UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716

So looks like the floodgates are going to be well and truly opened.

In reply to La Shamster: i wish they would hurry up and actually release the report

In reply to La Shamster

http://www.usada.org/cyclinginvestigationstatement.html

There's a bit more flesh on the bones here - the 11 riders are formally named. Seems like there could be more as the evening progresses.

La Sham

In reply to La Shamster: Links to Barry and Hincapie statements on twitter

In reply to Alan Taylor:

Don't do Twitter - what's Hincapie said?

Did he explain how at 78 kilos he won the hardest mountain stage of the 2005 Tour?

E

In reply to Enty: Here's the link

http://www.georgehincapie.com/news/Statement-from-George-Hincapie/

In reply to Enty:

Bet you never expected this day to come but yes, he says he was at it!

In reply to La Shamster:

Guess we all wanted to believe the Armstrong fairy tale!

In reply to La Shamster:

Craig what are the french press saying?

In reply to La Shamster: The 11 named: Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie.

In reply to La Shamster:

Dunno yet - I'll check the web and I'll get an Equipe first thing.

E

In reply to Enty:

Checked L'Equipe online earlier and it pretty much says what all the other news feeds are saying at the moment.

In reply to La Shamster: Bet Paul Kimmage is feeling somewhat more positive tonight. $55,000 in his defence fund to date

In reply to La Shamster:

Same here - just reporting ATM with no comment. Sure that will come in tomorrow's paper.

E

In reply to woolsack:

Absolutely! Never liked him but I might be eating my words.

E

In reply to La Shamster: Radio 5 live now

In reply to Alan Taylor: be interesting to see what Sheryl Crow has said!

In reply to La Shamster:

Full report with be published on Wednesday on the USADA website, quite staggering the lengths people will go to to perpetuate their own myths, glad they've nailed him!

In reply to La Shamster:

200 page USADA summary - right here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109619079/Reasoned-Decision

In reply to jolivague:

Hey up! it's Wednesday today lol.

E

In reply to Enty:

I'm trying not to read the thing right now - it's like a car crash! I keep flicking through and going OMG.

In reply to Alan Taylor:

Just read this - Hincapie admits doping up to 2006 which explains perfectly how a big chap (in cycling terms) can win a mountain stage like he did in 2005 - I knew it was impossible back then. If something looks unbelievable it usually is.

E

In reply to Enty:

Nice moment there on my part, going to keep my head down for a while in contrition!

In reply to jolivague:

Bloody interesting though!!

E

In reply to Enty:

it's the arrogance of the whole thing that staggers me, they were so convinced they couldn't be caught! You think back to those tours and it all kinda makes sense now, David Millar's book tore all the illusions away for me and this just makes a mockery of the UCI's blindness/unwillingness to deal with it.

Viva Brailsford and the clean Team Sky (we all hope)

In reply to Enty:
None of it is entirely surprising, but you are right its really interesting to see the background behind it all

In reply to La Shamster:

As I said before, I'm more interested in whether they will ever expose other sports. Spanish tennis players, golfers, footballers...

In reply to Tiberius: Are they in on it too??

In reply to goldmember:



They all use the same doctors.... and doctors like Michele Ferrari seem to only have one set of prescriptions!

In reply to La Shamster:

Credit to USADA.

I hope that other sports will accept that they are dirty too - they can't keep stalling on Puerto for much long.

Rafa Conconi Sharps

and all that

I must be squeeky bum time in the Pharmstrong household.

He not only has SCA after him for several million but he possibly committed perjury in that case and the Yanks don't like perjury. No Lord Archer gardening holiday and book tour here - he's looking at some serious time.

In reply to La Shamster:

Would hate to be in the UCI's shoes (even though they deserve them) - once you keep stripping out the known drug cheats from the 90s and the early 2000s, who the hell do you award all the classics and grand tours to?

In reply to La Shamster: There was some good stuff at the start of the 7pm radio 5 show - interview with Tyler Hamilton and some journo I can't remember the name of. You can probably get it online. The interview with the journalist was played in more detail towards the end of the drivetime show, short of 6.45pm - 7pm somewhere.

In reply to:

Will I be able to get a refund on the Armstrong books that I bought?


and the Floyd Landis one, come to think of it

In reply to Jon Jones:

No, same here

but at least Brad got a third place in the 2009 Tour

In reply to Tiberius:

This is important!

E

In reply to Enty:

But are they even investigating the other sports in Puerto?

They Certainly Should.

The Clinic is all of a sudden a happy place!

In reply to La Shamster:
Anybody else think that giving cyclists a 6 month ban starting in September is as daft as giving skiers a 6 month ban starting from April ?

Not sure if I believe all the 'I didn't want to dope but the bad man made me' stories I'm reading.

More importantly, has any more evidence of how Armstrong passed so many tests come to light? In particular stuff about the 2001 Swiss case ? Is there anything more than Landis's testimony ?

In reply to Talius Brute:

I think you're left with me. Don't really need the medals but they can send me the prize money.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

There seems to be discussion on how Armstrong's PR machine have grouped all the tests together be they hematocrit tests, doping tests or and other tests and stated that figure as the number of clean results whereas the USADA figures show a much much lower number of actual doping tests actually undertaken and that for the majority of the time Armstrong and others managed to dodge the testers

In reply to La Shamster:

Any chance of LA Confidential being published in a language other than French now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._A._Confidentiel

In reply to La Shamster: Silly question, will all the people he sued for libel be after some of his money then? As well as a public apology.
That's a big queue!

In reply to John Rushby:

this will be interesting, as I understand it USADA does not have to prove things to the same extent as may be necessary in a criminal court in order to ban LA, so it remains to be seen whether witness testimony will be enough (along with the retrospective positive tests that have their own issues) for SCA to prove perjury.
This may be why the federal investigation into misappropriation of government funds by USPS team was dropped.

Im about 60 pages into the report currently, its interesting, but not too much new stuff I wasnt aware of already, yet. I still think theres more to come re the UCI involvement, the dropping of the federal case etc.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

The report suggests this, but the riders themselves refer more to the fact that it was endemic in the sport itself, not that one guy made them dope.
I think its good theyve come forward, though doubtless some people will still want to hang them from the rafters, theyre damned if they do and damned if they dont, when really they have nothing to gain personally from fessing up and its good for the sport.


well yes, that basically the tests werent good enough to catch them, for a variety of reasons (no epo test, no test for blood transfusions, no whereabouts scheme, inability to catch microdosing, test evasion, saline dilution etc)

Hamilton also testified re TdS +ve test and the $100,000 donation and the meeting between LA and the UCI after the test are not in dispute.

In reply to fxceltic:
>

I wonder whether the UCI will quietly drop their case against Kimmage?

In reply to All: ..and on what basis do we know Team Sky are clean? Is it hopium?

In reply to woolsack:

that wouldnt surprise me at all at this point, however they must have known the approximate contents of the reasoned decision for a while now, and could have dropped it already, but they havent. Theres no limit to their idiocy it would seem.

As a fellow contributor to the Kimmage fund, what would you want to see done with the money if the case is dropped btw? I reckon Kimmage should take out full page adverts in loads of papers confirming the allegations.
The Times and L'Equipe should however give him a page for nothing, since they have done nothing to back him to date (AFAIK).

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Well, thats not really relevant to the topic.

The answer is that you cant "know", but you can look at power outputs, thresholds, blood values etc and form an opinion that their figures are within the realms of possibility without dopage.

In reply to Game of Conkers: Who's said they know that? I can't see the post you're referring to.

In reply to fxceltic: To me it's relevant because it appears that the powerful teams and their doctors are miles ahead of the drug testers. As such, will we be reading similar stories about Team Sky in 5 years time?

No idea, but the sport (at the top) appears to have been dirty for it's entire existence. Why would it be clean now?

In reply to La Shamster: UCI is not coming out of this looking good. It sounds like they decided to ignore or dismiss anything that hinted at doping.

In reply to woolsack:

Doubt it, they've just won a very similar case against Landis in the same court - though Landis claims he wasn't informed. Is there any reason why Kimmage shouldn't just ignore the proceedings ?

I know there is no question about whether the UCI accepted the donation, but McQuaid has established his defence - gross stupidity - pretty effectively. If Kimmage based his story simply on the allegations of Landis and Hamilton then I'm afraid he belongs in the Kelvin Mckenzie school of journalism.

In reply to La Shamster:

This is going to have a serious effect on the chances of Wiggo winning SPOTY, because it just tarnishes the whole sport.

In reply to Jon Jones:

i will take the lance books off you



to me he is just another doper during a time of dopers.he still won whilst all the others took whatever as well.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Essentially, yes, but with reason.

As with any athlete in any sport you can never be sure. However with the recent performances of the pro tour (including team Sky) it can be shown that power outputs and recovery levels are way down (15% at least) on the Armstrong era, this combined with much more openness and better (although not fool proof) testing regimes, together with the general acceptance their now is to clean up the sport, I think (hope) we can be fairly sure of the performances.

Even so, there are clearly many more steps to be taken. The handling of Contadors case is a disgrace, with the Spanish CF clearing AC, and the laughable ban.

I think the treatment of Frank Schleck is a good example of how the sport is starting to come on. In the past the UCI may well have hidden such a minute positive in one of cycling's star riders.

I still think that a further step should be taken, and the national cycling federations need to be removed from the banning process. Thiw will prevent the situation we had with COntador, and would also mean swifter punishment of athletes (Frank S is still awaiting his hearing AKAIK)

The question is why is it only cycling that is going through this turmoil?

In reply to Phil Payne:

annoying but not really a big deal, SPOTY is it?

In reply to mark s:

while true to an extent, I think you should read the full reasoned decision.

In reply to fxceltic: That would certainly make for a shorter thread. Have you finished reading it yet?

In reply to balmybaldwin:


This. Why are they involved inn terms of results management? OK USADA are doing a good job, but its open to corruption, they should manage the administration but the power to ban should rest with WADA.

Its only cycling because although doping has been rife in the sport, its the only one thats been "relatively" open to sorting it out.

Theres no testing in Golf at all I believe (or wasnt until very recently anyway), other sports are not that bothered either eg american football, soccer, tennis etc
Sure they pay lip service but thats it. Hence no footballers ever get caught, I do not believe this is because none of them use PEDs.

In reply to Sir Chasm: nope. The whole emphasis of the report though is that the doping was on an unprecedented scale, so it seems not to be the case that it was a level, doped, playing field.

In reply to fxceltic:


The USADA report states their scientific belief that LA could have ridden the 2009 and 2010 tours without drugs/doping as a million to one (quoting cyclingnews.com).

However what they are going on is the lack of impact of the tour on his blood values. So if they are stating that if you took a random sample of a million people, subjected them to a day in the TDF, and see who recovered the best, then would you really expect any of them to out - perform LA ?

If this sounds like I'm defending him then I'm not - I just think that we need to see how the other riders in the race compared to him in these same tests.

In reply to fxceltic: Nobody has argued that it was a level, doped, playing field. But under the rules doping is doping, it doesn't matter whether you do it well or badly, if you're caught you're supposed to be banned. It's no defence to say that some teams were better than us postal because their doping arrangements weren't as professional.

In reply to Chris the Tall: I think they quote a million to one in the context of professional cyclists as opposed to any bod off the street.

Its well known that blood values significantly reduce (or should) over the course of a grand tour. Presumably you are talking not about that but whether or not anyone else who was in those tours had a similar lack of impact on their blood values?

In reply to Sir Chasm: you have misunderstood me.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

That's not quite it. Their analysis of his bloods suggested that LA recovered (or rather declined) in an expected way for the first week of the tour, then that trend suddenly reversed in a way that they considered metabolically highly improbable, and more consistent with an intervention such as blood doping.

It's not so much that LA consistently recovered day-to-day in a manner that was ahead of expectations, and which might be matched by other tour riders, but that his recovery (to pre-tour plasma levels) was an overnight one.

Plus they also had his results from the 2009 Giro in which there was no sudden recovery - the decline in values continued throughout the race.

Page 140 of this explains it better:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109619079/Reasoned-Decision

In reply to fxceltic: mark s comment suggested he felt the whole thing is irrelevant since everyone was doping, i said that the reason it is important and different it what is has exposed, not a lone gunman, but organised, team orchestrated dopage on a massive scale.

In reply to fxceltic: This is hardly the first time team doping has been exposed, is it? Or did the Festina debacle pass you by?

In reply to Sir Chasm: Yes I must have missed the bit where Festina (or subsequent reincarnation) won 7 TdF in a row as a result of organised doping.

Do you take the view that this report is irrelevant?

In reply to Jon Jones:


I bought, read and quite enjoyed It's Not About the Bike. Seems like quite an appropriate title, in retrospect.

In reply to fxceltic:

Worth watching this back I think...

youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI&

Listen to Kimmage's fellow journos eating out of Lance's hands...it's not just pro cycling that needs to put its house in order.

In reply to fxceltic: As I said earlier, one team being better at doping than another is irrelevant, unless you're saying it's ok to dope if you don't win.

I think this report is irrelevant to past results. Whether it will change things (the UCI) remains to be seen.

In reply to JMGLondon:

I agree

In reply to balmybaldwin:

any hard data available?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

its entirely relevant in my view precisely because I hope it will change things.

what would the chances be of things changing without it?

In reply to fxceltic:

Did you miss 7 KOM wins for one of their star riders : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Virenque ??? (OK the 7th was when he was with Polti)

In reply to fxceltic:

There's a few points I'm not clear about:

Why pursue Armstrong/US Postal now?

Is there a power struggle going on between USADA/WADA/UCI?

Is this an attempt to deflect calls for drug testing in other sports (the above mentioned golf, tennis, etc) I.e. let cycling continue to be the bad boy of sport?

Do USADA/WADA go further back in time and get the results of Hinault, Merckx and the rest overturned?

ALC

In reply to subalpine:

Don't think any teams release power or blood data. But there are a few people who analyse based on times and vertical metres climbed and so on. Try this:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussi...

In reply to a lakeland climber:

1. It's not just armstrong, it's current team manager, doctors and people in the UCI who turned a blind eye or actively covered up positive results for Armstrong and postal.

2. WADA backs USADA, UCI wants to handle it becuase they want to brush it under the carpet.

3. No idea.

4. The older riders may all have taken various bits and bobs but nothing like EPO (it was a levelish playing field) and other oxygen boosting doping methods which would turn an average pro rider or say the 78kg George H into a mountain stage winner.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to TimB:

3 different teams I think, and Polti was in the middle wasnt it?

I dont get the argument here, clearly lots of people doped, and team doping was endemic at that time, but that does not make this report irrelevant.

The UCI were able to move on with basically no changes after Festina. It was only a big deal in cycling really, but this thing with LA truly has the potential to cause lasting change.
And by lasting change I dont mean total elimination of doping, that has never been the case and never will be, I mean a significant step on from where we have been in the last 15-20 years.

In reply to TimB: it seems Brailford has offered to release their data, but noone's interested:

When Wiggins came under attack by anonymous tweeters suggesting he doped at the start of this year’s Tour, Team Sky principal Dave Braislford immediately invited the tweeters to attend an autumn seminar in Manchester when they could ask any question of he and his team they wanted and examine any of the team data, so far he has had no takers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9499744...

In reply to subalpine:

Plenty available on recent performances:

Stage 7 2012:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/tour-de-france/2012/stage-7.aspx
Stage 9 2012:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/tour-de-france/2012/stage-9.aspx

Etc.

Older performance data is harder to come by, and I have seen, (but can't currently find) comparisons of performance outputs and race times between current figures and historic figures, particularly on climbs.

Will post later if I can find it.

In reply to subalpine: Love the last line of that article

"Or as Brian Robinson, Britain’s first Tour stage winner in 1958 said: “It was always going to be the case. Once the sport got cleaned up that was always going to be when Britain finally produced a winner.”

How brythonic.

In reply to balmybaldwin: as a reference point, sub 6 watts per kilo is generally considered reasonable.

In darker times people were often pumping out high 6s on average on mountain stages.

In reply to fxceltic: the link above estimates wiggo at
'6.4 to 6.5 W/kg. Over 16 minutes, that's not at all unreasonable'

but then claims:
' sustained power output of above about 6.1 W/kg on the longer (40 min or more) climbs is not physiologically 'plausible'.

In reply to subalpine:

It is very easy to exceed 6w/kg for shorter periods due to the effects of oxygen debt.

What that is saying is 6w/kg is plausible for a period of 16mins, but not for a period of 40 mins. Surely that's not that hard to understand.

You should see Cav's figures for a 10s sprint

In reply to subalpine:

that estimate may be slightly high given the time difference between him and Jani who was recorded at 5.8, but even so, as they point out its a short climb so not unreasonable in those circumstances.

Its stuff over 6wpk over a prolonged period that is an issue, such as a big mountain day climbing 2/ 3/ 4 major climbs/ passes, particularly on the last climb of such a day.

In reply to La Shamster:

Are Sky the Scientologists of Cycling? First G Thomas and his stupid endorsement of those BioFlow bracelets and now Dowsett:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165

In reply to fxceltic: if team sky were more transparent there would be less suspicions..

In reply to PeterM:

oh dear.

I can understand why riders may think this sort of thing, based on the reality of life in the peloton at the time, but to come out with it publicly is something else altogether.

In reply to fxceltic:

Most sportsmen these days either don't know when to, or simply can't keep their gobs shut.

In reply to subalpine:


Yep, there was a very good Radio 4 programme this July that interviewed the (South African IIRC) scientist who had done the research. Google or the BBC search function might track it down for you. It's a regular programme on statistics on Sunday nights I think.

In reply to subalpine:

fair enough, thats not in dispute and is an obvious perspective.

if I was DB I wouldnt really want to be telling the whole peloton what my training data was though either.

My view on it is the same as it always has been, Im prepared to believe in most reasonable performances until someone shows me good reasons why I shouldnt. My view on SKY, based on the data available, is that their performances are reasonable within an historical and contemporary context.

In the case of LA, for years I rated him, although I didnt follow the sport as closely as I did before and since because it became a little dull, and I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. But more recently data, information generally and testimony has become more widely available via the internet, and that has enabled peoples opinion to be more informed and change as a result.
I think the mistake with believing in Lance was to assume that the improvements in performance were just that, compared to the 70s/80s (all sports improved considerably in the same period in terms of athletic ability), rather than drug related. They seemed in the beginning to be "possible" in contemporary context to me. I would admit though that I didnt know that they still couldnt be tested for EPO at the time, even post festina.

In reply to Calder:

clearly!

In reply to fxceltic:

I think the UCI lost the chance to get a grip on organised, systematioc doping when they stood back and let the Gewiss team win pretty much all the Classics and GC stages.

It was clear they were all on something, somthing that was a step up from the rather shambolic team doping undertaken by PDM previously.

This was not a bit of cortisone and testosterone which had been usedin the 80's - it was the start fo team wide, medically supervised doping - a seismic shift in professional cycling (and possibly wider sport).

I also hope to see other sporting bodies looking at themselves inthe cold light of day.

I wonder how my "favourite" Spanish tennis player's knees are right now?

In reply to John Rushby: what if there has recently been another seismic shift and the testers haven't caught up yet?

In reply to subalpine: this is possible of course, but I think it would be harder to contain in this internet age, not to mention the fact that anti-doping is now better funded and more high profile than ever.

doubtless that will come back to bite me on the ass in 5 years time...

In reply to subalpine:

thats what the blood passports etc are aimed to catch. Its never going to be perfect but considering the "poorer" performance in this years tour de france etc there does seem to be a change.

In reply to dissonance:

Agreed - but the old 50% limit was a green light to dope, just make sure you're not Mr 51 when the testers call.

Interesting how the US forums are taking this. It's all strawmen and digs at Obama. Wierd.

In reply to John Rushby:

In fact, some of the stuff on CNN and the Mail here ranks alongside Young Earth Creationism for denial in the face of overwhelming evidence.

In reply to dissonance: But by then Wiggins (as an example for argument) will have made £20m plus (at a guess) . if they only take your titles away who gives a sh1t if your driven by money. No ones taking that away

In reply to La Shamster:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/armstrong-now-taking-mu...

Genius. The USADA conceded that he is phenomenal at taking drugs.

In reply to La Shamster:

http://www.carbolift.com/

For anyone who's got a US Postal team replica bike

In reply to ClimberEd:

"[The tour] is just a cloud the colour of time"

Superb!

In reply to Hat Dude: or a viking..
http://www.vintagelightweights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/9.jpg

In reply to subalpine:

What we need is a picture of JS on a US Postal Replica

Ultimate depravity!

In reply to La Shamster:

I've got a job lot of yellow Livestrong wristbands if anyone is interested.
Only problem - the letter V is missing.

E

In reply to Enty:

Thought this was interesting from a few days ago: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-armstrong-has-been-trying-to-destroy...

In reply to Enty:

do they come with a handy pill container for those vitamins on the run?

In reply to Enty:

pmsl!

In reply to dissonance:

according to the report Mrs K Armstrong is on hand to dispense what is necessary in tin foil wrappers, so this would be an example of over engineering.

In reply to fxceltic:

"If it seems too good to be true, it probably is"
Today Lance Armstrong, tomorrow Usain Bolt.

Sad really, I hope Bradley never turns out to have taken anything. Although the dominance of the british cycling team at the olympics might fall under the saying above.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

i thought i saw an article saying at least one race organiser was thinking of trying to reclaim the money but cant remember where.
It wouldnt be that difficult for the organisers to change the terms of entry to include forfeiting the prize if you get caught in x years after plus pay interest. Of course chances of actually getting the money back after a accountant has played games is slim but being made bankrupt etc could have some threat value.

In reply to La Shamster:

Forgetting the facts about Sky / British Cycling (which are somehow both "believable" and "too good to be true"), I think there are two strong facts which stand in the favour of Wiggins' win this year
- 1) he didn't really do anything very special - it was a very boring tour. He wasn't like Lance or Miguel, riding away from the climbers whilst still in the seat etc; his time trials were good, but not unbelievably so. He even had a few "bad" (not awful) days. It all came down to team work and very good stragey. His team were just very David Brailsford - perfectly organised with a singlular purpose.
- 2), the tour was set up for him - the organisers know what they're doing - it's all about the marketing and the future income. Lay out a route that a Brit wins, and then (on the back of Cav's success as WC, and the previous effects of Beijing track etc, so that people are actually watching and following the tour in the UK) suddenly you have a growth cycling market worth billions - and the UK market is everything at the moment, just as it was in US a few years' ago. Look at the Giro route for next year - set up for Wiggo to come along and bring 500,000+ cycling fans to Italian cycling and Italian holidays etc.


And, if in 10 years' time it comes out that Sky were the inventors of the world's newest undectable PED, then fair enough - they fooled me - , but unlike Festina, Cofidis, USPS etc, they have enough failures to suggest that it isn't true.

In reply to Talius Brute:
https://twitter.com/PaulKimmage

Read the tweets from Paul Krimmage seems he thinks that there is a case that the British cycling team dopes. Wonder if that was why he was made redundant from the Sunday Times.

In reply to wilding:

I'm not sure it would take a genius to create a case that ANY cycling team doing well is doping given the current environment. The real test is creating one that is backed up by hard evidence.

In reply to wilding:

The impression I got from Kimmage wasn't that he thought that Sky were doping, but that they weren't doing enough to encourage transparency. I don't think he's unrealistic enough to expect all teams to do without staff formerly connected to doping, but I think he's asking Dave Brailsford to be clearer with the public about things like Leinders.

That said, I feel uneasy about Sky's lack of comment about Michael Barry's involvement.

In reply to steev: Can't find the link but it was along the lines of "We are really pissed off tht we stood by him and all the while he was lying to us"

In reply to Alan Taylor:

Indeed you're right. Must have missed it in my frenzy to read everything else on hte subject.

In reply to La Shamster:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/armstrong-now-taking-mu...

Toby

In reply to Alan Taylor:

Brailsford is a gem:

"During his time at Team Sky, we have had absolutely no cause for concern whatsoever, there has never been any question in terms of his performances, his training, his behaviour on the team. There have never been any issues in that respect. But ultimately he lied....

"When you take someone you ask them a question and if someone lies to you and you find out later it's disappointing."

I enjoyed this one,

"It's pretty damning stuff. It is jaw-dropping the amount of people who have testified against him," said Wiggins.

In reply to Mike Highbury: would a pro contract really be sorted out in this manner? "you ask them a question"..........Michael Barry presumably says "no, never doped before" and it's all fine, sign on the dotted line.

In reply to La Shamster: watching this again is now excellent

youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U&

In reply to wilding: He doesn't say that at all or imply it. He thinks they should be more "transparent" and pay him to "assure" that transparency.

In reply to La Shamster: Pevenage is now saying the this caused Jan Ulrich to start doping again

In reply to La Shamster:

Some interesting reading here from Hamilton's book: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19912623

In reply to La Shamster: another dopey doper gets caught:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19890401
he should have had some warning like the top guys..

In reply to subalpine:

USADA are going after him for Perjury now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19921705

Good.

And in another twist to the doping tales of late, the latest story is that Bruyneel [allegedly] secretly doped Fränk Schleck to keep him in the team...

http://www.wort.lu/en/view/french-newspaper-raises-doping-allegations-again...

Co:

And The Inner RIng have just reported that he's been sacked.

CO:

In reply to CarolineMc:

That would be truely shocking if true... And I would suggest a reason for the other Schleck to leave as soon as possible.

In reply to CarolineMc: And Spartacus is saying he wants to leave Radioshack

In reply to La Shamster:

Interesting that he was also managing Contador for his wins... continuing the legacy from US Postal?

In reply to balmybaldwin: Oh yeah... that hadn't even occurred to me! This is all starting to sound like a Scooby-Doo script... Co:

In reply to balmybaldwin:

But not the year he was caught doping

Landis claims JB tipped off the testers to ensure his sample was sent to the one lab that could detect it - a far fetched tale that is becoming more and more plausible by the day.

But doping one of your own team .......