan Taylor:
Least he'll still have is income from Paul Sherwins gold mine to help pay the bills ( Liggett is also an investor) http://velonews.competitor.com/2002/07/news/cycling-biggies-invest-in-ugand...
Least he'll still have is income from Paul Sherwins gold mine to help pay the bills ( Liggett is also an investor) http://velonews.competitor.com/2002/07/news/cycling-biggies-invest-in-ugand...
In reply to kevin stephens:
This: youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U&
Your version has been meddled with somewhat!
This: youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U&
Your version has been meddled with somewhat!
In reply to Siward:
UCI should be responding today.
Wonder what it will be:
accept
reject and push to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Make vague comments and push to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
disappear into the sunset.
UCI should be responding today.
Wonder what it will be:
accept
reject and push to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Make vague comments and push to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
disappear into the sunset.
In reply to dissonance:
Well that was interesting. At least UCI accept he has to be stripped of the titles. Seemed to be some very awkward questions during the press conference and the answers didn't sound too convincing!
Well that was interesting. At least UCI accept he has to be stripped of the titles. Seemed to be some very awkward questions during the press conference and the answers didn't sound too convincing!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...