/ Tyler Hamilton's book-spoiler for those living in a cave

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Minneconjou Sioux - on 29 Oct 2012


...just finished it.

What I found remarkable was the way that the idea that Armstrong doped was introduced. Casually, as a given, no chance of doubt.

No big build up to a revelation. No great discovery or moment of truth. Just as a matter of fact.

How in the hell did the rest of the world miss this? I guess it all comes back to how a fraud is carried off. Make everyone want to believe....

steev on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Does he discuss the amazing excuse he used to explain the different red blood cells in his samples? I really want to know if he believed that stuff.
Dave Kerr - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to >
>
> How in the hell did the rest of the world miss this? I guess it all comes back to how a fraud is carried off. Make everyone want to believe....

Everyone likes to start from the innocent until proven guilty premise although that is becoming an ever more risky stance in cycling.

Wiggo hit the nail on the head with his Santa analogy. If something looks too good to be true then it probably is.

Remember also that the rest of the world didn't miss it, they just got silenced by the LA legal machine. Check out the histoty of the allegations on Cyclingnews.
Dave Kerr - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to steev:
> (In reply to Minneconjou Sioux)
>
> Does he discuss the amazing excuse he used to explain the different red blood cells in his samples? I really want to know if he believed that stuff.

He glosses over the silly defence and instead suggests that one of the doctors was a bit dotty and gave him the wrong bag or labelled it wrong at the start.
Minneconjou Sioux - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Dave Kerr:
> (In reply to steev)
> [...]
>
> He glosses over the silly defence and instead suggests that one of the doctors was a bit dotty and gave him the wrong bag or labelled it wrong at the start.

My impression was that he accepts that the defence was silly but asserts that most people in his position would do the same i.e. cling to anything.

I think it is fair to suggest that he was given the wrong blood (why would anyone want someone else's blood in that situation?) but that isn't really a defence where blood transfusions are illegal.
fxceltic on 30 Oct 2012
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
> [...]
>
> My impression was that he accepts that the defence was silly but asserts that most people in his position would do the same i.e. cling to anything.
>
> I think it is fair to suggest that he was given the wrong blood (why would anyone want someone else's blood in that situation?) but that isn't really a defence where blood transfusions are illegal.

I read it a month or so ago so cant remember exactly but seem to remember hes still claiming it cannot have been someone elses blood, that that could not have happened.

Hephaestus - on 30 Oct 2012
In reply to fxceltic: In the BBC 5Live interview he seemed to infer that the test was instigated by Armstrong because Hamilton was beginning to challenge him on the road and getting stronger. I don't know how this becomes somebody else's blood in his test sample, but options are fairly limited to corruption at UCI or at the testing facility.
Minneconjou Sioux - on 30 Oct 2012
In reply to fxceltic:
> (In reply to Minneconjou Sioux)
> [...]
>
> I read it a month or so ago so cant remember exactly but seem to remember hes still claiming it cannot have been someone elses blood, that that could not have happened.

I think you need to re-read it. I think he accepts that it was someone elses blood and suggests that it was a mix up at the doctor's.
Minneconjou Sioux - on 30 Oct 2012
In reply to Hephaestus:

I think you are talking about two separate incidents. The one you are referring to was after his Mount Ventoux victory where he was close to the limit and was called in to see the head of the UCI. This was not his positive test and not the one which showed someone elses blood.
Tiberius - on 30 Oct 2012
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:
> How in the hell did the rest of the world miss this?

I'm sorry but on what planet did the rest of the world miss this? Anyone who knew anything about this knew that he was doping. The idea that a non-doper could beat a field full of dopers was just silly.

tbh I don't think even Armstrong himself ever said he didn't dope. If you look at his interviews he says things like 'I've never failed a test', etc.
Minneconjou Sioux - on 31 Oct 2012
In reply to Tiberius:
> (In reply to Minneconjou Sioux)
> [...]
>
> I'm sorry but on what planet did the rest of the world miss this? Anyone who knew anything about this knew that he was doping. The idea that a non-doper could beat a field full of dopers was just silly.

I think you might find that a considerable proportion of the world thought he had done this clean.
Epic Ebdon - on 31 Oct 2012
In reply to Tiberius:

I've certainly seen interviews where he's said that he's never taken performance enhancing drugs. A lot of the time he is just evasive and words his replies carefully, but I have seen him actually deny it too.

Tim

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