This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
If anyone's interested in this over on Bikeradar, things aren't looking great for him. I didn't know they'd banned him from triathlons though.
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/us-anti-doping-agency-files-doping-ch...
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/us-anti-doping-agency-files-doping-ch...
In reply to Aly: i don't care a flying f*ck about the dope charges. I don't have many heroes but Lance is way up there for me,in his sporting achievements,in his cancer battle,of the life he heads,but mainly because of his work with LIVESTRONG.
In reply to Aly:
Just curious (as a climber who pops the odd nurofen etc) what are the legal things that cyclists take as part of their regime? Is a certain amount of caffeine ok? Rugby players seem able to get cortisone injections so how exactly is "performance enhancing" defined? Seems like there might be some grey areas which are being exploited.
Just curious (as a climber who pops the odd nurofen etc) what are the legal things that cyclists take as part of their regime? Is a certain amount of caffeine ok? Rugby players seem able to get cortisone injections so how exactly is "performance enhancing" defined? Seems like there might be some grey areas which are being exploited.
In reply to David Hooper: Its annoying how minor things like performance enhancing drugs spoil things.
In reply to Aly:
I still can't believe that he is a druggy
I still can't believe that he is a druggy
In reply to Phil1919: has it annoyed you?
In reply to David Hooper: No, I think you know it hasn't.
In reply to David Hooper:
This is what make it all so sad. All those thousands of people looking up to him as a hero, his battles with cancer etc. If it comes out that he's a doper how disappointing for all those who worship him?
Morgan - there are grey areas - I like a strong coffee or 5 before a ride and get stuffed full of ibuprofen for my knees. I also know a guy who was on a course of EPO for a liver problem he had. On the weeks he wasn't having treatment he was just one of the lads on a club ride and on the weeks he was on the stuff he was, in his own words, "f*cking invincible".
E
This is what make it all so sad. All those thousands of people looking up to him as a hero, his battles with cancer etc. If it comes out that he's a doper how disappointing for all those who worship him?
Morgan - there are grey areas - I like a strong coffee or 5 before a ride and get stuffed full of ibuprofen for my knees. I also know a guy who was on a course of EPO for a liver problem he had. On the weeks he wasn't having treatment he was just one of the lads on a club ride and on the weeks he was on the stuff he was, in his own words, "f*cking invincible".
E
In reply to Enty: I'm on Dexamethasone at the moment,and I don't know if it's the drug or not,but I'm feeling the best I've been for a long time. Just getting ready for an early speed walk now .
You are right though,when I was in hozzy, someone lent me Lances 2 books and they genuining inspired me and helped get me through that dark time.
But most impressive is what he has achieved with setting up LIVESTRONG.Their resources and support are amazing, makes our own Marie Curie and Macmillan Nurses look like small fry.
Doper or none Doper,I will continue to admire and respect what he has done with his life.
You are right though,when I was in hozzy, someone lent me Lances 2 books and they genuining inspired me and helped get me through that dark time.
But most impressive is what he has achieved with setting up LIVESTRONG.Their resources and support are amazing, makes our own Marie Curie and Macmillan Nurses look like small fry.
Doper or none Doper,I will continue to admire and respect what he has done with his life.
In reply to David Hooper:
Agree that it shouldn't take anything away from his battle against cancer and his work with the foundation.
What it does do, is negate his sporting achievements. You can't say that you respect his sporting prowess as he cheated. Unless you also think that Ben Johnson should have been allowed to keep his gold medal of course?
I'm not saying that he is in any way alone in taking performance enhancing drugs in the cycling world, but he has been put on a pedestal by many people. Now that it is widely acknowledged he was doping, the fall will be all the greater because of the heights he has been raised to.
Si
PS Marie Curie and MacMillan nurses do a great job, despite not having the funding of Livestrong, I'm sure you'll agree.
Agree that it shouldn't take anything away from his battle against cancer and his work with the foundation.
What it does do, is negate his sporting achievements. You can't say that you respect his sporting prowess as he cheated. Unless you also think that Ben Johnson should have been allowed to keep his gold medal of course?
I'm not saying that he is in any way alone in taking performance enhancing drugs in the cycling world, but he has been put on a pedestal by many people. Now that it is widely acknowledged he was doping, the fall will be all the greater because of the heights he has been raised to.
Si
PS Marie Curie and MacMillan nurses do a great job, despite not having the funding of Livestrong, I'm sure you'll agree.
In reply to Aly: over 500 negative tests in his career and now USADA has evidence ? Who to believe ?
In reply to SCC: Does it still negate his sporting achievements if everyone else was doping? Is there a tour winner from the last 40 years whose sporting prowess you can respect?
In reply to Sir Chasm: Yes, Sastre and Evans
In reply to alan wilson: I've read the Usada report and they use the word conspiracy quite clearly. 500 negative tests or cover up?
In reply to SCC: no I agree, I've raised£100,000s for Marie Curie over the years through charity abseiling and treks that I've run and it's a real comfort to know that they will be there at the end for me,their staff are amazing.
I need to separate cancer lance and sporting lance in my head I think.
I need to separate cancer lance and sporting lance in my head I think.
In reply to Aly:
The main problem is that people always want black and white. Every other competitor from that era was taking drugs, so it's frankly unrealistic to assume that Armstrong wasn't, really he was just competing on even terms, so again, I don't really see how it was 'cheating', because surely cheating implies that you gain an unfair advantage?
As for the cancer work, most cyclists I know claim that Armstrong actually makes money our of his charity work...although he does put time into it.
He's a great self-publicist, he was a great bike rider. Hero? read both sides and make your own mind up, I don't really care. I admire his cycling achievements.
The main problem is that people always want black and white. Every other competitor from that era was taking drugs, so it's frankly unrealistic to assume that Armstrong wasn't, really he was just competing on even terms, so again, I don't really see how it was 'cheating', because surely cheating implies that you gain an unfair advantage?
As for the cancer work, most cyclists I know claim that Armstrong actually makes money our of his charity work...although he does put time into it.
He's a great self-publicist, he was a great bike rider. Hero? read both sides and make your own mind up, I don't really care. I admire his cycling achievements.
In reply to David Hooper: There's no doubting he is a remarkable character, his attention to detail and determination to succeed are almost second to none. Unfortunately he applied this attitude to more than just using fair means when it comes to winning in sport. But he also turned his amazing strength of character to the foundation too. It's almost as though you cannot have one without the other.
In reply to IceKing: Maybe, or maybe they're using better chemists. If you assume that doping still goes on then they're a whole lot better undoped than other riders are doped. Of course doping might have ceased by 2008.
In reply to Tiberius:
Course it's an unfair advantage - What about the poor bastards like Boardman who were clean and couldn't get a look in? I'n not saying Boardman was a potential Tour winner but there were many clean, talented, classy riders who are now just classed as journeymen because of the f*cking dopers.
E
> (In reply to Aly)
>
> Every other competitor from that era was taking drugs, so it's frankly unrealistic to assume that Armstrong wasn't, really he was just competing on even terms, so again, I don't really see how it was 'cheating', because surely cheating implies that you gain an unfair advantage?
>
>
>
> Every other competitor from that era was taking drugs, so it's frankly unrealistic to assume that Armstrong wasn't, really he was just competing on even terms, so again, I don't really see how it was 'cheating', because surely cheating implies that you gain an unfair advantage?
>
>
Course it's an unfair advantage - What about the poor bastards like Boardman who were clean and couldn't get a look in? I'n not saying Boardman was a potential Tour winner but there were many clean, talented, classy riders who are now just classed as journeymen because of the f*cking dopers.
E
In reply to Sir Chasm: sure doping still goes on, but to what level? With blood passports it is surely much harder to achieve massive increases in performance, the massive performance hikes that EPO users were getting a few years ago are just not possible now, or at least without being easily detected. Just look at the climb times for big passes compared to the Pantani days, they are much slower. So yes, I believe it is possible that undocked riders are putting in better times than doped riders.
In reply to IceKing: Undoped, not not undocked , bloody autocorrect
In reply to IceKing: Isn't that the point? They don't want the massive increases in performance (well, they do but that's obvious) so perhaps they go for a lower level of improved performance over a full tour.
I'm not accusing them of doping, I hope they haven't (I also hope Armstrong didn't), but I can't reach your levels of confidence when doping appears to have been so widespread.
I'm not accusing them of doping, I hope they haven't (I also hope Armstrong didn't), but I can't reach your levels of confidence when doping appears to have been so widespread.
In reply to Sir Chasm: 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
In reply to Sir Chasm: Well no one is certain of anything, can't prove a negative. BUT! There are certain riders that are considered clean for quite a few more reasons than just there's no proof either way, or they aren't one of those that had a sudden increase in performance or are associated with known dopers. That is why I mention Evans and Sastre, they are considered clean for more reasons than just no positive tests. The evidence against LA however is absolutely overwhelming.
In reply to Game of Conkers:
I think that's a complete mis-representation of the situation. Watch Pantani climbing, do you think the drugs stopped him from hurting? How about Armstrong's charge across Sestriere? The time trials of Ulrich? Really, you want to compare those with shambling dug addicts?
> If I want to watch a procession of drug addicts I hang out in Cold Harbour Lane
I think that's a complete mis-representation of the situation. Watch Pantani climbing, do you think the drugs stopped him from hurting? How about Armstrong's charge across Sestriere? The time trials of Ulrich? Really, you want to compare those with shambling dug addicts?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Cunego 2004 Giro!!
Me neither. Anyone who thinks a clean Armstrong could beat a juiced up Ullrich is living in cloud cuckoo land.
E
> (In reply to IceKing) Isn't that the point? They don't want the massive increases in performance (well, they do but that's obvious) so perhaps they go for a lower level of improved performance over a full tour.
Cunego 2004 Giro!!
> I can't reach your levels of confidence when doping appears to have been so widespread.
Me neither. Anyone who thinks a clean Armstrong could beat a juiced up Ullrich is living in cloud cuckoo land.
E
In reply to David Hooper:
Have you read Ned Boulting's book "How I won the yellow jumper"? Not only is it a great, and funny, read about the tour, he talks about that difference and how those two aspects influence each other.
What he has done with Livestrong is fantastic and will hopefully survive whatever comes next.
> I need to separate cancer lance and sporting lance in my head I think.
Have you read Ned Boulting's book "How I won the yellow jumper"? Not only is it a great, and funny, read about the tour, he talks about that difference and how those two aspects influence each other.
What he has done with Livestrong is fantastic and will hopefully survive whatever comes next.
In reply to Enty:
Thanks for that...interesting.
> (In reply to David Hooper)
>
>
> Morgan - there are grey areas - I like a strong coffee or 5 before a ride and get stuffed full of ibuprofen for my knees. I also know a guy who was on a course of EPO for a liver problem he had. On the weeks he wasn't having treatment he was just one of the lads on a club ride and on the weeks he was on the stuff he was, in his own words, "f*cking invincible".
>
> E
>
> E
Thanks for that...interesting.
In reply to IceKing: Not associated with known dopers? Apart from being on the pro circuit you mean?
If the evidence against Armstrong is so overwhelming I wonder why the 2 year federal investigation didn't result in charges.
If the evidence against Armstrong is so overwhelming I wonder why the 2 year federal investigation didn't result in charges.
In reply to Enty:
Agree. I just finished Bjarne's book and it depressed me and left me feeling he was a ruthless bastard. Add that to Breaking the Chain, Millar's autobiog, the stuff David Walsh has written etc etc it must have been soul destroying for the clean riders in the 90's and early 2000's peloton. The likes of Boardman, Moncoutie etc.
Personally, I think the likes of Virenque should be taken out and given a good kicking.
> (In reply to Tiberius)
> [...]
>
> Course it's an unfair advantage - What about the poor bastards like Boardman who were clean and couldn't get a look in? I'n not saying Boardman was a potential Tour winner but there were many clean, talented, classy riders who are now just classed as journeymen because of the f*cking dopers.
>
> E
> [...]
>
> Course it's an unfair advantage - What about the poor bastards like Boardman who were clean and couldn't get a look in? I'n not saying Boardman was a potential Tour winner but there were many clean, talented, classy riders who are now just classed as journeymen because of the f*cking dopers.
>
> E
Agree. I just finished Bjarne's book and it depressed me and left me feeling he was a ruthless bastard. Add that to Breaking the Chain, Millar's autobiog, the stuff David Walsh has written etc etc it must have been soul destroying for the clean riders in the 90's and early 2000's peloton. The likes of Boardman, Moncoutie etc.
Personally, I think the likes of Virenque should be taken out and given a good kicking.
While not cycling related, I came across this documentary about steroids and peoples misconceptions of them. How much of the information stated in it is true Im not sure, but it makes for an interesting watch.
youtube.com/watch?v=M8kExGzZfuM& (its a series of 11 short videos)
Also, for those of you who haven't read Divid Millar's book- Racing through the Dark-, I recommend it. Its a good read about the doping that goes on in pro cycling. From it I gathered it was/is pretty much impossible to win a Tour without doping.
K
youtube.com/watch?v=M8kExGzZfuM& (its a series of 11 short videos)
Also, for those of you who haven't read Divid Millar's book- Racing through the Dark-, I recommend it. Its a good read about the doping that goes on in pro cycling. From it I gathered it was/is pretty much impossible to win a Tour without doping.
K
In reply to Game of Conkers:
On that basis, I'd stop watching the tennis and La Liga as well.
> (In reply to Sir Chasm) 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 that basis, I'd stop watching the tennis and La Liga as well.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Good question that, and one that the feds didn't expand on. However, it's worth saying that the federal investigation wasn't about whether doping occurred, but whether government money was used to do it.
> If the evidence against Armstrong is so overwhelming I wonder why the 2 year federal investigation didn't result in charges.
Good question that, and one that the feds didn't expand on. However, it's worth saying that the federal investigation wasn't about whether doping occurred, but whether government money was used to do it.
In reply to David Hooper:
^This
All this will do is drag the sport's name back through the mud just before the Tour starts (why does this stuff always surface in June).
I've had my mind made up for years now about the doping, when you watch his performances back now, they really are too good to be true. The two that stick in my mind are Ventoux, when he caught Pantani from way back and the 2004 Alpe d'Huez time trial.
I still admire him as a cyclist, it's just that I believe every top rider from Lance's era was doped to the gills. I just view that whole era with a big * next to it and enjoy it as the spectacle that it was.
I can't stand that Bikeradar forum (makes this place look like a love convention), I bet they feel like all their birthdays and Christmas have come at once. All they will do once this has finished, is move their suspicision and mud slinging at another rider (there's currently a 16 page thread casting doubt on Wiggins).
>
> I need to separate cancer lance and sporting lance in my head I think.
> I need to separate cancer lance and sporting lance in my head I think.
^This
All this will do is drag the sport's name back through the mud just before the Tour starts (why does this stuff always surface in June).
I've had my mind made up for years now about the doping, when you watch his performances back now, they really are too good to be true. The two that stick in my mind are Ventoux, when he caught Pantani from way back and the 2004 Alpe d'Huez time trial.
I still admire him as a cyclist, it's just that I believe every top rider from Lance's era was doped to the gills. I just view that whole era with a big * next to it and enjoy it as the spectacle that it was.
I can't stand that Bikeradar forum (makes this place look like a love convention), I bet they feel like all their birthdays and Christmas have come at once. All they will do once this has finished, is move their suspicision and mud slinging at another rider (there's currently a 16 page thread casting doubt on Wiggins).
In reply to Sir Chasm: Well, the theory goes that the FBI were looking for evidence of fraud and of using tax payers money to fund the doping programme and that they did not find evidence and therefore dropped the case. However if you look at the list of evidence that the USADA have published, then yes it is completely overwhelming that LA doped though I have not seen mentioned that US Postal funds were,, and frankly this has been known for ages. If you don't think so then to be honest you haven't looked very hard. The UCI are also implicated that they let LA get away with it and covered it all up.
In reply to IceKing: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf
The USADA charging report.
The USADA charging report.
In reply to Gasmerchant: Errm no.
In reply to IceKing: You're just making the point that doping was/is rife in cycling and then claiming that a couple you like don't dope. Perhaps they don't, perhaps no one does anymore.
In reply to David Hooper: totally agree Dave.he is an inspiration and a true sport legend.
I,ll admit I have taken all sorts of p.e.ds which would get me banned from most events.it didn't turn me into a world class athlete.
I,ll admit I have taken all sorts of p.e.ds which would get me banned from most events.it didn't turn me into a world class athlete.
In reply to John Rushby:
Well, stop watching any football tbh (several players positive at last world cup, nothing really came of it one was retiring anyway).
Stop watching golf.
In fact, if you look, most of the 'rich' sports refuse to allow a consistent dope checking regime, usually claiming that 'it's not a problem in our sport...go chase the cyclists'.
Really, some people just need to grow up.
> On that basis, I'd stop watching the tennis and La Liga as well.
Well, stop watching any football tbh (several players positive at last world cup, nothing really came of it one was retiring anyway).
Stop watching golf.
In fact, if you look, most of the 'rich' sports refuse to allow a consistent dope checking regime, usually claiming that 'it's not a problem in our sport...go chase the cyclists'.
Really, some people just need to grow up.
In reply to Sir Chasm: No I'm not! How do you know that my evidence is just limited to " I like them". I thought you were trying to make a name for yourself for critical thinking. I am not saying that I believe 100% they didnt dope, I don't think that about anyone, but on the balance of probabilities, weighing up many different things, I believe that they 'probably' didn't. And as far as this particular argument goes that's as far as I'll take it. If it wasn't clear that I wasn't talking about certainties further up, well I've clarified. Meanwhile you are semi-defending Lance. Go figure!
In reply to IceKing: The much more interesting question is, in the light of these charges, will Radioshack (and Bruyneel) be allowed to start the tour?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
This is how it seems to work, ex cyclists are dopers, and the current crop are clean, and stories such as this case slightly take the focus away from the actual focal point. For example that sky team which were journey men a few years ago, are now in the big league, and their sponsors aren't what you could call saintly. You've got to remember these so called dopers aren't buying a shady bag of benzo fury along with the other cats off the street, this is classified top end sports science, before the testers can put a test together they need to have half an idea of what they're looking for, all the while the big wheel keeps on turning and another hot shot becomes a legend baked under the midday sun.
This is how it seems to work, ex cyclists are dopers, and the current crop are clean, and stories such as this case slightly take the focus away from the actual focal point. For example that sky team which were journey men a few years ago, are now in the big league, and their sponsors aren't what you could call saintly. You've got to remember these so called dopers aren't buying a shady bag of benzo fury along with the other cats off the street, this is classified top end sports science, before the testers can put a test together they need to have half an idea of what they're looking for, all the while the big wheel keeps on turning and another hot shot becomes a legend baked under the midday sun.
In reply to Tiberius: I'm sorry I criticised your "sport"
In reply to Aly:
For what it's worth, whenever I've been doped up, in the past, all I've ever wanted to do was eat bowls of cornflakes and fall asleep.
Frankly, if Armstrong was able to win the TdF whilst stoned, then he has my full respect.
For what it's worth, whenever I've been doped up, in the past, all I've ever wanted to do was eat bowls of cornflakes and fall asleep.
Frankly, if Armstrong was able to win the TdF whilst stoned, then he has my full respect.
In reply to Tiberius:
+1
Only cycling seems to have faced up to the rot. I hope the full Puerto list comes out, if the rumours are true there will be a few sleepless nights in Barcelona and Switzerland....
> (In reply to John Rushby)
> [...]
>
> Well, stop watching any football tbh (several players positive at last world cup, nothing really came of it one was retiring anyway).
>
> Stop watching golf.
>
> In fact, if you look, most of the 'rich' sports refuse to allow a consistent dope checking regime, usually claiming that 'it's not a problem in our sport...go chase the cyclists'.
>
> Really, some people just need to grow up.
> [...]
>
> Well, stop watching any football tbh (several players positive at last world cup, nothing really came of it one was retiring anyway).
>
> Stop watching golf.
>
> In fact, if you look, most of the 'rich' sports refuse to allow a consistent dope checking regime, usually claiming that 'it's not a problem in our sport...go chase the cyclists'.
>
> Really, some people just need to grow up.
+1
Only cycling seems to have faced up to the rot. I hope the full Puerto list comes out, if the rumours are true there will be a few sleepless nights in Barcelona and Switzerland....
In reply to IceKing: If you want to term calling somebody innocent until proven guilty then I suppose I am defending him. If he's found guilty (I know you've already decided) it will further add to the view that drugs are endemic in cycling. And if drugs are endemic in cycling then fairly or not everyone's cleanliness is in doubt.
In reply to John Rushby: French Fighter gives him a good run though.
In reply to John Rushby:
Ah, good to see i'm not the only one who has wasted time reading that forum. How they haven't been sued for libel yet I have no idea. The Clinic on Cycling News is even worse, an entire forum dedicated to slander, amazing really.
> (In reply to thermal_t)
>
> Biking Bernie is an utter tube.
>
> Biking Bernie is an utter tube.
Ah, good to see i'm not the only one who has wasted time reading that forum. How they haven't been sued for libel yet I have no idea. The Clinic on Cycling News is even worse, an entire forum dedicated to slander, amazing really.
In reply to thermal_t: Where do you guys go for all your cycling news? I've tried a few sites but they're all a bit crap. I usually wait for the BBC to catch up.
In reply to Mr Fuller:
I follow Cycling Weekly on Twitter and follow their links if I've got time. After that it's the main news outlets.
ALC
> (In reply to thermal_t) Where do you guys go for all your cycling news? I've tried a few sites but they're all a bit crap. I usually wait for the BBC to catch up.
I follow Cycling Weekly on Twitter and follow their links if I've got time. After that it's the main news outlets.
ALC
In reply to Enty: Gotta love the onion!
In reply to Aly: The US have been so strict with doping in baseball golf and gridiron football, that can be the only reason that they are having a go at cycling now.
Out of interest has any cyclist been convicted of doping without a positive test and/or confession?
In reply to SCC:
This article about Livestrong is worth reading:
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its...
> (In reply to David Hooper)
>
> Agree that it shouldn't take anything away from his battle against cancer and his work with the foundation.
>
> Agree that it shouldn't take anything away from his battle against cancer and his work with the foundation.
This article about Livestrong is worth reading:
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its...
In reply to Alan Taylor:
The PGA continually claims that there is no need for it to implement a drugs policy in golf because there is no problem...in spite of several top golfers admitting to beta blockers and Tiger Woods openly admitting to blood spinning.
> (In reply to Aly) The US have been so strict with doping in baseball golf
The PGA continually claims that there is no need for it to implement a drugs policy in golf because there is no problem...in spite of several top golfers admitting to beta blockers and Tiger Woods openly admitting to blood spinning.
In reply to RBK:
As I said earlier, most cyclists that I speak to regard Livestrong as a money earner for Armstrong, but he's a very good self-publicist, as shown by several people on here.
> This article about Livestrong is worth reading:
As I said earlier, most cyclists that I speak to regard Livestrong as a money earner for Armstrong, but he's a very good self-publicist, as shown by several people on here.
In reply to Tiberius: I don't think he makes money from it directly, simply that he uses it to improve his image and drive positive PR in spite of the increasingly overwhelming evidence that he cheated.
In reply to PeterM:
Possibly Ulrich/Basso but I'm not entirely sure what order things occurred in i.e. was it ban -> confession or confession -> ban.
>
> Out of interest has any cyclist been convicted of doping without a positive test and/or confession?
> Out of interest has any cyclist been convicted of doping without a positive test and/or confession?
Possibly Ulrich/Basso but I'm not entirely sure what order things occurred in i.e. was it ban -> confession or confession -> ban.
In reply to Tiberius: Sorry I should have put "Sarcasm Alert" on that post as I believe it is only cycling they go for everytime. As for Gridiron are they EVER tested?
In reply to Alan Taylor:
No idea, but I've heard baseball is rife with steroid abuse. Also when operation Puerto took place many doping charges were bought against cyclists but not one person from other sports was charged. Tennis, football, athletics and basketball players blood was found bagged up on the premises. Are no other sports keen to ought their stars as cheats? Apparently Rafael Nadal is implicated and that is never mentioned by the mass media.
> (In reply to Tiberius) Sorry I should have put "Sarcasm Alert" on that post as I believe it is only cycling they go for everytime. As for Gridiron are they EVER tested?
No idea, but I've heard baseball is rife with steroid abuse. Also when operation Puerto took place many doping charges were bought against cyclists but not one person from other sports was charged. Tennis, football, athletics and basketball players blood was found bagged up on the premises. Are no other sports keen to ought their stars as cheats? Apparently Rafael Nadal is implicated and that is never mentioned by the mass media.
In reply to thermal_t: theres a chance radioshack could be out of the tour as well .
In reply to Aly: All I can say is about bloody time!
In reply to thermal_t:
Really? If that's the case it's very sad. Makes you think about the various people at the top of their sports, who have dominated for a while and wonder.
> (In reply to Alan Taylor)
> [...]
>
> Apparently Rafael Nadal is implicated and that is never mentioned by the mass media.
> [...]
>
> Apparently Rafael Nadal is implicated and that is never mentioned by the mass media.
Really? If that's the case it's very sad. Makes you think about the various people at the top of their sports, who have dominated for a while and wonder.
In reply to thermal_t:
I think it was in Chris Hoy's auto-biography where he stated that professional cyclists get tested more than any other athletes. If other athletes were tested the same amount he reckoned many more sports would be just as bad if not worse than cycling.
I think it was in Chris Hoy's auto-biography where he stated that professional cyclists get tested more than any other athletes. If other athletes were tested the same amount he reckoned many more sports would be just as bad if not worse than cycling.
In reply to Dangerous Dave: The problem in cycling hasn't been the volume of testing but the selective nature of who gets caught. It was always going to be the case that Armstrong made the headlines with this story but the sub-plot in USADA's letter is arguably more important. If they finally have the evidence that Bruyneel and the rest conspired with the UCI to prevent Armstrong from testing positive or to hide the results that will do more to clean up the sport.
In reply to mattrm: There's an interesting blog here:
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/curious-case-of-rafa...
Obviously not the most balanced of articles but intriguing nonetheless.
In reply to RBK: If the allegations are true the I'm not sure the UCI are going to come out of this much better than Lance or Bruyneel. I just hope dragging all this up again doesn't impact too much on some the current younger teams who (I'd like to think) have helped clean up the sport a bit.
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/curious-case-of-rafa...
Obviously not the most balanced of articles but intriguing nonetheless.
In reply to RBK: If the allegations are true the I'm not sure the UCI are going to come out of this much better than Lance or Bruyneel. I just hope dragging all this up again doesn't impact too much on some the current younger teams who (I'd like to think) have helped clean up the sport a bit.
In reply to Aly: theres not a lot of new stuff in the USADA charge sheet really
my tuppence worth
Ive always believed he is innocent until relatively recently as he hasnt properly been proven to have failed any tests, and I felt he couldnt have gotten away with it for so long.
However, more recently I have come to understand that a lot of the tests were not bombproof in the earlier days (circa 2000), which makes me think he may have been able to mask his usage. That said, they were pretty good by 2005 and he still wasnt caught doping then, so who knows.
I think taking his victories in the tour away would be pointless at this stage, unless you could be absolutely certain that the runner up was entirely clean, and I dont see that that is possible given that a lot of this seems to be based on doubtful testing.
i think its interesting that the USADA are referencing tests in 2009/10, because previously I have stated that his result of 3rd in 2009 was proof he was just superior in his glory days, as he achieved it after several years out of the sport and he couldnt possibly have doped without being caught in 2009. USADA seem to be saying he did. This, for me, is crucial. If this is proven then everything is tainted.
I dont worry about the witness testimonies, and its old news/ gossip and brings nothing new to the table.
Its also interesting that USADA have 10 riders admitting to doping who they arent charging and are just charging LA. That is surely an error because they are just fueling Lances argument.
my tuppence worth
Ive always believed he is innocent until relatively recently as he hasnt properly been proven to have failed any tests, and I felt he couldnt have gotten away with it for so long.
However, more recently I have come to understand that a lot of the tests were not bombproof in the earlier days (circa 2000), which makes me think he may have been able to mask his usage. That said, they were pretty good by 2005 and he still wasnt caught doping then, so who knows.
I think taking his victories in the tour away would be pointless at this stage, unless you could be absolutely certain that the runner up was entirely clean, and I dont see that that is possible given that a lot of this seems to be based on doubtful testing.
i think its interesting that the USADA are referencing tests in 2009/10, because previously I have stated that his result of 3rd in 2009 was proof he was just superior in his glory days, as he achieved it after several years out of the sport and he couldnt possibly have doped without being caught in 2009. USADA seem to be saying he did. This, for me, is crucial. If this is proven then everything is tainted.
I dont worry about the witness testimonies, and its old news/ gossip and brings nothing new to the table.
Its also interesting that USADA have 10 riders admitting to doping who they arent charging and are just charging LA. That is surely an error because they are just fueling Lances argument.
In reply to Dangerous Dave:
Isn't that acknowledged to be utter nonsense? Swimmers for instance... Crucially, few samples are sent to the lab
Perhaps just blog bollocks but it is claimed that LA has been tested an awful lot less than he claims
Mike H
> (In reply to thermal_t)
> I think it was in Chris Hoy's auto-biography where he stated that professional cyclists get tested more than any other athletes. If other athletes were tested the same amount he reckoned many more sports would be just as bad if not worse than cycling.
> I think it was in Chris Hoy's auto-biography where he stated that professional cyclists get tested more than any other athletes. If other athletes were tested the same amount he reckoned many more sports would be just as bad if not worse than cycling.
Isn't that acknowledged to be utter nonsense? Swimmers for instance... Crucially, few samples are sent to the lab
Perhaps just blog bollocks but it is claimed that LA has been tested an awful lot less than he claims
Mike H
In reply to fxceltic: just on the cancer/ livestrong stuff...
In and of itself, what hes done with livestrong is amazing.
Is that negated by subsequent dope charges? Yes and no. Yes because people will be disappointed and he will probably have to stand down from his role.
No, because theres a "greater good" argument here. Even if he did dope, that allowed him to build livestrong, which has been amazing and essential for many with cancer.
In and of itself, what hes done with livestrong is amazing.
Is that negated by subsequent dope charges? Yes and no. Yes because people will be disappointed and he will probably have to stand down from his role.
No, because theres a "greater good" argument here. Even if he did dope, that allowed him to build livestrong, which has been amazing and essential for many with cancer.
In reply to fxceltic:
What does Livestrong do that is so amazing?
(Genuine question, they raise awareness but what else? They don't give any money to research so what do they do?)
> (In reply to fxceltic) just on the cancer/ livestrong stuff...
>
> In and of itself, what hes done with livestrong is amazing.
>
> Even if he did dope, that allowed him to build livestrong, which has been amazing and essential for many with cancer.
>
> In and of itself, what hes done with livestrong is amazing.
>
> Even if he did dope, that allowed him to build livestrong, which has been amazing and essential for many with cancer.
What does Livestrong do that is so amazing?
(Genuine question, they raise awareness but what else? They don't give any money to research so what do they do?)
In reply to galpinos: They fund a lot of community projects, hospices etc..
I like him, I've heard him talk and he comes across well. If he doped. I hope he didn't but find it strange how many cyclists think he's totally devalued the sport, yet the still support other greats who did dope..
I like him, I've heard him talk and he comes across well. If he doped. I hope he didn't but find it strange how many cyclists think he's totally devalued the sport, yet the still support other greats who did dope..
In reply to fxceltic:
Agreed, I don't think that would achieve anything.
It's just disappointing because always marketed himself as one of the few 'good eggs' and that's what his whole media profile, success and Livestrong is really based on.
>
> I think taking his victories in the tour away would be pointless at this stage, unless you could be absolutely certain that the runner up was entirely clean, and I dont see that that is possible given that a lot of this seems to be based on doubtful testing.
>
> I think taking his victories in the tour away would be pointless at this stage, unless you could be absolutely certain that the runner up was entirely clean, and I dont see that that is possible given that a lot of this seems to be based on doubtful testing.
>
Agreed, I don't think that would achieve anything.
It's just disappointing because always marketed himself as one of the few 'good eggs' and that's what his whole media profile, success and Livestrong is really based on.
In reply to IainRUK: Merckx.. tested positive 3 times, admits he took substances given to him by a Dr but didn't realise they were banned.. people don't say he should lose all hos victories..
Sean Kelly..
Sean Kelly..
In reply to IainRUK: The EPO saga was a different thing altogether to the era of stimulants, speed etc. Comparing The cannibal and LA and Us postal doesn't really work. EPO was in a whole different league
In reply to IceKing: Ah, so it's only some banned substances and some riders that you get your knickers in a twist about. Can we have a list of which banned drugs you think are ok?
In reply to Sir Chasm: Grow up FFS
In reply to galpinos: 1They do give to research - I think I heard $20,000,000 dollars for the other year.
2)You have to realise that the American healthcare system isn't nhs. Livestrong has a team of "navigators" which help folk get through the very arcane US system of accessing a doctor,deciding on a myriad of treatment, how to FUND treatment, etc. It really is a different and more daunting experience to the British cancer patient.
3)They have on phone and on line counsellors an seminars etc to offer everything from emotionalsupport through to diet,exercise,positive thinking.
4)they empower the patient by going through different treatment options so that you can understand and make informed judgement about your own treatment rather than passively relying on the "experts". I have found this incredibly empowering.
5)they help you and your loved ones find hope and positivity during the darkest times.
6)they raisecancer awareness issues nationally and politically.
7)Should you be terminal,they guide you through all the legal practicalities of putting your affairs in order and through a journal you can get your thoughts down and get your head into a nice space.
All services are free - ivve spoken to their councillors in USA,toll free from UK and had wonderful service.
Cannot compare Livestrong with our own Marie Curie,Macmillan etc,we are a lot more fortunate here to still have NHS.Livestrong will guide the poor American through the maze of accessing treatment in the first place.
Finally for real proof,everyone reading this thread is going to have a friend or relative touched by cancer at some time. If you want living,helpful,practical proof of what Livestrong does, I urge and beg you to visit their website and order the free 2 volume Livestrong Guidebook and matching Livestrong Guidebook Planner and Journal. Although big heavy old A4 packages,they are free and you just pay the shipping.
I will post a link in a minute, but get the books, come back to this thread in a couple of weeks and let me know what you think.
David, cancer survived but soon to be terminal.
2)You have to realise that the American healthcare system isn't nhs. Livestrong has a team of "navigators" which help folk get through the very arcane US system of accessing a doctor,deciding on a myriad of treatment, how to FUND treatment, etc. It really is a different and more daunting experience to the British cancer patient.
3)They have on phone and on line counsellors an seminars etc to offer everything from emotionalsupport through to diet,exercise,positive thinking.
4)they empower the patient by going through different treatment options so that you can understand and make informed judgement about your own treatment rather than passively relying on the "experts". I have found this incredibly empowering.
5)they help you and your loved ones find hope and positivity during the darkest times.
6)they raisecancer awareness issues nationally and politically.
7)Should you be terminal,they guide you through all the legal practicalities of putting your affairs in order and through a journal you can get your thoughts down and get your head into a nice space.
All services are free - ivve spoken to their councillors in USA,toll free from UK and had wonderful service.
Cannot compare Livestrong with our own Marie Curie,Macmillan etc,we are a lot more fortunate here to still have NHS.Livestrong will guide the poor American through the maze of accessing treatment in the first place.
Finally for real proof,everyone reading this thread is going to have a friend or relative touched by cancer at some time. If you want living,helpful,practical proof of what Livestrong does, I urge and beg you to visit their website and order the free 2 volume Livestrong Guidebook and matching Livestrong Guidebook Planner and Journal. Although big heavy old A4 packages,they are free and you just pay the shipping.
I will post a link in a minute, but get the books, come back to this thread in a couple of weeks and let me know what you think.
David, cancer survived but soon to be terminal.
In reply to David Hooper:
They have given $20m for research in the past, but stopped supporting research a number of years ago. The reason they give is that they are too small to make a difference in research which in the US is about $3bn a year for cancer, others disagree with this position.
They have given $20m for research in the past, but stopped supporting research a number of years ago. The reason they give is that they are too small to make a difference in research which in the US is about $3bn a year for cancer, others disagree with this position.
In reply to David Hooper: here is a link to the Livestrong Page for the free guidebook - I strongly urge you all to order it,both to fuel your understanding of this debate,but sadly because you are all gonna be touched by cancer and you will be prearmed with a powerful weapon. Understandably the books are very USA centric, but still invaluable for us bits.
http://www.livestrong.org/Get-Help/Learn-About-Cancer/LIVESTRONG-Guidebook
http://www.livestrong.org/Get-Help/Learn-About-Cancer/LIVESTRONG-Guidebook
In reply to David Hooper: sorry - that should read Brits.
In reply to David Hooper:
David, thanks for the reply. It was a genuine question and the fact that it has obviously made such a difference to you means they are doing something very right!
I was interested as they stopped giving money to research a few years ago so wondered what they actually did. I do forget medical systems are not the same the world over. I have an interest in these things as my wife is an Oncologist and is currently doing a PhD which is part funded by Cancer Research UK. Since starting the research, she realised how much good work CRUK do actually do!
All the best.
David, thanks for the reply. It was a genuine question and the fact that it has obviously made such a difference to you means they are doing something very right!
I was interested as they stopped giving money to research a few years ago so wondered what they actually did. I do forget medical systems are not the same the world over. I have an interest in these things as my wife is an Oncologist and is currently doing a PhD which is part funded by Cancer Research UK. Since starting the research, she realised how much good work CRUK do actually do!
All the best.
In reply to The New NickB: 5 billion isn't it? That's mainly all the NCI.. there is a move to get Aging re-classified as a disease so it can get more NIH funding through the NIA.
I do see their point, 20 million in terms of research is pittance, Ellison Medical Foundation, set up by the creator of Oracle Databases, funds $40 million a year for aging research...
by all the funding going through one organisation you can have a more strategic approach.
I do see their point, 20 million in terms of research is pittance, Ellison Medical Foundation, set up by the creator of Oracle Databases, funds $40 million a year for aging research...
by all the funding going through one organisation you can have a more strategic approach.
In reply to fxceltic:
Everybody he beat that I can think of has either been caught taking drugs, or admitted it (Uhlrich, Pantani, Basso...the list goes on).
That really says one of two things doesn't it. Either banning drugs is pointless because they've been proven to be pretty useless in that a clean guy won the tour for seven years in a row...or he also drugged.
Make your own mind up, but really, it has to be one of those options?
> I think taking his victories in the tour away would be pointless at this stage, unless you could be absolutely certain that the runner up was entirely clean,
Everybody he beat that I can think of has either been caught taking drugs, or admitted it (Uhlrich, Pantani, Basso...the list goes on).
That really says one of two things doesn't it. Either banning drugs is pointless because they've been proven to be pretty useless in that a clean guy won the tour for seven years in a row...or he also drugged.
Make your own mind up, but really, it has to be one of those options?
Regarding the doping in other sports, look at the cost and trouble Alberto Contador gave the cycling doping agencies with a cut and dry test failure. Now imagine Operation Puerto, they have blood from tennis players, footballers, the wall slides back (think simpsons, Mr Burns) to reveal the lawyers 2 deep backed by vastly more cash. They just couldn't afford to go there. A sport has to want to clean istelf up.
Cheers
Toby
Cheers
Toby
In reply to Aly: I thought this article was interesting. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bassons-and-simeoni-say-armstrong-probe-is-... If nothing else it shows that genuine participants in an unclean sport are hurt by cheating. Commenting on another angle that was raised in this thread SKY are going to find it so difficult to shake off the "UK postal" label given recent performances. Apart from what is proven by getting caught the whole of the rest of the universe is (an I think rightly) under suspicion because of the history. Personally I still like watching cycling for the spectacle of it all (besides where else do you get so much coverage of alpine vistas on TV?). Perhaps also because I see cycling as more honest than football and tennis in these matters.
In reply to scree:
Ski Sunday?
> besides where else do you get so much coverage of alpine vistas on TV?
Ski Sunday?
In reply to scree:
I suspect SKY will be the sort of team that eek the most out of every legal route to improve performance - whether this be pychological or physiological.
But I can't see them as cheats. Then again, I've been wrong about stuff in the past...
I suspect SKY will be the sort of team that eek the most out of every legal route to improve performance - whether this be pychological or physiological.
But I can't see them as cheats. Then again, I've been wrong about stuff in the past...
In reply to scree:
How do race times now (eg major climbs or average speed) compare with race times in the "dirtier" era? If race times are slower now I think it's unfair to label Sky as "UK Postal".
How do race times now (eg major climbs or average speed) compare with race times in the "dirtier" era? If race times are slower now I think it's unfair to label Sky as "UK Postal".
In reply to scree: does anybody really think the current crop of SKY riders are doping? I certainly dont. Brailsford has been pretty categorical as far as the teams stance is concerned, much more so than other teams.
In reply to elsewhere: They are slower, it's one of the ways they estimate if a tour is cleaner. Old fashioned EPO doping is quite obvious now, see Ricco's attack a few years ago just before failing a drugs test.
Cheers
Toby
Cheers
Toby
In reply to elsewhere: varies but similar if not slower
witness Pantani's record on the Alpe, miles better than anyone elses and bang in the middle of EPO time, of course he was a massive EPO head, categorically. Lance is 2nd on the list of fastest times...
witness Pantani's record on the Alpe, miles better than anyone elses and bang in the middle of EPO time, of course he was a massive EPO head, categorically. Lance is 2nd on the list of fastest times...
I posted this (in between defending Millar on various websites) on the Daily Mail article on this. It wont get published, as I don't blame it all on darkies and PC do gooders.
There is a lot of misunderstanding here.
USADA are not going after Armstrong per se, but after a team/s that have allegedly undertaken organised doping and happen to have involved not only Armstrong, but Johan Bruyneel. this is into a case of targeting Lance it is a case of investigating whether USPS, Discovery, Astana and Radio Shack undertook structured, determined doping of their athlete
USADA, and ultimately the UCI do not want to see a return to the wholesale, team wide doping that was rife in OCE (Bruyneel's old team) Gewiss, PDM, Festina and Liberty Seguros.
All the "witnesses" have met with USADA to provide their input, Lance has consistently refused to do so, so this is the only method open to them.
If Lance and his team are proven to have doped, then they betrayed a host of young aspirant professionals, some of whom lost careers due to being clean and others who were channelled into doping.
He may have had 500 tests, but Bjarne Riis never failed a test either. Actually Lance did fail test, they were just “exempted”
In reply to fxceltic:
Flippin ummer - :P
You have to go back to 17th - Sastre befroe you get a clean rider (assuming Lance is dirty).
Flippin ummer - :P
You have to go back to 17th - Sastre befroe you get a clean rider (assuming Lance is dirty).
In reply to Aly:
As an aside, if Lance is found to have doped, will he be facing charges of perjury over the SCA sports case?
As an aside, if Lance is found to have doped, will he be facing charges of perjury over the SCA sports case?
In reply to John Rushby:
Who beat a doped Contador by 2 minutes..
> (In reply to fxceltic)
>
> Flippin ummer - :P
>
> You have to go back to 17th - Sastre befroe you get a clean rider (assuming Lance is dirty).
>
> Flippin ummer - :P
>
> You have to go back to 17th - Sastre befroe you get a clean rider (assuming Lance is dirty).
Who beat a doped Contador by 2 minutes..
In reply to John Rushby: And assuming Sastre is clean...?
There must be some feasible and legitimate causes for the 4 minute gulf between Lance's 2003 and 2004 times?
There must be some feasible and legitimate causes for the 4 minute gulf between Lance's 2003 and 2004 times?
In reply to fxceltic: A very interesting list... everyone who's gone faster than 39 minutes is either a proven doper (Pantani, Landis, Ulrich) suspected doper (Kloden) or Lance Armstrong. Sastre's 39.31 of 2008 (which I'm assuming was clean) is extremely impressive.
In reply to IainRUK:
i have always had a massive respect for Sastre - he seems a pretty cool guy.
The guys that did the Retul fitting on me and my bike also did GEOX and said he was fastidious in his detailing and mechanics on his bike, and was impressive in his knowledge of diet and training - Boardmanesque they said.
(another anecdote that day - I used the loo at the back of the workshop and only found an old cycling top and no towel, dried my hands on said top - it turned out to be Boardman's Team GB track top from the 92 Olympics)
i have always had a massive respect for Sastre - he seems a pretty cool guy.
The guys that did the Retul fitting on me and my bike also did GEOX and said he was fastidious in his detailing and mechanics on his bike, and was impressive in his knowledge of diet and training - Boardmanesque they said.
(another anecdote that day - I used the loo at the back of the workshop and only found an old cycling top and no towel, dried my hands on said top - it turned out to be Boardman's Team GB track top from the 92 Olympics)
In reply to IainRUK: Hmm... beat me to it.
I wonder how fast they'd get up the Alp if it wasn't part of a stage race and was just a sprint from top to bottom with no preceding ride. Is 37 minutes possible then, clean?
I wonder how fast they'd get up the Alp if it wasn't part of a stage race and was just a sprint from top to bottom with no preceding ride. Is 37 minutes possible then, clean?
In reply to Calder:
2003 was part of a stage, 2004 was an individual time trial.
> (In reply to John Rushby) And assuming Sastre is clean...?
>
> There must be some feasible and legitimate causes for the 4 minute gulf between Lance's 2003 and 2004 times?
>
> There must be some feasible and legitimate causes for the 4 minute gulf between Lance's 2003 and 2004 times?
2003 was part of a stage, 2004 was an individual time trial.
In reply to Mr Fuller:
You would assume that it wasn't, 2004 was an individual time trial and only Lance made it into the 37's.
> (In reply to IainRUK) Hmm... beat me to it.
>
> I wonder how fast they'd get up the Alp if it wasn't part of a stage race and was just a sprint from top to bottom with no preceding ride. Is 37 minutes possible then, clean?
>
> I wonder how fast they'd get up the Alp if it wasn't part of a stage race and was just a sprint from top to bottom with no preceding ride. Is 37 minutes possible then, clean?
You would assume that it wasn't, 2004 was an individual time trial and only Lance made it into the 37's.
In reply to Calder:
Ah the old they're British so of course they wouldn't cheat defence line.
> (In reply to scree)
>
> I suspect SKY will be the sort of team that eek the most out of every legal route to improve performance - whether this be pychological or physiological.
>
> But I can't see them as cheats. Then again, I've been wrong about stuff in the past...
>
> I suspect SKY will be the sort of team that eek the most out of every legal route to improve performance - whether this be pychological or physiological.
>
> But I can't see them as cheats. Then again, I've been wrong about stuff in the past...
Ah the old they're British so of course they wouldn't cheat defence line.
In reply to Frank4short: And good old anti doping man at the top in David Brailsford........oh wait a minute.....has he not just pick David "drugs cheater" Millar for Team GB
In reply to Frank4short:
I think you know enough about the sport to know that SKY / Team GB are very unlikely to be doping and that it has nothing to do with nationality.
> (In reply to Calder)
> [...]
>
> Ah the old they're British so of course they wouldn't cheat defence line.
> [...]
>
> Ah the old they're British so of course they wouldn't cheat defence line.
I think you know enough about the sport to know that SKY / Team GB are very unlikely to be doping and that it has nothing to do with nationality.
In reply to Frank4short:
I love how you've interpreted my statement for me, I was wondering what my point was....
What I was trying to suggest, is that based on their very sports-science orientated ethos, they are unlikely to compromise their success by using unfair means.
I love how you've interpreted my statement for me, I was wondering what my point was....
What I was trying to suggest, is that based on their very sports-science orientated ethos, they are unlikely to compromise their success by using unfair means.
In reply to shaggypops:
David "Reformed Drugs Cheat Who Campaigns For Anti-Doping" Millar.
Read his book before making comments like you just did.
> (In reply to Frank4short) And good old anti doping man at the top in David Brailsford........oh wait a minute.....has he not just pick David "drugs cheater" Millar for Team GB
David "Reformed Drugs Cheat Who Campaigns For Anti-Doping" Millar.
Read his book before making comments like you just did.
In reply to Eagle River: Prove i havn't read it before making your comment
In reply to Frank4short:
Not at all - just that they have been pretty forthright in their statements and attitudes to doping and testing. Much more so that USPS/Disco/Astana/Festina et al ever were.
Of course that could just be part of the cover up...but innocent until proven guilty is how we prefer things.
> (In reply to Calder)
> [...]
>
> Ah the old they're British so of course they wouldn't cheat defence line.
> [...]
>
> Ah the old they're British so of course they wouldn't cheat defence line.
Not at all - just that they have been pretty forthright in their statements and attitudes to doping and testing. Much more so that USPS/Disco/Astana/Festina et al ever were.
Of course that could just be part of the cover up...but innocent until proven guilty is how we prefer things.
In reply to Frank4short:
Garmin are Septics, but I beleive they would not cheat either.
Green Edge are Wallaby Botherers and likewise it is fair to say they are clean too.
Garmin are Septics, but I beleive they would not cheat either.
Green Edge are Wallaby Botherers and likewise it is fair to say they are clean too.
In reply to shaggypops: The same person who wouldn't have DM on Team Sky...
The fact is that at a national level the selector has a duty to pick the best athlete available to him. In an ethically run pro team you can be more selective.
The fact is that at a national level the selector has a duty to pick the best athlete available to him. In an ethically run pro team you can be more selective.
In reply to John Rushby:
And of course DM has been instrumental in that along with Jonathan Vaughters.
> (In reply to Frank4short)
>
> Garmin are Septics, but I beleive they would not cheat either.
>
> Garmin are Septics, but I beleive they would not cheat either.
And of course DM has been instrumental in that along with Jonathan Vaughters.
In reply to Eagle River:
One of the best autobiographies I have read for a long time. Very inspiring.
I was on the Col de Saises when he had his dark night of the soul in 2010. To think he not only made it to the top, but also over the Madeleine and made the cut is insprational. I have a photo of him taken head on and you can see the pain of the effort etched deep in his face as the voiture balais follows him.
THe new Bjarne Riis book is worth a read too - a very trubbled bloke that one.
Will Johan Bruyneel change his book from "We Might As Well Win" to "We Might As Well Cheat"?
One of the best autobiographies I have read for a long time. Very inspiring.
I was on the Col de Saises when he had his dark night of the soul in 2010. To think he not only made it to the top, but also over the Madeleine and made the cut is insprational. I have a photo of him taken head on and you can see the pain of the effort etched deep in his face as the voiture balais follows him.
THe new Bjarne Riis book is worth a read too - a very trubbled bloke that one.
Will Johan Bruyneel change his book from "We Might As Well Win" to "We Might As Well Cheat"?
In reply to fxceltic:
> (In reply to scree) does anybody really think the current crop of SKY riders are doping?
It would be great if they are clean. I don't feel a great sense of euphoria to see these guys winning so much, instead I think its interesting. Remember when DM "won" the worlds TT? Didn't realize why at the time but it didnt feel right. I hope Wiggo does well in the tour but also I hope he doesn't win it by a significant margin or make it look too easy.In reply to Calder: To be fair it was an off the cuff deliberately trollish comment. However I do believe as a nation you tend to be somewhat myopic when it comes to your own guys and generally won't believe they've cheated unless it's proven absolutely definitively.
Whereas as an irishman i take great pride in my fellow countrymens achivements but am under no misapprehension about the cleanliness of some of them. The one that immediately comes to mind is Stephen Roches winning performance in the TdF and he even comes from about a mile and half down the road from me.
Whereas as an irishman i take great pride in my fellow countrymens achivements but am under no misapprehension about the cleanliness of some of them. The one that immediately comes to mind is Stephen Roches winning performance in the TdF and he even comes from about a mile and half down the road from me.
In reply to Frank4short:
You are quite right, if we are looking to be more objective, Britain comes quit high up in the caught out dopers league table, but not a podium finish and probably quite a bit behind some other "developed" nations one might think of:_)
You are quite right, if we are looking to be more objective, Britain comes quit high up in the caught out dopers league table, but not a podium finish and probably quite a bit behind some other "developed" nations one might think of:_)
In reply to The New NickB:
I don't think they do..
But for me, just my opinion tbh I don't think cycling sends out a great message to kids full stop. When Merkx was caught he was taking pills he thought were legal..
Similarly Hoddle giving the england squad 'vitamin shots'..
Is that the message we really want to send to kids, that you can't be elite without chemical aid, legal or not. At 18 I was told I should take creatine by a football club. OK its not legal, but we are pushing the idea that pharmaceutical intervention is necessary.. and then its a fine line between clean and unclean..
Even the World Mountain Runnning Assoc have just appointed a Dr to advise on whats clean and whats not.. keeping up with the banned list is a pain in the arse.. I doped last year by mistakenly taking something which was banned, then wasn't then was banned.. just a simple stimulant.. a decongestant..
That's why am not a huge fan of hanging dopers out to dry, saying they let down kids etc..
Ideally, and I know it'd never happen, it'd be great if top sportsman were 100% natural diet.. if you can't eat it or drink it in sifficient quantities from normal food.. so no supplements at all. Totally idealistic I know. But most professional sportsman take a whole range of supplements, they are looking for that edge pharmaceutically, they just try to keep the right side of the law.. and I'm not a great fan of it tbh...
> (In reply to Frank4short)
> [...]
>
> I think you know enough about the sport to know that SKY / Team GB are very unlikely to be doping and that it has nothing to do with nationality.
> [...]
>
> I think you know enough about the sport to know that SKY / Team GB are very unlikely to be doping and that it has nothing to do with nationality.
I don't think they do..
But for me, just my opinion tbh I don't think cycling sends out a great message to kids full stop. When Merkx was caught he was taking pills he thought were legal..
Similarly Hoddle giving the england squad 'vitamin shots'..
Is that the message we really want to send to kids, that you can't be elite without chemical aid, legal or not. At 18 I was told I should take creatine by a football club. OK its not legal, but we are pushing the idea that pharmaceutical intervention is necessary.. and then its a fine line between clean and unclean..
Even the World Mountain Runnning Assoc have just appointed a Dr to advise on whats clean and whats not.. keeping up with the banned list is a pain in the arse.. I doped last year by mistakenly taking something which was banned, then wasn't then was banned.. just a simple stimulant.. a decongestant..
That's why am not a huge fan of hanging dopers out to dry, saying they let down kids etc..
Ideally, and I know it'd never happen, it'd be great if top sportsman were 100% natural diet.. if you can't eat it or drink it in sifficient quantities from normal food.. so no supplements at all. Totally idealistic I know. But most professional sportsman take a whole range of supplements, they are looking for that edge pharmaceutically, they just try to keep the right side of the law.. and I'm not a great fan of it tbh...
In reply to Calder: if people wanted me to ride up alpe d'huez in those sorts of times,id want epo.
sports are full of drugs,its the pressure of doing well that us the public put on them to always be faster and stronger.
i know someone who passes all these banned substancies on and he say you would be surprised how much there is in sport.
sports are full of drugs,its the pressure of doing well that us the public put on them to always be faster and stronger.
i know someone who passes all these banned substancies on and he say you would be surprised how much there is in sport.
In reply to David Hooper:
some beaurocrat rule lover has a boner for Lance, he must be going through hell with it.
They need to just LEAVE IT and let him ride!
some beaurocrat rule lover has a boner for Lance, he must be going through hell with it.
They need to just LEAVE IT and let him ride!
In reply to Calder:
We're talking about athletes here, not rowers! ; )
> (In reply to Frank4short)
>
> Hmmm, maybe Steven Redgrave was a cheat, too...
>
> Hmmm, maybe Steven Redgrave was a cheat, too...
We're talking about athletes here, not rowers! ; )
In reply to jazzyjackson: you think rowers arn`t athletes????
In reply to tim000:
7 mins! First prize
> (In reply to jazzyjackson) you think rowers arn`t athletes????
7 mins! First prize
In reply to David Hooper: I highly agree with you. As a former cancer patient who was given direct support from LIVESTRONG, he is one of my heros.
In reply to shaggypops:
So you're obviously not aware of the fact that the ONLY reason Brailsford didn't sign Millar for team Sky was because of his doping history?
> (In reply to Frank4short) And good old anti doping man at the top in David Brailsford........oh wait a minute.....has he not just pick David "drugs cheater" Millar for Team GB
So you're obviously not aware of the fact that the ONLY reason Brailsford didn't sign Millar for team Sky was because of his doping history?
In reply to Byronius Maximus: Wrong i'm afraid.....i'm fully aware of that. I just feel he is showing a different set of morals when choosing his GB squad
In reply to shaggypops: I also feel that if David Millar accepted his life time Olympic ban and spoke out about being anti doping, his words and actions would mean so much more. Then David Brailsford would not have been put in this position.
In reply to Aly: it seems that alot of people have it in for lance armstrong .is it not possible that he is just a good bloody cyclist.
In reply to colina:
a bloody good cyclist , but not JUST a bloody good cyclist. but i think pretty much everyone who won or came near to winning the tour in the 80s , 90s and 00s was on something. thanks to the testing and people speaking out and breaking the code of silence it seems to have cleaned up . but you will aways get someone who tries his luck and thinks he wont get caught.
> (In reply to Aly) it seems that alot of people have it in for lance armstrong .is it not possible that he is just a good bloody cyclist.
a bloody good cyclist , but not JUST a bloody good cyclist. but i think pretty much everyone who won or came near to winning the tour in the 80s , 90s and 00s was on something. thanks to the testing and people speaking out and breaking the code of silence it seems to have cleaned up . but you will aways get someone who tries his luck and thinks he wont get caught.
In reply to colina:
Of course he was. Just not THAT good.
> (In reply to Aly) it seems that alot of people have it in for lance armstrong .is it not possible that he is just a good bloody cyclist.
Of course he was. Just not THAT good.
In reply to Byronius Maximus:
Not saying you're wrong, but wouldn't the fact he's a part owner of Team Garmin make a slight difference?
> (In reply to shaggypops)
> [...]
>
> So you're obviously not aware of the fact that the ONLY reason Brailsford didn't sign Millar for team Sky was because of his doping history?
> [...]
>
> So you're obviously not aware of the fact that the ONLY reason Brailsford didn't sign Millar for team Sky was because of his doping history?
Not saying you're wrong, but wouldn't the fact he's a part owner of Team Garmin make a slight difference?
when you look at detection times for PED's it looks like it should be difficult to get away with doping but in reality when you look at testing its a joke, getting away with PED's is easy your actually more likely to be court using recreational drugs
In reply to andy: He did that after not being allowed to sign for Sky because of the doping.
And set out to have a team that was clear of any indication of doping. (This is in his book which is a great read).
His sister works for Team Sky though (although not as a cyclist, she has no doping history as far as I am aware)
And set out to have a team that was clear of any indication of doping. (This is in his book which is a great read).
His sister works for Team Sky though (although not as a cyclist, she has no doping history as far as I am aware)
In reply to sleavesley: Ah, ok, thanks.
I'm not sure if the post that said he should "speak out against doping" was talking about the same chap though! He's seems as near to as an evangelical convert to clean riding as it's possible to get!
I'm not sure if the post that said he should "speak out against doping" was talking about the same chap though! He's seems as near to as an evangelical convert to clean riding as it's possible to get!
In reply to sleavesley:
+1 for millars book.
> (In reply to andy) He did that after not being allowed to sign for Sky because of the doping.
> And set out to have a team that was clear of any indication of doping. (This is in his book which is a great read).
> His sister works for Team Sky though (although not as a cyclist, she has no doping history as far as I am aware)
> And set out to have a team that was clear of any indication of doping. (This is in his book which is a great read).
> His sister works for Team Sky though (although not as a cyclist, she has no doping history as far as I am aware)
+1 for millars book.
In reply to tim000:
Has anyone used the "Lance Armstrong has denied ever using drugs, but has admitted pedalling" joke yet?
Has anyone used the "Lance Armstrong has denied ever using drugs, but has admitted pedalling" joke yet?
In reply to ThunderCat:
like it 8-)
> (In reply to tim000)
>
> Has anyone used the "Lance Armstrong has denied ever using drugs, but has admitted pedalling" joke yet?
>
> Has anyone used the "Lance Armstrong has denied ever using drugs, but has admitted pedalling" joke yet?
like it 8-)
In reply to ThunderCat: brilliant , not heard that one .
In reply to Aly: just on the SKY Postal chatter, i think its a sad indictment that many peoples first reaction to a great performance is to think dopage is involved. If thats peoples intial reaction they are probably watching the wrong sport.
Wheres the joy in that?
On a more technical level the SKY Postal chatter also overlooks the fact that SKY are doing it with an unheard of budget and a stable of incredible top level riders, whereas US Postal did it with a team of Domestiques who previously were never better than also ran average riders who suddenly became almost superhuman upon joining the team (with one or two exceptions, Hincapie for example).
People are asking whether we dont suspect SKY because they are an anglo team, but the above point still applies. If all of a sudden a team like netapp, euskaltel or whatever were putting in those SKY type trains and performances then you would be correct to question where that performance came from given their starting point (thats not to say they dont have some decent riders of course).
Truth is (or at least appears to be) SKY have simply bought a lot of incredible riders.
Wheres the joy in that?
On a more technical level the SKY Postal chatter also overlooks the fact that SKY are doing it with an unheard of budget and a stable of incredible top level riders, whereas US Postal did it with a team of Domestiques who previously were never better than also ran average riders who suddenly became almost superhuman upon joining the team (with one or two exceptions, Hincapie for example).
People are asking whether we dont suspect SKY because they are an anglo team, but the above point still applies. If all of a sudden a team like netapp, euskaltel or whatever were putting in those SKY type trains and performances then you would be correct to question where that performance came from given their starting point (thats not to say they dont have some decent riders of course).
Truth is (or at least appears to be) SKY have simply bought a lot of incredible riders.
In reply to Aly: interesting article here
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/other-sports/usada-s-travis-tygart-pl...
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/other-sports/usada-s-travis-tygart-pl...
In reply to David Hooper: Don't fall for the Armstrong propoganda David. He asked for a USADA investigation himself a few months ago, strangely now that he's realised they've got some meaningful evidence he's trying to rubbish them to stop it coming out. The deliberate mis-information he's been coming out with about the previous federal investigation and the USADA one tell you everything about how desperate he is to gain the sympathy of the uninformed. USADA are quite right not to tell him who their witnesses are given his long history of bullying, threatening and intimidating witnesses, read Simeoni's account amongst many others for the details. That said, it doesn't take a genius to realise who some of them are after Hincapie, Leipheimer etcs sudden retirement/ withdrawl from the olympics.
In reply to David Hooper:
F**k armstrong. an amazing athlete but all the evidence i've read points to the fact that he cheated. loads of others were cheating too, but he was either more able or cheated better. i admire his achievements but the fact that he's made himself out to be clean sucks.
banning all drugs cheats for life is surely the only way we can see what people are truly capable off.
millar's all about being clean now but wasn't back in the day when he was cheating too. he should be banned for life imho. i also love how he claims to being scottish the whole time..........
F**k armstrong. an amazing athlete but all the evidence i've read points to the fact that he cheated. loads of others were cheating too, but he was either more able or cheated better. i admire his achievements but the fact that he's made himself out to be clean sucks.
banning all drugs cheats for life is surely the only way we can see what people are truly capable off.
millar's all about being clean now but wasn't back in the day when he was cheating too. he should be banned for life imho. i also love how he claims to being scottish the whole time..........
In reply to David Hooper: I'm also particularly looking forward to the 'opposing view' his team cooks up on why he paid Dr. Ferrari 465,000 Euros....
In reply to nowler: You talk a lot of sense and i share your views on the life time bans
In reply to nowler: +1, agreed.
Millar still won't name names, just maintains the omerta in relation to Armstrong. Happy to call out less infuential cyclists though - Ricco etc...
Comeback 2.0 looks like the worst thing wonderboy could have done for his career. Still at least he won that criterium.
Millar still won't name names, just maintains the omerta in relation to Armstrong. Happy to call out less infuential cyclists though - Ricco etc...
Comeback 2.0 looks like the worst thing wonderboy could have done for his career. Still at least he won that criterium.
In reply to nowler:
I know people who remember him from local school boy races around Inverness. Perhaps he does actually feel Scottish!
I know people who remember him from local school boy races around Inverness. Perhaps he does actually feel Scottish!
In reply to benka:
as it is Millar's a marked man for betraying the dopped cycling mafia, disc wheels don't sponaneously collpase during crucial time trials
as it is Millar's a marked man for betraying the dopped cycling mafia, disc wheels don't sponaneously collpase during crucial time trials
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...