UKC

as per the title this interview will be live and streamed worldwide next thursday 17th.

surely a confession, which given what i said yesterday seems mental.

In reply to fxceltic: "image reform campaign"........ Nothing more nothing less

In reply to fxceltic:

Didn't Marion Jones do something similar, amid rumours she was to confess all, but said nothing of note?

In reply to balmybaldwin: yes, that is true.

I live in hope nonetheless

In reply to fxceltic:

I don't really see what difference a confession would make really ? I suspect it would look more like a PR job rather than a statement of remorse.

In reply to fxceltic:

Hope he admits it all then gets sent to jail for lying over the years. Pretty sure the cold calculated P.O.S. wouldn't go on tv without knowing the way the questions were going to go. Hopefully he gets a good heckling from the audience

In reply to fxceltic:

He's had 6 months to concoct a story, so it should be interesting

I actually think his mental health will be central, though no doubt he will play heavily on being a cancer survivor. I gather he is someone who needs to compete, needs to be the alpha male, so not being able to will drive him mad. However even if he comes clean he would surely have to serve at least an 8 year ban, so maybe he is looking to discredit WADA/USADA and call for their sanctions to be limited.

Or maybe he going to come clean, blame it all on dirty Europeans, and then annouce he is moving into politics - ignoring awkward facts seems very popular in US politics these days so I can see him going far

In reply to fxceltic:
cant see the problem with lance. in his heyday everyone was cheating,lets be honest how could you ride the best part of 3000miles without some stimulation,

seems like sour grapes to me by his fellow cheating competitors because he always won.
should he have been the only rider to cheat in his day I can see why the big fuss however I suspect that wasn't the case.
i still have respect for what he has done on and off the bike and to strip him of his titles was wrong imo
.

In reply to Chris the Tall: god knows. Im sure it will be a crappy interview without any details everyone wants, but it should be interesting nonetheless, as you say.

In reply to colina:

some people did, effectively being bummed by those that cheated.


most of those who were doping at the time have no sour grapes, Ulrich being the prime example. Its pretty much only those that were not doping that have "sour grapes". Which seems reasonable to me.


stripping the titles was the correct thing to do, he cheated, on an enormous scale.

In reply to Radioactiveman:

I thought the statute of limitations runs out.. hence why he can now talk with no prison sentence..

In reply to fxceltic:

in addition to that, he's been very active in court denying wrong doing.

everyone that's been sued by him will be looking for recompense i'd imagine.

which is why i don't think he'll be admitting to anything, i think he'll come out all guns blazing... which will at least be fun to watch

In reply to fxceltic: Forget Oprah, I'd pay to see an interview with Jeremy Paxman! That would be a grilling!

In reply to fxceltic:
And some people were effectively driven out of the sport by him.

LA wasn't the first cyclist to use EPO, but he is credited with re-starting the arms race in 1999. The really signifigant element is the extent to which he and Bruyneel induced others to dope, and manipulated the UCI. Cycling has always had a drug problem, but these guys took it to a whole new level.

Nonetheless I believe he is still a great inspiration to cancer sufferers - proof that the drugs do work - and as such has a useful role to play.

In reply to fxceltic:

I suspect the sour grapes are due to the fact that other people got caught earlier, failed drugs tests etc where as Lance hasnt failed any tests and the others needed a way out to save face/earn some cash post career.

In reply to tom290483:

FYI....i believe he is guilty as hell but still wear my Livestrong band as I believe what he has done for the cancer community is simply brilliant.

In reply to tom290483:

I was reading something yesterday about how his Livestrong charity sees a mere 55 cents in the dollar go to charitable causes. That's a helluva large administration percentage for a charity - people get twitchy here when it gets to 10%!

In reply to Tall Clare:

and nothing to actual cancer research

In reply to PeterM:

There's also the confusion between Livestrong.org and Livestrong.com

Better off giving to Cancer Research here, I reckon.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Interesting stat Clare, not one I was aware of.

I believe it runs a little deeper than how much is dished out to cancer causes though. Personally having some very close to me affected by the C word and knowing how much they were inspired by Lances story and nutrition/training methods throughout his treatment has really stuck with me and I thank Lance whole heartedly for that.

In reply to colina:

I assume you haven't read much of the evidence provided by USADA and others?

If you had, you would realise he wasn't "just another cheat" he was the circus master, vilifying and bullying anyone who spoke out, harrassing colleagues into choosing to dope or leave the sport, and there are plenty of young riders you've never heard of that tried to do it without drugs and failed.

He has successfully sued many organisations for merely raising the question, and I hope that they all (like the Times) now counter sue him.

On the subject of statute of limitations for perjury it's only 2 and a half years since he last made a statement to a grandjury but I don't know if this counts.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its...

In reply to PeterM:

From the articles author....

"More than once, I have given his book It’s Not About the Bike to friends stricken with the disease. Not all of them survived, but I know that none of them cared whether he doped to win the Tour".

As I said earlier. I thank Lance for everything he has done as it helped someone very close to me. Not everyone will agree I know, but to me, thats case closed.

In reply to tom290483:

As far as I can tell a large part of what the Livestrong charity actually does is financially support US cancer sufferers and guide them through the complexities of the US healthcare system. Laudable aims certainly, but as Tall Clare said the amount in administration is also very high. Someone somewhere is being well paid from all the Livestrong donations.

In the UK you are better off giving money to Cancer Research UK or one of the many hospice/palliative care charities if you want to benefit cancer suffers over here.

Obviously if the man himself inspires people to overcome or fight through these things, then great. But I would think he's tarnished that for many with the doping.

In reply to Phil79:

at least one person from UKC who is sadly no longer with us felt that livestrong was worthwhile to them and what they were going through, so I think thats fair enough.

In reply to rallymania:


yup. Doesnt seem likely but might have figured it would give the best long term results.
Suspect he has had a load of top PR bods round trying to figure out a strategy.
Be interesting to see what they come up with.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


according to this not so much "nothing of note" but more blaming others.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/09/lance-armstrong-oprah-marion-jo...

In reply to fxceltic:

It'll be a stage managed affair - despite what they may say all questions will be pre planned and the angle all decided. Poor Lance had a tough childhood - was forced into it by the drugs endemic in cycling blah blah. His focus will be getting the US audience onside so he can relaunch brand Armstrong. No doubt revenues from commercial breaks will be huge - be interesting to know what brands will take slots.

Excellent article here by Will Fotheringham - http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/09/lance-armstrong-bare-all-o...

And a brilliant piece by Gwen Knapp - http://bit.ly/U3sPZ9

The very weak interview with Marion Jones is here - youtube.com/watch?v=3ewja4q0z7s&

In reply to fxceltic:

Cancer did a lot for him. Without he'd probably not have gone on to strive to win the tour or charge $90,000 per corporate speaking event. Lets not forget that Livestrong isn't the only charity in the US or globally.

Its also possible the HGH he was taking along with other drugs earlier in his career either caused the cancer or speeded its spread up. I was told by a senior sports medic that he was fortunate that a new chemo became available when he was diagnosed - this particular drug didn't effect the lungs where as other other medication he was likely to be prescribed probably would have effected his lungs and therefore future sporting capabilities. Others more expert may know more on that issue.

In reply to Henry Iddon:

I think he mentioned that treatment in his first book.

Its interesting that the stuff he was on pre-cancer may have been a cause or an accelerant, heard that elsewhere several times.
Its also interesting that testicular cancer CAN cause a surge in testosterone levels, yet this was never picked up on any routine drug testing, or if it was, then it was ignored by the authorities. If so, that acceptance of drug use by UCI could have cost him his life, possibly paving the way for his future drug use utilising blackmail over the heads of the UCI?

I cant remember the cyclist but there was a case fairly recently where a rider was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of routine controls, meaning he got treatment early and lived.

In reply to fxceltic:


Not a cyclist, but a volleyball player, Jake Gibb.

In reply to Radioactiveman:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/09/ten-questions-oprah-wilfre...

vs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/blog/2013/jan/09/ten-questions-oprah...

I believe that something similar to Godwin's Law will shortly emerge: as an online discussion about Lance Armstrong grows longer, the probability that someone will suggest that Armstrong is being unfairly vilified because everyone else was doping at the time approaches 1. (It took less than 3 hours before someone chirped up with that one on this thread.)

In reply to mattrm:

There are a couple of pro cyclists who have also had testicular cancer.

Can't recall who they are but I hazily recollect they are european pros

In reply to fxceltic:

LA is a confirmed republican and an aspirant polititian. Theefore his only way forward (my prediction) is for him to go on live TV to make an evangalist down on knees confession, "Lord I have sinned and seeeeen the light...etc...etc...." begging for forgiveness. TV show followed by an LA political fund raising ad.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Didn't George W Bush spend a lot of the seventies lost in a coke haze? He still made it to the Oval Office...

In reply to kevin stephens:

There was a train of thought that his comeback to racing was part of a long term strategy to go for a State Governers job like Arnie.

In reply to fxceltic: Didn't realise it was going to be streamed got to be worth seeing

In reply to kevin stephens:

Is he? I thought that famously he hasnt revealed much of his political leanings, but at a push was a democrat?
Hes mates with George W, but in itself that doesnt make him a republican.

In reply to Henry Iddon:

Very likely, but I've got a feeling convicted felons are prohibited from running for various political jobs, and that perjury is classed as a felony.

I reckon that he is going to spent much of the next few years in court, both criminal and civil, and therefore is going to make a big PR effort in the hope that this will sway juries. He may even be hoping to avoid criminal charges altogether, after all his friends managed to kill the investigation into US Postal.

As has been said in many of the articles, the average american doesn't care too much about the details of his doping, so he'll gloss over this and emphasise his charity work (and again, gloss over the details)

In reply to Tall Clare:

Yep, and dodged Vietnam, but still managed to present a himself as a 'hawk' and lead the US into some very dodgy adventures.

In reply to nw:

A complete aside, but I always thought that was a bit odd, considering the grilling Clinton got for smoking (but not inhaling (!)) a bit of weed.

In reply to fxceltic:
I also enjoyed the Fotheringham article. Favourite quote:
'The lesson Armstrong learned in his Tour-winning years is that much of the audience will create its own truth, for or against'

In reply to Tall Clare:
Yes but the man liked blow jobs goddamit, he must be evil.

In reply to John Rushby:

Think one of the Danish ones had it, but not sure if it was after he stopped his pro career.

In reply to Mikkel:
Jeremy vine chatting about it now on radio 2

In reply to fxceltic:
Armstrong raised a fortune for cancer charity.
So can we say he is an immoral person?
He presented a false image but isn't the overall picture quiet good.

In reply to BolderLicious:

Jimmy Savile raised £40m for charity. Is he an immoral person?

In reply to John Rushby:

I don't think it's a cycling or doping related cancer, more that routine doping (testosterone) checks in various sports have picked up cases of cancer earlier than normal.

In reply to BolderLicious: charities can be quite bad?

In reply to BolderLicious:

The overall picture is both - good and bad. I guess it depends entirely on your viewpoint.

In reply to Tall Clare:



I sense a new Internet Forum Law will be coming along soon for Savile (cf Goodwins Law).

In reply to ChrisJD:

It's a fair cop, guv! I just thought it relevant as an example of someone who did good but who wasn't 'good' (if the allegations about both are proved to be true).

In reply to BolderLicious:

Bad people can do good things.

In reply to Martin W:


That article with the questions she will probably ask is brilliant!!

Have to say the fact that they were all doping is very relevant. He was just the best out of all the cheats at the time. I think its more the hypocrisy, the bullying and lying despite all the evidence over the last few years.

Lets not forget David Millar also doped and was caught. He confessed, has come back and raced professionally, sold loads of copies of his book and even got to be British road cycling team captain at the most prestigious Olympics in this country's history.
Vino doped and yet came back and won gold at this summer's Olympic road race... the list is endless.

Yes Armstrong was a cheat and deserves his comeuppence for the way he has conducted himself, but what he did then should always be judged in the context of what was happening in the sport at that time

In reply to DaveHK:

hitler was a fan of the arts from what i hear :0)

In reply to DaveHK:

especially with other peoples money

In reply to Hat Dude:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/?p=39103&print=1

In reply to Paul035:

Did you know that doping isn't a level playing field? Given the tests at the time it was possible for one cyclist to dope loads whilst another couldn't dope at all because they were naturally close to or above the chosen test threshold.


I think there's a gulf between Millar and Vino. Millar never had a positive, he was caught because of a police investigation and he was shamed and contrite. His integrity since is an inspiring example.
Vino has never been anything other than dismissive of doping questions regarding his positive, never acknowledged that he did anything wrong, and I was gutted that someone who has the old doping mentality won at the Olympics.

In reply to IainAM:
Huge difference between Millar and vino, landis and the rest, and even more with lance.

Millar did more than just confess when caught, he admitted he used EPO for his greatest triumph (the world TT), then became such an outspoken voice that it severely hampered his career. Anyone who has followed cycling will have noticed the difficulty he had getting in key breaks (until this years Tour - a sign that things have changed?)

Vino has never admitted anything, never shown any contrition, served his ban and then came back as if nothing had happened. And has almost certainly bribed other racers - it would be amazing that the UCI hasn't acted on this, except its the UCI.

Landis maintained his innocence for 3 years before he realised his career was over, and then admitted almost everything, except doping during his incredible ride in the tour.

And with lance it's not just the doping, it the scale, the coercion of team mates, the corruption and hiding behind the facade of a charity to disguise his deeds.

In reply to DaveHK:

Likewise good people can do bad things*...

*Not sure how much this applies to Lance.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I'm only going by Millar's book, but I don't see this huge difference between him and someone who apparently has chosen not to write or talk about it all. Any principled difference would be between them and someone like Moncoutie, who Millar mentions didn't even contemplate doping.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:
Comparing Millar with clean riders is missing the point. The difference between Millar, Vino and Landis is that they have all doped, and been caught, be have then acted differently from that point on. And I would argue that millar's actions have been less self serving and more about improving the sport than the others. Doesn't mean he was right to dope in the first place, but no one is saying that.

In reply to Chris the Tall: have to say I think you've summed up the difference between vino and millar very well. I too was well disappointed that he won the Olympic road race - looked v dodgy to me.

Back on topic, the Sunday Times takes out a full page advert in the Chicago Tribune with 10 questions Oprah should ask Lance.

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/01/12/sunday-times-publishes-open-letter-o...

In reply to Mutl3y:
>I too was well disappointed that he won the Olympic road race - looked v dodgy to me.

But Rigoberto Uran, a big mountain specialist not a break away specialist or a one day rider was second and not far behind him. That, and the fact Uran rides for Team Sky so is supposedly clean, surely means Vino's win wasn't that incredible?

Rob

In reply to Bean Head: help me out...you are being sarcastic yeah?

In reply to Mutl3y:

No. Why did it look v. dodgy?

Rob

In reply to fxceltic:

I've no doubt Lance will burst into tears at some point during the interview. It's what any American would feel appropriate under the circumstances.

Does anyone know how long the interview will last? I'd like to start a sweepstake on how long into the interview he holds out before the blubbing begins.

In reply to Bean Head: I'm a big vino fan, and I was happy he won, it was a well timed move too. I'm not sure I'm convinced sky is a clean team though.

In reply to Bean Head: well, just my impression of it, but it looked like words were exchanged and then uran looked over his left shoulder for what seemed like an age as vino went on the right. It looked, to me, like he tried to throw the race.

The context is important.... vino was alleged to have bought his L-B-L victory in 2010 and I wasn't the only person who thought the gold win looked fishy - after the race uran denied that he had sold victory. Fair play to him if he didn't but his look over the wrong shoulder was a crap bit of racing.

That's just my perspective, respect that not everyone is the same.

In reply to Paul035:

I agree very much with your post... and doubt very much that LA would have been such an "aledgedly" prolific drugs cheat if the whole sport wasn't already riddled with the problem with at best weak regulation. People who get to the top in many arenas are ruthless, and break rules to succeed... so effective regulation is very important in many walks of life. But in a sport where the majority of top atheletes used to take drugs, and where drugs make such a huge difference it is clear that most performers desperate to succeed would in the past have turned to the dark side (the list of top clean cyclists in the years 1990-2010 is dwarfed by the dopers).

It is interesting to me the approach USADA have taken (stripping LA of his titles), I assume THEY did this because they didn't believe UCI were taking a strong enough line. Lets hope that cycling really sorts itself out and we can admire Tour de France victories as wonders of sports men and woman rather than wondering how much the laboratory had to play? Though it does seem that strong financial backing for expensive supporting riders, physios, oxygen tents etc. will be as important as natural ability in the future.

LA was the big scalp USADA wanted and they have ruthlessly hunted him down - Armstrong wont get sympathy from many (or myself), though I would be surprised if he wants it - I am sure he believes in his heart he was the best - I personally for all his wrongs think he was too. I would guess the point he would want to make in the Oprah show is that he was the best, against long odds. Also he has made a huge contribution to cancer sufferers and whilst people can always chip away at how livestrong is run (it is after all a huge operation) - not many people have made as big an individual contribution to fighting cancer as Lance.

Cheers,

In reply to simon cox: Agree partly with this. Lance was the best tour rider of that time. Maybe someone who was truly clean and finished 50 something could have been truly the best but who knows? He did make his recovery against long odds too. But I disagree with the cancer thing, its portrayed by Livestrong as something you can beat if your good enough. Its not though merely plain luck. I think this imagining dealing with cancer as some sort of battle is a misrepresentation which doesn't help.

In reply to Mutl3y:

Ah, you're coming from the race fixing approach not the drug taking. My apologies, I think we were talking at cross purposes.

Uran's a young rider and probably didn't expect to find himself in that position. Who knows..?

Rob

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Do they? That's diametrically the opposite of what Armstrong said in his book. He said his recovery was absolutely not about being heroic/stronger/braver/trying harder - he was lucky. Maybe Livestrong have changed the message, but that's absolutely not what he wrote in the book.

In reply to all:

All this level playing field stuff, everyone was it it blah blah blah blah - THEY WEREN'T

FFS it's like banging your head against a brick wall.

E

In reply to Enty:

Chech out the open letter from Walsh to Oprah in The Times. Its on Cyclimg news. (Would post link but cant from kindle).

For me no4 is the most pertinent.

In reply to Enty: Well most were though, it seems fairly obvious now. Even most cyclist in the peloton are pretty clear that guys with careers stretching 8-10 years back are more than likely to have been mixed up in doping. It was the time, the context, admittedly very unfortunate if you were a great cyclist unprepared to dope, but no different to amphetimines in the 60s or whatever they were on in the eighties. It must be remembered that for a long time the omerta was enforced keeping guys like Armstrong, Ullrich, Kelly etc. free from getting found out.

Cycling is a great sport in spite of the continued doping issues.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Malcolm Elliot has said the early 90s were a good time for him to leave the tour because of how fast people became on EPO, and another deacent cyclist during one tour had the pleasure of Lance chasing him down and saying the tour didn't need people like him, and that he should go elsewhere.

There are other honest tour riders who didn't get the places they deserved...

In reply to fxceltic:

Saw this little snippet today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21016122

In reply to fxceltic:
Anybody old enough to remember Tommy Simpson ? He was a South Yorkshire cyclist who traqically collapsed and died competing in the Tour de France in about 1967. A friend of mine was a keen cyclist who knew Tommy and asked him about drugs. His reply was that, although he disapproved, he could not possibly be competive without them !

In reply to fxceltic:

Interesting article in the NYT suggesting he is going to turn whistleblower!

In reply to Removed Userboje:

A few will be old enough, all know the story. TS and all the greats have been discussed in the context of drug taking in cycling!

In reply to fxceltic:

More indications he'll admit it, this time following the recording of the interview:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21024288

In reply to Removed Userboje:

It does give you energy you don't have, what they used to take in the 60s, apparently.

In reply to The New NickB:

Sounds like he is naming names, not of other cyclists, but of administrators who turned a blind eye.

Taxi for Mr McQuaid !!!!

In reply to Chris the Tall: ooh, what does he know about Team Sky?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I wonder how much McQuaid will suffer, I suspect it is more likely that Verbruggen will take the fall and fat Pat will claim he wasnt in charge at the time and business will carry on as usual in Aigle.

Corrupt to the core that lot.

In reply to Removed Userboje:

There is a quote from Fausto Coppi who said he "only used la bomba (amphetamines) when absolutely necessary". When asked how often that was, he replied "almost all the time".

But things were very differant back then, and far too many cyclists have died for it to go on.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

>"Taxi for Mr McQuaid !!!!"

Black Maria for Verbruggen !!!!

In reply to subalpine:

What makes you think he knows anything ? Has he even raced against Team Sky ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

2010 Tour De France

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:






I'm sure team Sky are only taking vitamin injections as they are a very well run organisation with high moral values,lol...

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

I stand corrected - I'd forgetten that LA had ridden it that year - neither he nor Wiggins making the top 20.

Not that it makes much difference !

In reply to Chris the Tall: interesting that Armstrong and Wiggo finished the 2010 tour only 4 seconds apart !

In reply to Ian Black:

Love the people that come on here and say 'Team Sky' can't be clean, yet provide nothing to substantiate what they are claiming bar results! If any of you took the time to read about people like Dave Brailsford, Shane Sutton, Tim Kerrison etc. you would know how abhorrent their views are on any form of doping, and hence why Team Sky have the strictest rules in the pro-peloton on who can ride for them.

I'm also lucky enough to know guys like Luke Rowe and Pete Kennaugh exceptionally well, and when they read this rubbish about the team they take it personally as essentially you're calling them cheats. I appreciate the sport has a very dodgy past, and there will always be cheats in every sport, but at least do a bit of reading on the characters involved before you start throwing your accusations around.

In reply to Ian Black:

Well you'd be wrong then wouldn't you - since team Sky have a no needles policy.

But then you must know that since you're obviously so well informed on the nutritional habits of one of the world's best cycling teams.

In reply to Byronius Maximus:

Beat me to it.

E

In reply to Enty:

I'm pretty sure that's the only thing cycling related I'd ever beat you at!

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut and Chris the Tall: 2009 TDF which Wiggo came 4th to LA's 3rd (since wiped from the records).

Interestingly, after the USADA report came out last year Wiggo was interviewed and said it was damning evidence etc and that it wasn't a surprised given what had been said before. The interesting bit is that he said he had never raced Lance before in the TDF. He really said that. I had to look up the 2009 result to make sure I hadn't been dreaming.

Anyone else thinking about staying up on Thursday night.....?

In reply to Mutl3y:

I'm going to record it and play this: http://drunkcyclist.com/2013/01/09/bingostrong/

In reply to Byronius Maximus:

The 'no needle' policy is in fact peloton wide having been brought in by the UCI just before the 2011 Giro. 'Medical necessity' are now the only conditions under which riders can receive injections.

In reply to Mutl3y:

Verbatim or your interpretation?

In reply to stevez:

I wouldn't worry about it mate, folk seem to like throwing that comment out about sky in the hope of provoking a reaction.

Best just to ignore rather than to encourage their shite!!

In reply to nrhardy: no he really said it in a video. He said when asked about riding against lance "nah that's a myth actually I never raced against him....there was a criterium...but I never raced against him in the TDF" or words to that effect. It was bizarre.

If you're interested I'll find a link but don't know if its still out there.

In reply to nrhardy:
http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,,16315_8158870,00.html

He says it at about 2:20.

In reply to DaveHK: brilliant! Will print that out.

In reply to Mutl3y:

Why do you think its interesting that wiggo said that? Isn't it just a mistake or am I missing something?

In reply to andy:

That's the biggest misunderstanding of Lance's... he has continually stressed that in his book.. that somehow he had the will and the fight to beat cancer and those who died didn't.

As you say he's very clear in his books that he survived due to science. And that's what Livestrong is about, informing people about their choices, their options.

In reply to Jimbo W: it seems a pretty big thing to forget. That's all. In the context of an interview about lance to forget that you had raced (at least?) twice against him in the TDF and on one of those occasions he had kept you off the podium....it's a big thing to then claim to be a myth.

In reply to Mutl3y:

With so much time spent farting in his high altitude tent, competing and becoming SPOTY I doubt he can remember much from the beginning of 2012!

In reply to Mutl3y:


need to be friday as well. Apparently so good its being split over two nights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/15/lance-armstrong-admits-doping-w...

In reply to subalpine:

Oohs there's proof if ever I saw it!

In reply to Chris the Tall: i'd like to know what they chatted about during that tour. remember wiggo is a big armstrong fan..

In reply to stevez:

+1

Sky might be the Man Utd of cycling but it's a reach to claim dopage

In reply to Ian Black:

You steal from the stationary cupboard and look at barnyard porn

Based on the same exacting evidence you throw at Sky

In reply to John Rushby: Sky is clean, possibly

In reply to subalpine:

Much as the Mekon is a pain in the arse, I think Sky are clean. Possibly is fair since it only takes one knob head to do his own doping, but I reckon they are fairly squeecky.

As are Garmin in fact the sport is clean as it ever has been

now, this Puerto thing - those Spanish tennis players who have knee injures around the time the vampires turn up etc etc etc

In reply to John Rushby: clean since when though?

In reply to John Rushby:
Call me naive but I do believe sky are clean, and always have been.

For a start, you don't be as vocal as they have if you have skeletons in the cupboard.

But the main thing for me is that I believe in Sir Dave, in marginal gains, in building a Olympic track team first and then using that as a springboard for a road team. Yes there is still doping in the sport, and people getting away with it, but by restricting it to micro dosing then surely the effects are limited. Which is why I believe a well organised, well trained (well funded) team of exceptional riders could win the tour. Particularly a tour like last years. Probably the cleanest tour ever, and unless you were a Brit the most boring.

In reply to: I seem to have upset some of the SKY Groupies on here with a tongue in cheek comment about Team Sky. Let's be honest, none of of us know for sure, and in years to come there could be massive revelations regarding doping.I know what its like to ride hundreds of miles day after day and getting the correct supplementation is very important. So whilst I have no hard evidence of Team Sky being involved in any wrong doing I am not green enough to think its impossible as some on here seem to think. As far as I'm concerned Wiggo is 'clean' until proven otherwise. Just as other great tour winners in the past.I also love the romance of a 'clean' rider from a 'clean' team winning the tour.

In reply to Ian Black:

Ok, Ian, so while you are writing a post that appears, on the face of it to dumb down your own baseless mudslinging, you have still left the mud in there.

Namely:

"Let's be honest, none of of us know for sure, and in years to come there could be massive revelations."

Says who. And for the balance why not say - "Let's be honest, there is no accusation levelled at Sky, it's just a cheap jibe." rather than leaving it somehow open ended as though there might be something wrong? Cowardly.

"So whilst I have no hard evidence of Team Sky being involved in any wrong doing..."

Do you have ANY evidence at all, hard or otherwise, of Team Sky being involved in any wrong doing? If not then all you are doing is wanking. Cowardly.

"As far as I'm concerned Wiggo is 'clean' until proven otherwise."

Again, is anyone trying to prove otherwise? Are there any accusations? All this simply does is attempt to kill with a compliment and again is cowardly.

Tongue in cheek? Which cheeks Ian?

In reply to Rampikino:





There are two types of bloke, wankers and liars!! I'm really pleased for the first time ever we have a British winner of the Tour. That actually comes accross a a decent chap. The image of our sport has really suffered in recent years and even work colleagues that know very little about it comment on the doping issues etc..So I for one will be disappointed if Wiggos tour win was ever tainted by any Sky wrong doing.

In reply to Ian Black:

Fair enough.

Me too.

In reply to Rampikino: I'm not scared to admit to getting taken in with the whole LA, recovering from cancer etc...The romance of it all, and even when the allegations were flying I didn't want to believe them. Daft as it sounds, I really felt let down when it was proven he was/is a drug cheat.

In reply to fxceltic:

I think a lot of people will feel that way, and there are still many out there stubbornly sticking to the "I don't care if he took drugs, look at all the money for charity," line.

In reply to Rampikino:

I'm getting so sick of this attitude - they seem oblivious to(or just care to ignore) all the damage and ruined careers Armstrong caused.

E

In reply to Ian Black:


Only in the same way I don't know for sure that you aren't a serial rapist

In reply to GrahamD: What if, for years and years, lots of his colleagues had been serial rapists and he'd known about it and done nothing about it?

In reply to Enty:


sad thing is it may work for him. Some careful blaming of others, bit of crying and hinting that it was the only way to keep the playing field level and might be back on the road to hero.

In reply to dissonance:

Shame - how many of these people have even heard of Betsy Andreu, Emma O'Reilly and Filippo Simeoni ?

And of course there's all the others young pros who we never heard about who turned up to race for their new team (dream come true) then failed to make the pace shortly afterwards.

E

In reply to Enty: what Enty said. I fear Armstrong's PR and legal team will allow him to profit from his Offal Whinsome publicity stunt financially and in other ways as well. I do hope Kimmedge and others sue the fecker if at all possible though.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Oh come on. He cheated at bike racing. Take a reality check.

In reply to tatty112: Have another go at reading the posts, if you can.

In reply to tatty112:

The reality is that insinuations have been made against team Sky and therefore the individual riders within team Sky based purely on the fact that individuals on other teams have cheated and "we can't be sure, can we?".

In the total absence of evidence against any of the individuals, its as ludicrous as saying some arbitary man is a serial rapist simply because some men are serious rapists because "we can't be sure, can we?"

In reply to GrahamD: The reality is that doping, in one form or another, has been endemic in cycling for a long time. Cyclists probably are still doping. So it isn't really arbitrary.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Thats still a long way from saying all cyclists are suspect.

Rape has been endemic in humanity for a long time too, but it shouldn't automatically make all men a suspect.

In reply to GrahamD:

Can we stop the exaggerated analogies now?

In reply to DaveHK:They never help in forum disussions, the analogies just seem to take on a life of thier own IME.

In reply to Timmd:

yes they spread like the black death.

getting back on topic. Been interesting to see how the news reports seem to have shifted in tone.
Be interesting to see how much the guesswork has been fed by leaks and whether he is going to pull off the rehabilitation bid (hopefully not).

In reply to GrahamD:

Unfortunately all pro cyclists are still suspect, because of Armstrong and all the other pros who were either caught doping or confessed to doping. It wasn't only Armstrong and stripping his titles doesn't erase the history of teams (not just individuals) doping and the uci turning a blind eye to that doping. You can pretend it's all gone away if you like though.

In reply to Sir Chasm:How about seeing it as going away?

In reply to Sir Chasm: A totally ridiculous comment. You clearly know nothing about the current state of the sport. Yes, there will be a v. small minority doping, as there will be in any other sport, but spare us these sweeping generalisations that belong to a different generation of riders.

In reply to stevez: The current state of the sport? A different generation? Who won the vuelta last year and is widely fancied for the tour this year?

In reply to GrahamD:

the insinuations are not just based on the past though, often they are based on supposed average power outputs on difficult terrain, though in reality we dont actually always have that data, so its still a bit suspect.
They also come from watching teams such as SKY steamrolling their train up mountains with riders who are "not supposed to be climbers", in the posters opinion, of course, again no actual facts.

Finally the insinuations come from people who watch interviuews with Wiggins and most recently Cav, who lose their rag when repeatedly asked about doping and/ or Lance specifically. As ever, Inner ring was on the money in his blog post re this last night. I personally dont blame them for being pissed off and reacting.

All that said, my position is that its reasonable to hold back from wholly embracing SKY as totally definitely clean etc etc, but equally unreasonable to assert that they are not clean, for definite.

In reply to Sir Chasm: As I said there will always be cheats in every sport, he was caught, and he was banned. The generation I talk of are the guys that have come into the ProTour in the last 5 years, from a British perspective people like Geraint Thomas, Ben Swift, Pete Kennaugh, Adam Blythe, Luke Rowe, Ian Stannard etc. These guys have come through a system where they've never encountered doping and the thought of it is abhorrent, yet they are still able to compete at the front end of the peloton.

Your comments make it sound like doping is still endemic in the peloton, it isn't, and this is thanks to better education, the strength of the anglo-saxon teams that have different cultures, better testing, and biological passports.

In reply to stevez:


In fairness, unless youre on the inside (apologies if so), this kind of statement is as lacking in evidence as the many statements people make claiming the exact opposite.

I "think" that your view is correct, but could not state that doping is no longer endemic with any certainty.

In reply to fxceltic:


The evidence seems to be pointing that way. The performances seem to be closer to what the sport scientists think is possible without chemical enhancement.

Now all the other sports are a different matter. Particularly bearing in mind Fuentes and what he said about his clients.

In reply to fxceltic:

Can you imagine if footballers were asked whether they had cheated in every post-match interview? Actually it would be more appropriate since virtually every footballer will try and cheat in every game.

In reply to fxceltic: That would be those average powers held for 5-10 minutes (quite normal) compared to 40-60 minutes in the Armstrong era.

I have to assume that the people who come out with these retarded insinuations that sky are dirty are the same ones who also couldn't understand how clear the evidence was that Armstrong was dirty and to a lesser degree that Contador is.

On your other point I do agree though in that I'll take sky and a few other teams as clean but 100% trust, sorry guys and I really am sorry as I really think you're clean but we'd all be fools to trust you totally given the sports history.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to Chris the Tall:

luis suarez springs to mind but, as you say, thats fair enough as he is a cheat.

In reply to dissonance:

yet TDF average speeds haven't significantly dropped from the doping days?

In reply to subalpine:
Usain Bolt is significantly faster than Ben Johnson

In reply to stevez:

You're making things up to argue about, i carefully referred to doping being endemic in the past tense. But it isn't very long ago, plenty of the current peloton were riding when it was endemic and it's going to take more than a year or two before claiming that there's no doping problem in cycling. That's not an accusation or an insinuation, cycling was dirty, hopefully it's in the past, I'll wait and see.

In reply to subalpine:

fair point but probably slightly oversimplified, depends on the nature of a particular years route, how long, who is competing, mountainous, TT lengths etc etc

most people have considered that prior to Cadel winning in '11 the last "clean" winner was Carlos Sastre, yet in his winning year the avg speed was 40.5kph
http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html

In reply to Sir Chasm: was it endemic in the 2009 Tour, i wonder?
40.3kph average is pretty quick and Wiggo did very well cycling for Garmin..

In reply to subalpine: The IOC have just stripped him of his Sydney gold medal

In reply to Graeme Alderson: i thought you meant Wiggo for a moment, but he only got a bronze and it could never happen to him even if he was doping

In reply to subalpine:

They have on the big climbs and that is what we are talking about. The routes are generally faster these days, fewer big climbs, more time trials.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

bronze

In reply to The New NickB: fair point, but we are just speculating with too little data. what happened to Team Sky's pledge to be open with its data?

In reply to fxceltic:
Bingo cards at the ready

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/interactive/2013/jan/17/lance-armstrong-opr...

In reply to fxceltic:

Probably should have made it clear but I am on the 'inside' as I manage the commercial and PR aspects of 5 British professional riders, and obviously get a lot of insight from them and see their lifestyle day in and day out.

In reply to fxceltic: 2am boys and girls. who's gonna stay up for this one?

In reply to Bloodfire:

wheres it being shown

In reply to lost1977:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=534911

In reply to dissonance: Its on now..

So far very open..

yes he doped.. yes he took EPO during every win..

In reply to IainRUK: its just a huge confession..

In reply to Bloodfire:



I'm up watching it. Good fess up

In reply to fxceltic:

I'm so shocked. It's awful. Truly awful.

In reply to IainRUK:

Soooo. Has he kept himself out of prison?

Even if he only walks away from this with a couple of million, its still a couple of million I don't have.

I'm so disappointed in this whole sorry fraud. I still feel cheated. His confession doesn't make me feel any less cheated.

In reply to fxceltic:
I recorded the Oprah interview earlier and we watched it while eating supper (I live in Western Canada) and have to say that it was just plain boring. It wasn't even good Oprah - say what you like about her but she is always entertaining.
After about twenty minutes we switched over to watch Wheel of Fortune and an episode of Coronation Street - enough said ?

In reply to Removed User: I thought there was no threat of prison due to the statute of limitations.. which is why he has admitted now..

In reply to fxceltic:
Interesting that he denied using PEDs on his comeback and implied he didn't use them before the cancer.

The former i believe, though he was almost certainly using transfusions
The latter however, contradicts what the Andreu's has testified. Blaming it on the cancer makes for a nice explanation, and will get him sympathy, but just doesn't ring true.

In reply to IainRUK:

But he did testify in 2010 in front of a grand Jury I believe - which AFAIK is still perjury even if not in a law court

In reply to Sebastian Fontleroy:

He's sued so many people that he can't even remember who they all are! What an arsehole. I f*cking loathe bullies.

In reply to Toby S: They wil all remember him though and should hammer the bully for suing them for telling the truth about him

I think not for the doping, but for all the sueing people he should be prosecuted.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Marion Jones got 6 months porridge for similar.

In reply to Removed Userboje:

I imagine it might have been boring if you didn't understand the history and the events behind each question.........but corrie! C'mon!

In reply to fxceltic: he's still a liar and a cheating w***er! hopefully he'll end up in jail!

if he donated every cent he's worth to charities other than livestrong, i'd consider him to be a decent human being.

In reply to fxceltic: I wonder just how much he trousered for the interview??

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was 6 figures..

I would like to see every athlete (true athlete) that he cheated into second place in every event he took part in sue him for loss of earnings.

In reply to mgco3: i wouldn't be surprised if it was zero..
interesting that he denies any doping after 2005- tactical..

In reply to subalpine:

some articles reckon it is because in theory that would mean he could go for a shorter term ban and 2005 would mean it would expire this year or next.

In reply to dissonance: where's the first part? i can only find this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=94rz2dmZgHs

In reply to Clauso:


Love the old school terminology. Alternatively you could have said Marion Jones got 6 months bird in the big house.

In reply to Removed User:
Hello MS - I think I understand the subject as well as the next guy but I did not find it interesting TV.
As regards Corrie, what do we have ? Nick going mental over a woman who wants somebody else, Gayle falling for the cad, Kevin trying it on with the therapist who may be a lesbian who fancies his daughter, Tyronne being beaten up by his wife and Fiz almost dying from carbon monoxide poisoning.
Great stuff - my wife records it every day but I rarely watch it !